The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

tornpage Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:16 pm

A stark contrast:

Father Michael Rodriguez:

In order to overcome this crisis of faith, we must (1) do everything in our power to recover the Catholic Faith: the Ancient Rite, traditional Catholic teaching in doctrine and morals, the theology and philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, traditional Catholic piety and devotions, and a traditional Catholic “code of living” or “rhythm of life.” (2) On a daily basis we must strive to pray, study, fast, do penance, and practice charity with the aforementioned goal in mind. Finally, I strongly urge all faithful Catholics to (3) pray the Holy Rosary daily and heed our Blessed Mother's Message at Fatima.

One of the hallmarks of the Traditional Latin Mass is its exquisite and concentrated focus on eternity. If we are to survive and overcome this terrible crisis of faith in the post-Vatican II Catholic Church, we have to keep our intellect and will focused on eternity. We cannot lose hope when, from a worldly perspective, all seems lost. Jesus Christ promises “the kingdom of heaven” to those who endure persecution, and “a great reward in heaven” to those who suffer for His sake. (Mt 5:10-12) The final goal is heaven! Like St. Paul, we must press ahead towards the ultimate “prize” (Phil 3:14) and never cease to “seek the things that are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God.” (Col 3:1)

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2011-1015-mjm-father-rodriguez.htm

A "future archbishop of Milwaukee":

A future archbishop of Milwaukee suggested that worship is no longer to convey “a feeling of infinity or eternity or the world beyond — an experience of man approaching God that is unique to that moment”, which would lead to “a new archaism and a neo-archaeologism”, but “is to be primarily the communal sensitivity that I am one with my brother next to me and that our song is our common twentieth-century situation....” He urged that sacred music “deny her exalted position of being a ‘telephone to the beyond’”

http://www.adoremus.org/1109JHitchcock.html

Let us call Fr. Rodriguez's comment "A," and the "future archibishop of Milwaukee's" comments "B."

We had the "A" view under Pius XII. The Second Vatican council and the hierarchy unleashed "B," and evidently elevated those holding such views to the episcopacy.

Is this just a prudential failure? A mistake in judgment? Something not intended?

In civil law, a person does something and their conduct is weighed on the basis of what they knew and were presumed or obligated to have known.

The fathers of Vatican II certainly knew the anti-modernist proclamations of the popes prior to John XIII. They ignored them. Aside from the issue of whether they were free to depart from them and make a contrary "prudential" judgment, what does this departure say in light of the reasons advanced for it?

I'd like to look at the reasons for the departure. Since I believe these reasons involve an "opening to the world," I'd also like to explore Church teaching prior to VII as to the proper Catholic response to "the world" - if there is any such teaching, and if it is such that a correct way of viewing the world for a Catholic can be gleaned therefrom.

columba Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:49 pm

tornpage wrote:
I'd like to look at the reasons for the departure. Since I believe these reasons involve an "opening to the world," I'd also like to explore Church teaching prior to VII as to the proper Catholic response to "the world" - if there is any such teaching, and if it is such that a correct way of viewing the world for a Catholic can be gleaned therefrom.

The "world" has become such a generic term. It now can mean anything we want it to mean. Traditionally the world was to be viewed and considered as one of our three main enemies along with the flesh and the devil. In post concilliar speak it can mean either the peoples of the world (equals our friends and brothers), the things of the world (equals the goods God gives us because we deserve them so much and must be seen always as our friends) or just means the whole of God's creation (which of course equals good), That places us at a considerable advantage over the apostles, saints and martyrs. They had to battle with 33.3% more evil than us lucky fellows.

The Milwaukee archbishop in waiting, has used the well tried and tested post- concilliar lingo, "whatever you do, don't be precise."

George Brenner Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:17 pm

I pray for a miracle that Father Michael would be appointed the Bishop of El Paso, Texas

The more that I read, listen, pray and correspond with Father Michael Rodriquez the more that I realize that although Vatican II was protected by the Holy Ghost on its official teachings, the more that I am compelled to defend the precise, the hard and fast truths and pray for the inevitable return to the logic of simplicity and basic uniformity in sound doctrinal explanations, reverence, discipline and accountability. Depending on who you listen to, since Vatican II we have lived in a feel good , what do you think, let us not offend , all encompassing Catholic faith in which there is no accountability for those that teach what we must hold as "true"on a daily basis by the Church militant. It has been babel for too long. This forum probably would not have existed in the 1950's. I have moved beyond agonizing over the the historical rationale and finger pointing as to the exact reasons why we have come to the brink of destroying the Church ,mostly from within, although God certainly knows by deepest thoughts. Anyone in authority must know this has been an extremely unfavorable time for helping Catholic souls attain salvation. The profound sadness now as has been the case for the last half century is that far too many Clerics and laymen are still in denial as to the fact that we have been in a crisis of Faith and their stupid pride still holds them back from saying yes we have and now let us return to reverence, strong catechesis and do the will of God in this designated year of Faith. Pray with intensity for our Holy Father.

JMJ,

George

tornpage Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:26 pm

George,

I’d love to talk to Father Michael about V2 and these issues. I wonder how he reconciles things and has been able to remain with the magisterium through it all. Maybe I’ll email him when I have some time. Hurricane Sandy hit us pretty hard and I’m just back online and playing catch up with many things, such as business.

God Bless,

Mark

tornpage Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:27 pm

George,

I just noticed your first line - Father Michael as bishop? That would be a miracle, for sure. But amen to that!

Mark

George Brenner Fri Nov 02, 2012 3:21 pm

Mark,

I often find it difficult to find the words to express my inner thoughts. My soul is at peace and comfort knowing that I will not judge, condemn or critique our recent Vatican II Popes. We all, Popes included will be judged by God individually and are accountable for our lives as they were actually lived and not necessarily our perception of a perhaps biased or defective view of reality. Where Peter is found we do indeed find the One and only one true Catholic Church. Just as Jesus had to suffer for our sins, He was also hurt continually by his own hand chosen apostles. We can learn from this and must suppress our ego and pride and acknowledge our own spiritual frailty and shortcomings. The crisis in the church is real and has severely crippled our Church. My deepest thoughts known by God is that I will not pass judgement or speculate to my ruination or even possible damnation on who knew what and when and their intentions. I stand before God with a clear conscious believing that the Popes of VII and its aftermath truly believed that they were doing the will of God. The Holy Ghost does more to protect Our Faith, as is eternally promised then we will ever know. This crisis may have been a punishment for all of us since we did not embrace and most importantly protect the deposit of faith in practice and reverence as given to us by Jesus and Saints and councils of old. We took our greatest treasure in our lives for granted in many ways. I believe that the Pope's simply were not able to resolve the problems of the modernistic abuses and culture of sexual perversion that has become so rampant in today's world. Our Church was clearly attacked from within and some of their names are known to us. John Courtney Murray was one of the worst. I do not believe that the Pope's attempts to remedy this incredibly long crisis are truly available for us to know. I believe that Father Michael Rodriquez is living proof along with many others of loyality to Our Holy Father while at the the same time Fathers life is one intense prayer and example that reverence, discipline and Church teaching is being restored to the order that is pleasing to God. A faith that cannot be explained to a child cannot be explained to an adult. We have lost our clarity and beautiful simplicity and want it back. and so we pray.

JMJ,

George

tornpage Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:18 pm

George,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6ZgHS3qJNk&feature=relmfu

In the course of this interview (link above) at about the 3:25 mark, Father Michael says, "our Catholic faith has been compromised by the changes in the liturgy, the Mass."

This is the great mystery of our times, how the Catholic Church could adopt something that "compromis[es]" the Catholic faith.

George Brenner Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:49 pm

Mark,

Father Michael Rodriquez gives us a wealth of information and inspiration to fight for our Faith. He never attacks the Holy Father in word, thought or deed. He teaches and lives His Catholic Faith by example. Yes, Mark the word compromised as used by Father is most certainly accurate when describing the dilution of our Catholic Faith. Father takes the highest road possible and rather than curse the darkness he is very busy with doing the work of God in being part of the cure and restoration of the Church we love and cherish more than life itself. We can learn much from Father Michael.

Your friend,

JMJ

George

MRyan Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:58 am

tornpage wrote:
George Brenner wrote:

George,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6ZgHS3qJNk&feature=relmfu

In the course of this interview (link above) at about the 3:25 mark, Father Michael says, "our Catholic faith has been compromised by the changes in the liturgy, the Mass."

This is the great mystery of our times, how the Catholic Church could adopt something that "compromis[es]" the Catholic faith.
Yes, Mark the word compromised as used by Father is most certainly accurate when describing the dilution of our Catholic Faith.

If the quoted words are accurate, it is unfortunate that Fr. Michael is not more careful with his words, for he seems to using the same radical rhetoric of the extremists whereby the Liturgy (Novus Ordo) itself is accused of having “compromised the Catholic Faith”.

In fact, Mark, the overly simplistic dichotomy you present between a Fr. Miguel and the disgraced Fr. Weakland (the “future archbishop” who “suggested that worship is no longer to convey ‘a feeling of infinity or eternity or the world beyond — an experience of man approaching God that is unique to that moment’”) is one of polar extremes, misleading and even false.

From http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/, we have a different view (that of the Church):

The text of the message sent by the Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, in the name of the Holy Father, to the participants of the Traditional Pilgrimage to Rome [concluding with the Pontifical Mass celebrated by Cardinal Cañizares at the Altar of the Chair in the Vatican Basilica], has also been made public:

On the occasion of the international pilgrimage assembled in Rome for the 5th anniversary of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI sends his cordial greeting to all participants, assuring them of his fervent prayer.

By this Motu Proprio, the Holy Father wished to respond to the expectations of the faithful attached to the ancient liturgical forms. Truly, as he wrote in his Letter to the bishops to present the Motu Proprio, it is good to preserve the riches that grew within the faith and prayer of the Church and to give them their just place, while recognizing fully the value and holiness of the ordinary form of the Roman rite. In this Year of Faith, promulgated as the Church celebrates the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the II Vatican Council, the Holy Father invites all the faithful to display in a particular fashion their unity in the faith; they will thus be efficacious agents of the new evangelization.

Entrusting all the participants of the pilgrimage to Rome to the maternal intercession of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Father grants them his heartfelt Apostolic Blessing.

+Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone
Secretary of State of His Holiness

This March 2006 “Joint Statement from The Remnant and Catholic Family News by Michael J. Matt, Editor, The Remnant and John Vennari, Editor, Catholic Family News, pretty much sums up the opposing view:

It must be noted that Pope Benedict XVI and the SSPX both agree that the Church is in crisis. The root of their disagreement is the cause of the crisis. Pope Benedict insists that Vatican II is good in itself, but badly interpreted and implemented. The Society of Saint Pius X insists (and we say, rightly so), that Vatican II is a pile of flawed documents that can only produce bad fruits. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the Council’s history knows the documents were drawn up by radical theologians with revolutionary intent.[30]

Unfortunately, Father Joseph Ratzinger was one of these radical Council theologians. He does not admit the inherent dangers of these double-minded texts. For him, resistance to Vatican II itself is not an option — a reality which pits him at odds with Archbishop Lefebvre and his stated reasons for resisting in the first place. In I Accuse the Council, Archbishop Lefebvre writes:

“... It is nonetheless certain that the Council was deflected from its purposes by a group of conspirators and that it is impossible for us to take any part in this conspiracy, despite the fact that there may be many satisfactory declarations in Vatican II. The good texts have served as cover to get those texts which are snares, equivocal, and denuded of meaning, accepted and passed.

“We are left with only one solution: to abandon these dangerous examples and cling firmly to tradition, i.e., to the official Magisterium of the Church throughout 2000 years.”
Not so, says Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict —the Council must be saved. Its richness must still be “discovered” — again, constituting irreconcilable differences with the Society of St. Pius X. What, then, could possibly constitute grounds for negotiations, unless the Vatican moves far to the right or the SSPX moves equally far to the left?

For Traditional Catholics, there is no shaking the revolution from the Council texts. Resistance to Vatican II, ridding the world of its curse, and returning to Catholic Tradition is the only way out of the current upheaval. This Traditional Catholic position is embodied by the Society of Saint Pius X, and will find no welcome with today’s hierarchy. (http://www.cfnews.org/sspx-mm-jv.htm)

There is nothing “traditional” in “This Traditional Catholic position”, which establishes a false dichotomy and an enmity between “the official Magisterium of the Church throughout 2000 years” and the authoritative, living and authentic Magisterium represented by VCII and Pope Benedict XVI.

Unfortunately, Fr. Rodriguez adds fuel to the fire by accusing the Church, by having introduced changes into the Liturgy of Pope Paul VI (and all subsequent popes), of having “compromised the faith”.

This “preconcilar Church – good; post-conciliar Church – bad” rubbish is getting quite stale.

Jehanne Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:46 pm

I posted this in the other thread:

This Sacred Council accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who having died are still being purified; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent. And at the same time, in conformity with our own pastoral interests, we urge all concerned, if any abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there, to do what is in their power to remove or correct them, and to restore all things to a fuller praise of Christ and of God. Let them therefore teach the faithful that the authentic cult of the saints consists not so much in the multiplying of external acts, but rather in the greater intensity of our love, whereby, for our own greater good and that of the whole Church, we seek from the saints "example in their way of life, fellowship in their communion, and aid by their intercession." On the other hand, let them teach the faithful that our communion with those in heaven, provided that it is understood in the fuller light of faith according to its genuine nature, in no way weakens, but conversely, more thoroughly enriches the latreutic worship we give to God the Father, through Christ, in the Spirit. (Lumen Gentium, 51)

As far as the Novus Ordo Mass, I think that it is a blessing -- it's one of the few places where the "modern Catholics" can receive any catechises in the Faith, that is, if and when they decide to attend Mass. Compared to a solemn High Tridentine Mass, however, the Novus Ordo just does not give me the same feeling of transcendence. Pope Paul VI sacrificed too much; nothing that can't be fixed, though.

George Brenner Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:44 pm

Jehanne said:

This Sacred Council accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who having died are still being purified; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent. And at the same time, in conformity with our own pastoral interests, we urge all concerned, if any abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there, to do what is in their power to remove or correct them, and to restore all things to a fuller praise of Christ and of God. Let them therefore teach the faithful that the authentic cult of the saints consists not so much in the multiplying of external acts, but rather in the greater intensity of our love, whereby, for our own greater good and that of the whole Church, we seek from the saints "example in their way of life, fellowship in their communion, and aid by their intercession." On the other hand, let them teach the faithful that our communion with those in heaven, provided that it is understood in the fuller light of faith according to its genuine nature, in no way weakens, but conversely, more thoroughly enriches the latreutic worship we give to God the Father, through Christ, in the Spirit. (Lumen Gentium, 51)

And there is no way that I would add or take away from these words of Lumen Gentium. It is not as if there was two different Catholic faiths one before and one after Vatican II. The Novus Ordo is completely valid and that is not the subject of contention. To repeat a portion of the above Lumen Gentium quote: ( " we urge ALL concerned, if ANY abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there, to do what is in their power to REMOVE or CORRECT them, and to RESTORE all things to a fuller praise of Christ and of God. " ) This has NOT been done over too many decades and more Clerics are only now beginning to admit these profound shortcomings and Act upon it as URGED to do so as an obligation as written in Lumen Gentium. It is always wise to listen to Father Michael Rodriquez at length rather than attack or diminish his love and example he gives all of living His Catholic faith. He is not attacking the liturgy that is pleasing to God but as Lumen Gentium says is doing what is within his power to live and teach Our faith with reverence and be part of the cure instead of the status quo of rampant denial.

JMJ,

George

MRyan Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:10 pm

George Brenner wrote: Jehanne said:

This Sacred Council accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who having died are still being purified; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent. And at the same time, in conformity with our own pastoral interests, we urge all concerned, if any abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there, to do what is in their power to remove or correct them, and to restore all things to a fuller praise of Christ and of God. Let them therefore teach the faithful that the authentic cult of the saints consists not so much in the multiplying of external acts, but rather in the greater intensity of our love, whereby, for our own greater good and that of the whole Church, we seek from the saints "example in their way of life, fellowship in their communion, and aid by their intercession." On the other hand, let them teach the faithful that our communion with those in heaven, provided that it is understood in the fuller light of faith according to its genuine nature, in no way weakens, but conversely, more thoroughly enriches the latreutic worship we give to God the Father, through Christ, in the Spirit. (Lumen Gentium, 51)

And there is no way that I would add or take away from these words of Lumen Gentium. It is not as if there was two different Catholic faiths one before and one after Vatican II. The Novus Ordo is completely valid and that is not the subject of contention. To repeat a portion of the above Lumen Gentium quote: ( " we urge ALL concerned, if ANY abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there, to do what is in their power to REMOVE or CORRECT them, and to RESTORE all things to a fuller praise of Christ and of God. " ) This has NOT been done over too many decades and more Clerics are only now beginning to admit these profound shortcomings and Act upon it as URGED to do so as an obligation as written in Lumen Gentium. It is always wise to listen to Father Michael Rodriquez at length rather than attack or diminish his love and example he gives all of living His Catholic faith. He is not attacking the liturgy that is pleasing to God but as Lumen Gentium says is doing what is within his power to live and teach Our faith with reverence and be part of the cure instead of the status quo of rampant denial.

JMJ,

George

No one is "attacking" Fr. Rodriguez, and the issue (at least the one I am addressing) does not concern the "validity" of the Novus Ordo. Your take on what Fr. Rodriguez said about the Novos Ordo is not reflective of his actual words, which I consider careless. An if he meant what he said, I cannot agree with him.

I listened to the segment noted by Mark, and Fr. Rodriguez did indeed state that the Faith has been compromised because of the changes in the Mass (as embodied in the Novus Ordo).

In other words, Fr. Rodriguez holds that the faith has been compromised because of the Novus Ordo itself, as it was promulgated by Pope Paul VI, due the differences in doctrine, theology and prayer (which, one must conclude, are defective).

He is in fact "attacking the liturgy" and not just the "abuses, excesses or defects [which] have crept in here or there" that "all concerned" are obliged to "do what is in their power to remove or correct".

According to Fr. Rodriguez, the "defect" requiring correction or removal is the "language of the Mass" (the Novus Ordo) itself.

Now, I heard the same words as Mark (both the literal words themselves, and the context in which they were given), and "listen[ed] to Father Michael Rodriquez at length", but if we are wrong in our understanding, I would welcome a correction.

I am not questioning his love and zeal for the faith, so let's keep this focused on the facts in question. Did Fr. Rodriguez mean what he said, or didn't he?

You can sweep what he said under the rug, or put a positive spin on it, but I've heard it all before from traditional Catholics who should know better.

That's all I'm saying.

George Brenner Tue Nov 06, 2012 6:22 pm

Mike,

You will always remain one of the most inspirational people in my life. Nothing can change that. I did post repeatedly that the main reason that I joined this forum was so that I could be part of the cure and healing process with the prayer and help from other Catholics. I have learned an even much deeper love for my faith because of you. I now know enough about Father Rodriquez to say that if we had more priests like him we NEVER would have had a crisis of Faith. The link below clearly exemplifies the aid and help from the the Holy Ghost given to Pope Paul VI in the following document instructions. His love, concern and directives are clearly those of the One True Catholic Church. He is and was the Holy Father. If only we had followed these instructions, but then again men by nature usually do not ask for driving instructions or follow instructions in putting something together. Who better than you Mike to read over this document (probably again if I know you ) and comment on how you think that we did inexecuting this document. I see the failures as specifically what Father Michael is talking about and not questioning the absolute and proper authority of the Pope and Council to take such action in implementing the new liturgy. Our parish celebrates the Novus Ordo Mass with much reverence and I am proud to attend Mass here. I do much prefer the Latin Mass with Sacred music, communion on the tongue, altar boys, priest facing Jesus etc and will find out soon enough how God weighs in on this issue. When we follow the lead and instruction of the Pope we will be at peace and tranquility but when we do not and when reverence and orthodoxy are NOT enforced we can have severe problems, sometimes even for many decades.

Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium
II. The Promotion of Liturgical Instruction and Active Participation ... A DECLARATION OF THE SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF THE VATICAN ON REVISION OF THE CALENDAR .
www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/... - Cached

your friend always,

JMJ,

George

tornpage Tue Nov 06, 2012 6:56 pm

In other words, Fr. Rodriguez holds that the faith has been compromised because of the Novus Ordo itself, as it was promulgated by Pope Paul VI, due the differences in doctrine, theology and prayer (which, one must conclude, are defective).

He is in fact "attacking the liturgy" and not just the "abuses, excesses or defects [which] have crept in here or there" that "all concerned" are obliged to "do what is in their power to remove or correct".

According to Fr. Rodriguez, the "defect" requiring correction or removal is the "language of the Mass" (the Novus Ordo) itself.

Now, I heard the same words as Mark (both the literal words themselves, and the context in which they were given), and "listen[ed] to Father Michael Rodriquez at length", but if we are wrong in our understanding, I would welcome a correction.

Exactly right, Mike.

Listen, George, I’m behind Father Michael all the way. The Church needs priests like him. As I think you could gather, unlike Mike, I’m not particularly concerned about his comments about the NO, sharing them largely myself.

However, the comments don’t particularly help me. Here we have a priest within the Conciliar Church saying things that, for me, justify the claims of certain sedes, like John Daly (who gave one of the best speeches I’ve ever heard in support of the sede position): the indefectible church cannot produce something that “compromises the faith.”

Perhaps I’m expecting miracles, but I’d love to hear something from Father Michael explaining this phenomenon in a way that resolves the confusion and keeps one firmly planted on the same ground as BXVI. I’ve read most of the stuff on this, from both sides, and frankly they all have their flaws and problems - both sides!

Now, their might be no “right” answer.

But it’s a mess.

George Brenner Tue Nov 06, 2012 8:08 pm

Hi Mark,

Why not e mail Father Michael. I am reasonably sure that he would answer you.

Father Michael Rodriquez's e mail: dvrodrig@gmail.com.

Let me know when you get a reply. In fact if you want to ask me (us) the same question(s). That might not be a bad idea. My short answer would be that I can not even conceive that the Church would be without a Pope for so long but I do believe that the Church would be allowed to suffer this long for rampant lack of discipline and reverence and not following the pleas of Blessed Mother.

JMJ,

George

tornpage Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:54 am

George,

I will email Father Michael at that address - which appears to be his brother’s, I guess. Gosh, he must have a ton of things on his plate to deal with, but I’ll give it a try. I’ll try to write something up.

In fact if you want to ask me (us) the same question(s). That might not be a bad idea.

Since you have exchanged emails with him, that would be fine too. You’d probably get more attention than I would (and rightly so) with an email out of the blue.

Mark

tornpage Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:12 am

My short answer would be that I can not even conceive that the Church would be without a Pope for so long but I do believe that the Church would be allowed to suffer this long for rampant lack of discipline and reverence and not following the pleas of Blessed Mother.

As to the orange, George: I understand, but as has been remarked, prior to the Western Schism the common understanding would have rejected such a possibility for the Church for almost 40 years.

The problem is you have principles or characteristics of Our Lord’s Church in play, such as indefectibility, etc. and then people who acknowledge the conciliar church as the True Church nonetheless positing characteristics to its teaching or liturgy that deny the principle (as, for example, Father Michael saying the approved liturgy “compromises the faith”). Father Cekada, or John Daly, for example, have a field day ripping that to shreds.

I may doubt or be skeptical of an argument I can’t refute but my doubt or skepticism regarding an argument that is not refuted leaves the argument still standing and a “problem” in the search for truth.

Perhaps there is no “silver bullet” argument that would settle this question; I don’t know.

But I continue to think about it -and of course pray about it - with hope.

As to the cyan - agreed. But that doesn’t explain how one comes to understand and resolve apparent contradictions regarding the issues in play, such as indefectibility.

tornpage Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:11 am

Here’s another good one from a non-sede who rejects the SSPX and sede positions, James Larson:

. . . it is a documented fact that Archbishop Lefebvre himself seriously considered the legitimacy of the sedevacantist position. From statements made by him over the years, it is evident that he simply was not convinced that the case was yet clear enough to justify such a conclusion. For him, the writings and words of Paul VI and John Paul II did not demonstrate sufficient evidence of explicit heresy. The Archbishop needed better evidence.

In a 1986 Address to seminarians, Archbishop Lefebvre said:

“Now I don’t know if the time has come to say that the Pope is a heretic. I don’t know if it is the time to say that. You know, for some time many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying ‘there is no more Pope,” but I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure. It was not evident. It was very difficult to say that the Pope is a heretic, the Pope is apostate….So perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith – how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatize? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe the pope is not pope.”

It seems almost certain that the Archbishop would now possess this requisite evidence in the writings and statements of Benedict XVI. The ironic thing about Benedict XVI is that, while appearing to be more traditional in several ways – the issuance of Summorum Pontificum, the lifting of the excommunications, his obvious distaste for some of the ecumenical and liturgical excesses that seemed to be John Paul II’s daily bread – it is a fact that the number and quality of statements made by Joseph Ratzinger which could be considered explicitly heretical totally overshadow anything said or written by John Paul II. The latter did things which implied heresy (such as Assisi, his other ecumenical activities, etc.), but the Archbishop could not be sure. Benedict XVI, on the other hand has explicitly written and said things about which there is no doubt.

In order to make this point quite clear, let us take just one Catholic doctrine, Original Sin.

In his book, < em>In the Beginning…A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall, Joseph Ratzinger specifically wrote that Original Sin is a “certainly misleading and imprecise term,” proceeded to ridicule the traditional Catholic concept that it is something which is received through generation (at conception) as being “absurd” and comparable to people being interred by God in a consecration camp for the sins of their “relatives,” and then concluded by redefining the concept of Original Sin itself as something which is incurred through damaged relationships after conception and birth (see my article Point of Departure at http://www.waragainstbeing.com/parti-article5).

This rejection of the traditional doctrinal understanding of original sin is, of course, due to Joseph Ratzinger’s total embrace of evolution (explored here: http://www.waragainstbeing.com/node/40 ), and the consequent rejection of the whole concept of man as being created in a state of original justice. Thus, in his book Eschatology: Death and Resurrection, he writes the following concerning the emergence of spirit in man:

“This would then lead to the insight that spirit does not enter the picture as something foreign, as a second substance, in addition to matter: the appearance of spirit, according to the previous discussion, means rather that an advancing movement arrives at the goal that has been set for it….The clay became man at that moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought ‘God.’ The first ‘thou’ that – however stammeringly – was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed.” (p. 46-47).

Such a being, as here described by Joseph Ratzinger, certainly does not possess the state of sanctifying grace, the preternatural gifts of intelligence – in regard to both natural and supernatural truths, or the moral culpability necessary for us to make any sense out of the concept of a “fall” from a state of original grace and nature. Thus, virtually all of Catholic theology and philosophy is thrown into chaos. Much of this has been explored in numerous articles on my website. (especially here: http://www.waragainstbeing.com/node/40).

It would appear, therefore, to be fully consistent with the thinking of Archbishop Lefebvre that any of his followers should now feel justified in embracing sedevacantism. The floodgates are open.

http://www.waragainstbeing.com/node/43

A “heretical” pope is no pope, not even a member of the Church.

Larson says this elsewhere on his site:

Finally, I wish to state that I do not support in any way either the sedevacantist position, or that of the SSPX or any individual or group that has defied the Pope in his discipline and government of the Church. I have written a small book on this subject which I have available as a Word-document, and which I would be happy to send to any reader upon request. I wish also to state that many of my articles have appeared in Christian Order Magazine, the website of which is www.christianorder.com.

(http://www.waragainstbeing.com/parti-introduction

I have asked Mr. Larson for a copy of this document, and will let you know - with his permission - what he has to say about our “problem.”

tornpage Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:22 pm

Larson again:

What so many fail to realize is that Pastor Aeternus teaches a twofold Primacy of the Pope: a primacy of Truth, as embodied in his infallible Magisterium: and a primacy of Charity, as embodied in his Primacy of Jurisdiction. And further, that submission to both of these primacies is necessary not only for incorporation in the Church, but for faith and salvation. In the words of Pastor Aeternus:

“Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a sovereignty of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of what¬soever rite and dignity, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor, through the preservation of unity, both of communion and of profession of the same faith, with the Roman pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation.”

It is really quite extraordinary the degree to which so many traditionalists seem to possess an internal mechanism which automatically, and without serious consideration, discards this definitive teaching in regard to the divine constitution of the Church. They won’t even look at it seriously when you point it out to them – it seems to have been shuttled away and securely chained to the “don’t look at this seriously” department of the brain. They usually reply something to the effect that the Pope’s government and discipline of the Church does not involve the charism of infallibility, that he can be very seriously wrong in his judgment on such things, and that we have the right to disobey him when he is wrong. In other words, they completely miss the point.

The Primacy of the Pope in matters of discipline and government of the Church has nothing to do with Infallibility. It involves not a Primacy over our intellects, but over our wills. And just as the Primacy over the intellect binds us in regard to what we must believe in regard to Faith and Morals, so the Papal Primacy of Jurisdiction binds us in regard to our Catholic hearts – to all that is involved with what constitutes our Apostolic work in union with Christ through His Mystical Body. It binds us, in other words, to that unity of Charity which is the Church acting in this world. To defy this unity, either in principle or act, is to attack the unity of the Body of Christ. It is equivalent to an attack on the Divine Constitution of the Church as established by Christ.

http://www.waragainstbeing.com/node/41

Very good.

But, again, totally unanswered or addressed is the “problem” of inconsistency or even “error” in the ecclesia docens or the approved liturgical rites of the Church, the problem existing in the “primacy of Truth,” which involves “faith and morals,” and goes beyond the area of the Church’s “infallibility,” also implicating its “indefectibility.”

columba Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:33 pm

“Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a sovereignty of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of what¬soever rite and dignity, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor, through the preservation of unity, both of communion and of profession of the same faith, with the Roman pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation.”

Not to throw a spanner in the works but would it be true to say that the above is in reference to one who occupies the chair of Peter legitimately? If it were the case that an illegitimate pope was in the chair the above would not apply. The problem is, how does one assertain that legitimacy? The argument that it can be determined by universal allegience of the faithful and that of all the prelates is refuted in Cum Ex Apostolatus. Even a legitimate pope falling from office through heresy would not be included in the above quote.

I'm not answering the question here; I'm posing the difficulties encountered when searching for an answer; that's why I've stopped searching and leave the problem for someone else to sort out. In the meantime I just accept the known Church teachings on matters of faith and ignore any teaching that seems to be in contradiction.

RememberGethsemane Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:00 am

I've just been reading through the posts on this topic which were really interesting and educational. I've been looking around the net to find out more info on Fr. Michael Rodriguez who was also discussed in the posts. From my minimal research it is clear to see he is brave in his faith and ministry and obviously of a strong traditional Catholic spirit and constitution which is a rarity amongst the priests I hear today. But I am left scratching my head however, in a sermon he gave on Ascension Thursday of this year he addressed the bishops of the Church via his congregation correcting, or pointing out to them, errors in their ministry to the modern society and the values they should be instilling in the faithful which I happen to agree with. But I am wondering does a priest have this right to publicly challenge his superiors in this manner during Mass? Also, I read an article Fr. Rodriguez published concerning false allegations and subsequent disciplinary proceedings that were brought against him by his bishop, he strongly publicly denied the allegations in his article which I believe he is innocent of, but wasn't this a private matter between priest and bishop only and not for public consumption? Shouldn't a priest accept the discipline and decisions of his bishop in humility whether they are justified or not? I couldn't help but think what would Padre Pio have done in these circumstances himself once being falsely accused and vilified by his superiors during his priesthood. These are only my personal thoughts on the matter which I am airing out loud.

Jehanne Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:25 am

columba wrote:
“Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a sovereignty of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of what¬soever rite and dignity, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor, through the preservation of unity, both of communion and of profession of the same faith, with the Roman pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation.”

Not to throw a spanner in the works but would it be true to say that the above is in reference to one who occupies the chair of Peter legitimately? If it were the case that an illegitimate pope was in the chair the above would not apply. The problem is, how does one assertain that legitimacy? The argument that it can be determined by universal allegience of the faithful and that of all the prelates is refuted in Cum Ex Apostolatus. Even a legitimate pope falling from office through heresy would not be included in the above quote.

I'm not answering the question here; I'm posing the difficulties encountered when searching for an answer; that's why I've stopped searching and leave the problem for someone else to sort out. In the meantime I just accept the known Church teachings on matters of faith and ignore any teaching that seems to be in contradiction.

We're not bound to obedience in matters which are contrary to divine and/or natural law or which are contrary to the Catholic faith and revelation. EWTN was wrong -- the Mass of 1962 (and earlier) was never abrogated by Pope Paul VI. Also, we're not automatically bound by each and every document which makes its way out of the Vatican and/or USCCB offices, irrespective of its author and/or authority.

tornpage Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:35 am

Larson writes:

It binds us, in other words, to that unity of Charity which is the Church acting in this world. To defy this unity, either in principle or act, is to attack the unity of the Body of Christ.

Someone who does not attend Mass on Sunday (while acknowledging the legitimacy of the Church precept that Mass must be attended) because it is novus ordo, or even if TLM but offered “una cum” with BXVI, is taking an action that “def[ies] the unity” depending on whether BXVI and the magisterium under him constitute the True Church. If they do not represent the Church, the refusal to participate does not violate the unity; if they do, it does.

Of course, we are talking “in principle,” judging the act itself, and not the moral culpability vel non of the person. The act goes against the “unity of charity,” and is very grave. I was going to say, a grave “sin,” but that would depend on the status of the Magisterium.

It would seem to me, Columba, that you have decided by the action. As I have too, I might add - I am not pointing fingers at you. I don’t think you (we) can just stop thinking about it.

Jehanne, you say:

We're not bound to obedience in matters which are contrary to divine and/or natural law or which are contrary to the Catholic faith and revelation

That begs the question, and is evasive. We are talking here about the ecclesia docens, the teaching Magisterium. It could not teach something false regarding faith and morals, can it? No.

Is it?

If it is, it is not the Church, and is not owed obedience, period.

I started this thread referencing the aggiornamento. The conciliar church has abandoned and departed from the anti-modernist position of the popes from the late 18th through early 20th centuries. These popes, to use a popular book title, were “against the modern world.”

I believe it is fairly clear that, as I said, there was a departure from the position of these “anti-modernist” popes. There has been extensive debate as to whether the teaching of those popes was a prudential decision that could be departed from. I am not asking that question.

I am saying, if in fact there was a departure, there should be an explanation, a justification, advanced for that departure. What is the explanation? Why the change?

Forget the issue of were the VII popes “free” to change it. Let’s assume they were for sake of argument. The change is dramatic, and has caused upheaval in the Church. I assume there’s a good reason, should be a good reason.

If anyone can quote us some of the rationale advanced by the conciliar church or members of its magisterium as to the reason for the departure, I’d love to see it.

I will quote some of the “reasons” myself in the future.

I say looking at the reasons for the the "new orientation" might be very helpful.

MRyan Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:31 am

tornpage wrote:
Here we have a priest within the Conciliar Church [Fr. Weakland] saying things that, for me, justify the claims of certain sedes, like John Daly (who gave one of the best speeches I’ve ever heard in support of the sede position): the indefectible church cannot produce something that “compromises the faith.”

John Daly is entitled to his opinion, but his opinion is wrong. The Church not only did not promulgate an abomination and a sacrilege displeasing to God, but, the ordinary form of the Roman rite is in fact orthodox and holy. That it is open to abuse and represents a change in theology, doctrine and prayer (but not in the essentials) does not render the ordinary form “defective”, unless one defines “defective” as a departure from the extraordinary form.

One can say, in other words, as did Cardinal Ratzinger, that because it has been abused, and because the innovators have a different vision for the reform of the Mass than the Council, that “they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment.” And, “In its practical materialization, liturgical reform has moved further away from this origin. The result was not re-animation but devastation.”

Please note the context of this oft abused alleged indictment of the new Liturgy by Cardinal Ratzinger, who clearly was not criticizing the Liturgy itself, but its “practical materialization” whereby the innovators went well beyond the rubrics of the Liturgy with their “fabricated, banal on-the spot creations”.

No, he said, “There can be no ‘fabricating’ a liturgical movement of this kind, just as there can be no ‘fabricating’ something which is alive. But a contribution can be made to its development by seeking to re-assimilate the sprit of the liturgy and by defending publicity that which was received.” “Moreover,” he said elsewhere,

one must say this: that the freedom which the new order of Mass gives to creativity is often taken to excessive lengths. The difference between the liturgy according to the new books, how it is actually practiced and celebrated in different places, is often greater than the difference between an old Mass and a new Mass, when both these are celebrated according to the prescribed liturgical books.( http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1999/feb1999p10_382.html

Once again we see the clear context of Pope Benedict XVI’s indictment of “fabricated, banal on-the spot creations”, for he is NOT indicting “the liturgy according to the new books”, but how “it is actually practiced and celebrated in different places”, i.e., in its “practical materialization … [having] replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment”.

It is time, Columba (and others), for you to recognize what Cardinal Ratzinger was actually saying, and to stop taking his words out of context as if he is the Church’s Supreme Practitioner of the Hegelian dialectic!

The future Pope went on to say:

On the one hand, we have a liturgy which has degenerated so that it has become a show which, with momentary success for the group of liturgical fabricators, strives to render religion interesting in the wake of the frivolities of fashion and seductive moral maxims.

Consequently, the trend is the increasingly marked retreat of those who do not look to the liturgy for a spiritual show-master but for the encounter with the living God in whose presence all the "doing" becomes insignificant since only this encounter is able to guarantee us access to the true richness of being.

On the other hand, there is the conservation of ritual forms whose greatness is always moving but which, when pushed to extremes, manifests an obstinate isolationism and leaves, ultimately, a mark of sadness.

There is no doubt that between these two poles there are priests and parishioners who celebrate the new liturgy with respect and solemnity. But they, too, are made to feel doubtful by the contradiction of the two extremes and, in the final analysis, the lack of unity within the Church makes their faith seem - and wrongly so in most cases - just their own personal version of neo-conservatism.

Therefore, a new spiritual impulse is necessary so that the liturgy becomes a community activity of the Church for us once again and to remove it from the will of parish priests and their liturgical teams. (Christian Order, March 1993, pages 162-163)

It is clear that Pope Benedict XVI does not agree with Fr. Rodriguez who said the faith has been compromised because of the changes to the ordinary form of the Mass. Fr. Rodriguez is confusing cause with effect (implementation), with the “devastating” negative effects being attributable not to the Mass itself, but to “its practical materialization … how it is actually practiced and celebrated … in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication.”

Giving the benefit of the doubt to Fr. Rodriugez, I would say his the faith has been compromised because of the changes to Liturgy remarks should be understood in this same context, with the “defect” of the ordinary form being its susceptibility to abuse by Liturgical innovators due to “the freedom which the new order of Mass gives to creativity [which] is often taken to excessive lengths”. Thus, “we have a liturgy which has degenerated so that it has become a show which, with momentary success for the group of liturgical fabricators, strives to render religion interesting in the wake of the frivolities of fashion and seductive moral maxims … in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication”.

Unfortunately, the impression Fr. Rodriguez leaves is that the faith has been compromised because of the reformed Mass itself, as if “the liturgy according to the new books” is itself defective (in theology and in doctrine). However just the criticism of the Popes in granting that “freedom which the new order of Mass gives to creativity” (a freedom in the hands of innovators that spelled disaster and faith compromised), justice does not extend to placing the blame on the Mass itself. The Liturgy cannot be harmful, only innovators can abuse the freedom to adapt the Liturgy (where authorized) to particular times, cultures and places, with the result being “not re-animation but devastation”.

The remarks of Fr. Weakland (the future Archbishop) are reflective of an approach by which the “liturgy … has degenerated” to the extent “that it has become [in ‘its practical application’] a show which, with momentary success for the group of liturgical fabricators, strives to render religion interesting in the wake of the frivolities of fashion and seductive moral maxims.”

How such “liturgical fabricators” were promoted as overseers (as Bishops) of this wanton devastation (a matter of prudential judgment) should not be confused with the Liturgy itself, or the valid reforms intended by the Council and the will of the Roman Pontiff.

With respect to Fr. Rodriguez, I can appreciate his point about the New Mass representing a departure, for example, from the extraordinary form’s emphasis on the unique role of the priest and its clear delineation between the office of priest and the essential office of the laity who, together with the priest:

are a sacramental sign of Christ's continuing mystical presence in the world through the Church, which makes possible the perpetuation in time of the One Sacrifice of Calvary, Eucharistic Communion and the substantial Presence of the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament itself. The sacramentality of the Church as the Mystical Christ is clearer, therefore, when both priests and laity exercise their proper sacramental offices as Head and Members, respectively. (http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/liturgical_renewal.htm)

The new Liturgy corrects this imbalance where the sacramentality of the laity in the extraordinary form was all but forgotten. However, for reasons already given, in “its practical materialization” the roles are often blurred, and the unique sacrificial priesthood seemed to be compromised.

Pope Benedict XVI, notwithstanding the protestations of the rad-trad community who say that new Mass is beyond reform in its “practical materialization” (how it is celebrated) because it is inherently defective (like putting lip-stick on a pig), is trying to restore the proper balance. The Mass is not something we “do” (a frivolous “show” and a “fabrication”), it is something handed down that we celebrate as a community.

Catholics have a choice, they can support the Pope’s initiatives, or they separate themselves from unity with Peter, and/or dig themselves into their traditional enclaves where the new Mass itself is treated with contempt – a man-made on-the-spot fabrication by which the faith is compromised.

Jehanne Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:49 am

tornpage wrote:Jehanne, you say:

We're not bound to obedience in matters which are contrary to divine and/or natural law or which are contrary to the Catholic faith and revelation

That begs the question, and is evasive. We are talking here about the ecclesia docens, the teaching Magisterium. It could not teach something false regarding faith and morals, can it? No.

Is it?

If it is, it is not the Church, and is not owed obedience, period.

Here's an interesting essay:

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/thomas-crean/praying-with-non-catholics.htm

In particular:

The second innovation of Ad Totam Ecclesiam, however, does contradict the traditional teaching of theologians on communicatio in sacris. The authors affirm that not only may a Catholic attend the services of an Orthodox community or of a Protestant one, he may also ‘take part in the common responses, hymns and actions’ of the community in question, ‘so long as they are not at variance with Catholic faith’.10 Pre-conciliar authors, as we have seen, would have considered this a manifestation of allegiance to a cultus which was heretical or at least objectively illegitimate, and as such a fault against the virtue of faith.

So, clearly, we do not owe obedience to Ad Totam Ecclesiam just as we do not owe obedience to the ITC report "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised":

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Neither of the above documents has any Magisterial authority behind them.

George Brenner Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:29 pm

Yes Mark, I will be happy to ask your question of Father Michael. Do you want to give me an exact question or simply paraphrase your recent post(s) ?

As taken from Living the Liturgy by Pope Benedict XVI:

In this we must be aware of and accept the logic of the Incarnation of God: He has drawn near, present, entering into history and human nature, becoming one of us. And this presence continues in the Church, his Body. The liturgy then is not the memory of past events, but it is the living presence of Christ's Paschal Mystery that transcends and unites all times and spaces. If the centrality of Christ DOES NOT emerge in the celebration, then it is not a Christian liturgy, totally dependent on the Lord and sustained by his creative presence. God acts through Christ and we can only act through him and in him. Every day the conviction must grow in us that the liturgy is not our, my, 'action', but the action of God in us and with us.

It is not the individual - priest or layman - or the group that celebrates the liturgy, but it is primarily God's action through the Church, which has its own history, its rich tradition and creativity. This universality and fundamental openness, which is characteristic of the entire liturgy is one of the reasons why it CAN NOT be created or amended by the individual community or by experts, but must be faithful to the forms of the universal Church.

As Father Michael repeats so often,

There is a Latin maxim that addresses the centrality of worship in the life, identity and mission of the Catholic Church; "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi". The phrase in Latin literally means the law of prayer ("the way we worship"), and the law of belief ("what we believe"). It is sometimes written as, "lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi", further deepening the implications of this truth - how we worship reflects what we believe and determines how we will live.

****************************************************************

No one is attacking the liturgy in its intended and reverent pure form whether it be pre or post Vatican II but those that have continually abused and not performed the liturgy as intended by VII have been tolerated and this is most definitely a compromise of faith and affront to God. There is accountability before God.

JMJ,

George

columba Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:21 pm

Jehanne wrote:
We're not bound to obedience in matters which are contrary to divine and/or natural law or which are contrary to the Catholic faith and revelation.

Jehanne, I agree and I'm not contesting this. But it happens that there's dispute over what exactly "is" contrary to faith and morals and what is not.

Jehanne wrote:
EWTN was wrong -- the Mass of 1962 (and earlier) was never abrogated by Pope Paul VI.

I think even EWTN now knows it was wrong on this point.

Jehanne wrote:
Also, we're not automatically bound by each and every document which makes its way out of the Vatican and/or USCCB offices, irrespective of its author and/or authority.

I think the authority (or weight) attributable to any given document is determined by the Church and known by the faithful according to the accepted criterion for judging such matters.

A problem arises however when dealing with two documents of equal authority.
For example; which of the following are binding under obedience; 'Syllabus Errorum' by Pope Pius IX or, its counter, 'Gaudium et Spes' as promulgated by Pope Paul VI?

The point I (and I think tornpage) am making is that if two contrary teachings exist, which of these do we give our allegiance to? If we give our allegiance to one, we automatically withhold our allegiance to the other. If both are of equal weight and both the teaching of a particularRoman Pontiff, it puts one in quite a dilemma. One could be accused of refusing obedience to a Roman Pontiff whichever teaching one believes when it is obviously illogical to hold both at the same time.

If two contradictory teachings exist then there's only one of two possible conclusions one can reach. Either both teachings are wrong or, one is correct and the other wrong. If we admit that one teaching is wrong then we accuse a Pope of teaching error on a matter of faith and morals. If we claim that both teachings are correct we are back at square 1 and forced to admit that our faith is contrary to reason.

tornpage Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:50 pm

Columba,

The point I (and I think tornpage) am making is that if two contrary teachings exist, which of these do we give our allegiance to? If we give our allegiance to one, we automatically withhold our allegiance to the other.

Well, the point I was getting to was is there such an opposition between the two teachings that it indicates a contradiction that violates the so-called “law of identity” - i.e, they can’t come from the same entity. In this regard, I wonder if the reasons for departing from the “anti-modernist” teachings given by the subsequent magisterium can give some insight into that.

I received James Larson’s document on the Papacy, and am reading it with keen interest. Anyway, he quotes from Leo XIII here:

Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future Council, or to a Pope who is better informed.”

Leo XIII, Epistola tua, June 17, 1885

I have never been comfortable with the SSPX position, which, to me, avoids the issue, and keeps the pope as a sort of Catholic prop, the quieter the better. I don’t think we can pick and choose. If he’s not the pope, he’s irrelevant. If he is, we can’t “pick and choose.”

In his book, Larson develops the idea of the pope’s primary of jurisdiction, and Charity. He has a good, extensive discussion of Pastor Aeternus. I won’t go so far as to say I’ve found the “silver bullet” - haven’t just started it - but I’m very intrigued and interested so far.

Mark

tornpage Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:02 pm

George,

I would simply note the interview and that Father Michael said the novus ordo “compromis[es] the Catholic faith,” and ask him, since it was promulgated by a Supreme Pontiff of the Church, how could that be so and not indicate the Church was defectible rather than indefectible? I suspect he was really referring to the abuses - sort of like what Mike was getting at in his last post - but he certainly did not say it that way.

You could add whatever flourish you wish. There’s more to it but I don’t have time to formulate it at the moment.

Mark

columba Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:01 pm

tornpage wrote:
It would seem to me, Columba, that you have decided by the action. As I have too, I might add - I am not pointing fingers at you. I don’t think you (we) can just stop thinking about it.

Mark, I wouldn't have taken your comments as pointing-the-finger and I know that that was not your intention.

Hmmm.. Have I decided anything by my action? I don't think so at least regarding the legitimacy or otherwise of certain recent popes though I could be wrong. If I could put it another way: Would a real danger be posed to the Church if a pope was illegitimately holding office? I would say yes in the long term but maybe no in the short.

If indeed we (or any era in Church history) were being governed by an illegitimate pope, a danger would exist if that pope were teaching things contrary to faith or morals. If he weren't teaching anything erroneous or promulgating any new, questionable, disciplinary laws, we could say that in the short term he wouldn't pose any grave danger to the Church. If however his reign were prolonged or succeeded by a further line of illlegitimates, a problem would arise (even if the illegitimates were wholey orthodox) in that their episcopal concecrations would be invalid and thus the priests ordained by such bishops would themselves be invalidly ordained.

Now compare the above hypothetical situation and see how the Church would fare if she were governed by a fully legitimate pope but this pope happened to be unorthodox in his thinking and teaching. Would that pose a danger to the Church? I think yes it would.
This pope could teach (without recourse to his infallibility) or insinuate certain false ideas that the faithful would absorb and thus he could contaminate the Church with false doctrine without ever having taught anything expilicitly. The up-side in this senario would be that his episcopal consecrations would be valid and thus all priests ordained by the pope's bishops would also be valid priests. However, (a down-side) these bishiops and priests could themselves be contaminated with falsehood and the danger to the faithful would be multiplied many times.

I could be sarcastic here and say that thankfully we don't see any evidence of this haven taken place, but like I say, this would be pure sarcasm.
So, the question remains; would a bad but valid pope be better than a holy and orthodox illegitimate pope?
Heads I win, tails you loose.

As to my having decided anything by my actions? I would say that yes I have. I have shown by my non-attendance at the Novus Ordo Missae (which constitutes an action) that I believe it to be a danger to my faith, (I could be wrong in my conclusion even though I've based it on past experience) and I'm unwilling to take a chance with it even while being in violation of a Church disciplinary law which I believe is in place for the good of the Church while it fulfills its purpose for existing. If it ceases to conform to the purpose of its mission and places one at odds with the divine law (in this case the first 3 commandments) then divine law must take precedence over the disciplinary law.

In fact I would go as far as advocating a universal boycott of the Novus Ordo Missae but who except Mike would listen to me? Smile

This of course would place me at odds with the current Pope who still thinks that the Novus Ordo Missae is not beyond redemption which in turn places him at odds with St Pope Pius V if not God Himself, but as to my action constituting rebellion against a pope? Maybe; but I'd rather rebell against one or two of them as defy those many already canonized.

Does the Novus Ordo Missae (even at its most reverent) represent a danger to the faith or at the very least promote an ambiguous theology with the potential of creating blind-spots in Church doctrine among the faithful? I say yes.
Can the Church promulgate a harmful liturgy? We are told no. So on and so on...

Jehanne Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:04 pm

columba wrote:A problem arises however when dealing with two documents of equal authority. For example; which of the following are binding under obedience; 'Syllabus Errorum' by Pope Pius IX or, its counter, 'Gaudium et Spes' as promulgated by Pope Paul VI?

Do those teachings contradict each other? If so, how? Look at it this way, "Is this glass half-full or is it half-empty?" Clearly, Vatican II saw things in the former light; everyone else prior to Vatican II somewhat the latter.

MRyan Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:14 pm

columba wrote:
I think the authority (or weight) attributable to any given document is determined by the Church and known by the faithful according to the accepted criterion for judging such matters.

A problem arises however when dealing with two documents of equal authority.
For example; which of the following are binding under obedience; 'Syllabus Errorum' by Pope Pius IX or, its counter, 'Gaudium et Spes' as promulgated by Pope Paul VI?

The point I (and I think tornpage) am making is that if two contrary teachings exist, which of these do we give our allegiance to? If we give our allegiance to one, we automatically withhold our allegiance to the other. If both are of equal weight and both the teaching of a particularRoman Pontiff, it puts one in quite a dilemma. One could be accused of refusing obedience to a Roman Pontiff whichever teaching one believes when it is obviously illogical to hold both at the same time.

If two contradictory teachings exist then there's only one of two possible conclusions one can reach. Either both teachings are wrong or, one is correct and the other wrong. If we admit that one teaching is wrong then we accuse a Pope of teaching error on a matter of faith and morals. If we claim that both teachings are correct we are back at square 1 and forced to admit that our faith is contrary to reason.

You say that “the authority (or weight) attributable to any given document is determined by the Church and known by the faithful according to the accepted criterion for judging such matters” and then give the 'Syllabus Errorum' and 'Gaudium et Spes' as representing two contrary teachings, and concluding that only one can be correct.

However, you haven’t identified the conflicting “error(s)” or told us precisely where the conflict lies. Do you expect us to take such sweeping accusations against the Magisterium at face value? Are we talking about two opposing matters of faith or morals, matters of discipline, or a difficult teaching that has more than one component, and thus, the Church may have been addressing different components of the same doctrine?

In other words, make your case, and, if you will,

- Cite the specific error of 'Gaudium et Spes' and the binding nature of the teaching (the level of required assent – assent to a revealed truth; assent to an infallible doctrine, or assent to an undefined teaching or a discipline that requires obedience to the ecclesia docens?)

- Cite the condemned error(s) in conflict with 'Gaudium et Spes' that is “binding under obedience” and explain the nature of this obedience (the level of required assent).

- Since only a few of the condemned errors concern matters of faith or morals, and since the condemned errors are negative propositions, cite the specific positive teaching that is referenced in the condemned proposition (a specific encyclical, allocution, etc) and demonstrate how that teaching is in conflict with 'Gaudium et Spes'.

Let me give you a hand by anticipating what you might have in mind. Here is a summary of the condemned errors of the Syllabus, by category:

I. PANTHEISM, NATURALISM AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM [7 Errors]

II. MODERATE RATIONALISM [7 Errors]

III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM [4 Errors:]

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862 [“ON THE CHURCH IN BAVARIA” which addresses “the present-day contempt of religion and of the spirit of unbelief rising from the darkness under the fallacious appearance of social progress” and concerns itself with “defending the rights of the Church with regard to public schools.”]; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. -- Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.

If, for example, the alleged conflict concerns condemned error #15, tell us precisely how the Church understands this teaching with respect both to the Catholic confessional and the secular states (members vs. non Church members), and whether freedom of conscience (with respect to coercion) plays a role in this same understanding. Please also explain what the Church means by “within due limits” and how the Church understands these same limits in the context of the condemned proposition.

Oh, and good luck citing the Allocution "Maxima quidem" and the Damnatio "Multiplices inter” as “proofs” for yours and the Church’s understanding of this condemned error, and in demonstrating how 'Gaudium et Spes' is opposed to either of these papal documents.

Since you already “dissed” Bishop Joseph Fessler (Secretary to VCI) who took one Protestant Professor Schulte to task for his egregious understanding of the “infallible” nature of the entire Syllabus (and published his errors for the benefit of Columba and others like him), my expectations are rather low.

Here are the remaining categories of condemned errors:

IV. SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, SECRET SOCIETIES, BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES (“Pests of this kind are frequently reprobated in the severest terms in the Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846, Allocution "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849, Encyclical "Noscitis et nobiscum," Dec. 8, 1849, Allocution "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854, Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863.”)

V. ERRORS CONCERNING THE CHURCH AND HER RIGHTS (20 Errors)

VI. ERRORS ABOUT CIVIL SOCIETY, CONSIDERED BOTH IN ITSELF AND IN ITS RELATION TO THE CHURCH (17 Errors)

VII. ERRORS CONCERNING NATURAL AND CHRISTIAN ETHICS (9 Errors)

VIII. ERRORS CONCERNING CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE (10 Errors)

IX. ERRORS REGARDING THE CIVIL POWER OF THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF (2 Errors)

X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM (4 Errors)

MRyan Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:37 pm

tornpage wrote:
In his book, Larson develops the idea of the pope’s primary of jurisdiction, and Charity. He has a good, extensive discussion of Pastor Aeternus. I won’t go so far as to say I’ve found the “silver bullet” - haven’t just started it - but I’m very intrigued and interested so far.

Well, I should think so, I've already cited most of his book! Smile

columba Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:24 pm

MRyan wrote:
You say that “the authority (or weight) attributable to any given document is determined by the Church and known by the faithful according to the accepted criterion for judging such matters” and then give the 'Syllabus Errorum' and 'Gaudium et Spes' as representing two contrary teachings, and concluding that only one can be correct.

Let's see Mike,
I weren't the first to see apparent contradiction between the two documents in question. The fact that the latter explicitly counters the former was stated by none other than
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger when he stated;

"Let us be content to say that the text [Gaudium et Spes] serves as a counter syllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789."

Actually the most saddening part of the above quote isn't the part which consigns the words of Pius IX to the dusty, liberal bookshelf of condemned writings but rather the admission by Cardinal Ratzinger that the Church (under the leadership of Paul IV) "attempted an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789."

If the Church prior to 1965 had never even attempted a reconciliation with the militant atheism of 1789 and reaffirmed her condemnation of such reconciliation in 1864 and at a time when she (the Church) was in stronger position to sue for peace with her enemies; why did it become all-important to reconcile the Church with her enemies in 1965 at a time when (without reason) she was throwing down many of her greatest weopons and leaving herself without the bargaining tools that were given her, not to bargain with in the first place, but rather to fight the enemy without compromising anything she had already received.

Yep.. See where this attempted compromise has got us. The ememy has won the battle (but not the war), but he should never have even won the battle if the Church leaders had fought. So much for compromising with Satan.

Even if by some major stretch of the imagination you could reconcile the words of Gaudium et Spes with those of Syllabus Errorum, you would still have to admit that in its practical application, Gaudium et Spes has replaced everything the syllabus stood for.
If Gaudium et Spes was not contradicting the Syllabus of Errors we would still have the Syllabus of Errors.

columba Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:55 pm

PS.

Mike i have to say (in case you hadn't realized) that you and I are both saying the same thing. The problem arises only when our apparent contradictory statements are interpreted in such a way that those who wish to see contradiction between you and I impose their own meaning on our words. Anyone with a properly formed Catholic mind
would immediately see through those extremists and their mechinations.

In the same way, Paul VI is in total accord with Pius IX.

Go back to sleep you' inventors of disention.

tornpage Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:06 am

Mike,

tornpage wrote:

In his book, Larson develops the idea of the pope’s primary of jurisdiction, and Charity. He has a good, extensive discussion of Pastor Aeternus. I won’t go so far as to say I’ve found the “silver bullet” - haven’t just started it - but I’m very intrigued and interested so far.

Well, I should think so, I've already cited most of his book!

Yes, you have quoted this book, and I recall the discussion about it regarding Assisi. I also recall responding favorably to Larson in a discussion about the “mindset” of I believe JPII and BXVI, and how the departure from classical Thomism alters their thinking, but not their hearts (faith and will).

I am devouring Larson’s book, “War Against the Papacy,” and, while I want to finish it and let it digest fully, I can say it is having a profound effect upon me - even to the point of tears, which are in order.

Mea culpa, my friend, mea culpa.

Miserere mei, Deus.

I also acknowledge that you, my friend, have always anchored your response to the “crisis” on Pastor Aeternus, and have always been a close reader of it - which I have experienced to my profit, in the past - but the lesson was lost on me.

Miserere mei, Deus.

tornpage Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:09 am

Columba,

I suggest you email Larson and ask him to email you a copy of “War Against the Papacy.” Here’s his email:

James Larson <waragainstbeing@yahoo.com>

Read it with an open mind and heart . . . as I know you will.

Mark

tornpage Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:25 am

As to my having decided anything by my actions? I would say that yes I have. I have shown by my non-attendance at the Novus Ordo Missae (which constitutes an action) that I believe it to be a danger to my faith, (I could be wrong in my conclusion even though I've based it on past experience) and I'm unwilling to take a chance with it even while being in violation of a Church disciplinary law which I believe is in place for the good of the Church while it fulfills its purpose for existing. If it ceases to conform to the purpose of its mission and places one at odds with the divine law (in this case the first 3 commandments) then divine law must take precedence over the disciplinary law.

Columba,

We have been in the same boat. I only say “have been” because one foot is already out of that boat and on its way back to the Barque of Peter, so I take the liberty - humbly and prayerfully - of speaking in the past tense. I pray that my other foot follows.

It is “divine law” that Peter’s faith will not fail and that he is the rock and center of the unity which is at the heart of the Mass. As Larson says, “ '[h]aving' the Old Mass, the New Mass, or any other Mass is not intrinsically necessary for salvation. Being in union with the Church and subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation.”

He also quotes St. Thomas:

St. Thomas teaches that “the reality of the sacrament (Eucharist) is the unity of the mystical body without which there can be no salvation (III Q.3 A.3).”

The way out of this “mess” is not with our minds, but with our hearts.

Get and read the book.

Mark

MRyan Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:33 pm

Mark,

My own journey, as you know, has been marked by a series of "mea culpas". And I expect them to continue, but never again when it comes to the Chair/faith of Peter and our Lord's promise of the same.

To think with one's heart when the mind and the will wants to revolt is to have one's heart in the right place, and to think as a Catholic. Truly, our Lord has not left us orphans, and where there is Peter, there is the Church. For the hard-headed among us, these are hard lessons to learn - I know from experience.

Welcome back (from a momentary detour), my old friend.

MRyan Fri Nov 09, 2012 5:00 pm

columba wrote:PS.

Mike i have to say (in case you hadn't realized) that you and I are both saying the same thing. The problem arises only when our apparent contradictory statements are interpreted in such a way that those who wish to see contradiction between you and I impose their own meaning on our words. Anyone with a properly formed Catholic mind
would immediately see through those extremists and their mechinations.

In the same way, Paul VI is in total accord with Pius IX.

Go back to sleep you' inventors of disention.

No, we are NOT saying the same thing, and your sarcastic analogy does not hold.

You erroneously suggest that I hold that Popes Pius IX and Benedict XVI are saying the same thing when in fact a measure of discontinuity actually exists. Because of this error on your part, you then say their respective papal teachings “are interpreted in such a way that those who wish to see contradiction between [them] impose their own meaning on [their] words. Anyone with a properly formed Catholic mind would immediately see through those extremists and their mechinations.”

Actually, you are the one who imposes his own meaning on the words of the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX, as well as on the words of Cardinal Ratzinger and on Gaudium et Spes. It is also clear that you do not know the difference between doctrine and discipline, and anyone with “a properly formed Catholic mind would immediately see through extremists” such as yourself, “and their machinations”, by which they continue to hold and promote such erroneous interpretations in what amounts to what Pope BXV calls the “hermeneutics of discontinuity”.

Speaking of which, Pope Benedict XVI has in fact imposed his own meaning on his own words (and stands by them); the words he spoke as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger where he wrote:

If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text Gaudium et Spes as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus. Harnack, as we know, interpreted the Syllabus of Pius IX as nothing less than a declaration of war against his generation.(17) This is correct insofar as the Syllabus established a line of demarcation against the determining forces of the nineteenth century: against the scientific and political world view of liberalism. In the struggle against modernism this twofold delimitation was ratified and strengthened. Since then many things have changed. The new ecclesiastical policy of Pius XI produced a certain openness toward the liberal understanding of the state. In a quiet but persistent struggle, exegesis and Church history adopted more and more the postulates of liberal science, and liberalism, too, was obliged to undergo many significant changes in the great political upheavals of the twentieth century. As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was to a large extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no statement of the relationship that would exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789. In fact, an attitude that was largely prerevolutionary continued to exist in countries with strong Catholic majorities. Hardly anyone today will deny that the Spanish and Italian Concordats strove to preserve too much of a view that no longer corresponded with the facts. Hardly anyone today will deny that, in the field of education and with respect to the historico-critical method in modern science, anachronisms existed that corresponded closely to this adherence to an obsolete Church-state relationship. Only a careful investigation of the different ways in which acceptance of the new era was accomplished in various parts of the Church could unravel the complicated network of causes that formed the background of the "Pastoral Constitution", and only thus can the dramatic history of its influence be brought to light.

Let us be content to say that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.

Note (17) Adolf v. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte 3, 5th ed. (Tubingen: Mohr, 1923), 757, n. I: “prepared in advance (i.e., insofar as the Vatican was concerned) by the Syllabus …, which, along with much that was bad, condemned also, in its totality, the good spirit of the nineteenth century.

(Principles of Catholic Theology, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987, pp. 381-2)

It is true that “Pope Benedict describes the church’s reaction to this under Pius IX as one of ‘bitter and radical condemnations’ [which was] met with equally drastic rejection by representatives of the modern era. There seemed no possibility of 'positive and fruitful understanding." (http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11375) Footnote 17, just cited, provides the proper context for his words.

In light of what Cardinal Ratzinger said above and in light of what he has said since then as Pope, and most recently about the proper interpretation of Gaudium et Spes and the other documents of VCII, we can affirm the following facts:

1. There is no discontinuity between Popes Pius IX and BXVI on matters of faith and morals
2. Thus, there are no “errors” or doctrinal discontinuity between the Syllabus and Gaudium et Spes
3. There is a discontinuity between Popes Pius IX and BXVI in their respective teachings on Church-state relations and rapprochement with the modern world
4. The “discontinuity” between the two approaches is NOT what is called the “hermeneutics of discontinuity”, neither can it be called the “hermeneutics of continuity”
5. Rather, the discontinuity is most aptly described as what Pope BXVI calls the “hermeneutics of reform”

To understand what Cardinal Ratzigner meant by “the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789”, and what Pope BXVI means by the “hermeneutics of reform”, one would do well to read his words in the greater context of the chapter from his Principles of Catholic Theology (see GoogleBook: Pages 381 and 382, for starters); and to read what he said on Dec. 22, 2005 in his traditional year-end talk to the Roman Curia where he set out his thoughts on a correct interpretation of the council.

Having done so, “Anyone with a properly formed Catholic mind would immediately see through those extremists and their machinations” who say “Actually the most saddening part of the above quote isn't the part which consigns the words of Pius IX to the dusty, liberal bookshelf of condemned writings but rather the admission by Cardinal Ratzinger that the Church (under the leadership of Paul IV) ‘attempted an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.’"

For in truth, Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope BXVI did not “consign the words of Pius IX to the dusty, liberal bookshelf of condemned writings”; no, he in fact affirmed (and supported) that the “Syllabus established a line of demarcation against the determining forces of the nineteenth century: against the scientific and political world view of liberalism. In the struggle against modernism this twofold delimitation was ratified and strengthened”.

In other words, as the New Advent Encyclopedia explains:

The importance of the Syllabus lies in its opposition to the high tide of that intellectual movement of the nineteenth century which strove to sweep away the foundations of all human and Divine order. The Syllabus is not only the defence of the inalienable rights of God, of the Church, and of truth against the abuse of the words freedom and culture on the part of unbridled Liberalism, but it is also a protest, earnest and energetic, against the attempt to eliminate the influence of the Catholic Church on the life of nations and of individuals, on the family and the school. In its nature, it is true, the Syllabus is negative and condemnatory; but it received its complement in the decisions of the Vatican Council and in the Encyclicals of Leo XIII. It is precisely its fearless character that perhaps accounts for its influence on the life of the Church towards the end of the nineteenth century; for it threw a sharp, clear light upon reef and rock in the intellectual currents of the time. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14368b.htm)

However, and more to the point, Cardinal Ratzinger went on to say:

Since then many things have changed. The new ecclesiastical policy of Pius XI produced a certain openness toward the liberal understanding of the state. In a quiet but persistent struggle, exegesis and Church history adopted more and more the postulates of liberal science, and liberalism, too, was obliged to undergo many significant changes in the great political upheavals of the twentieth century. As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was to a large extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no statement of the relationship that would exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789.

For a trenchant analysis of this topic, see the Feb. 2, 2002 article "Novelty in Continuity" Pope Benedict's interpretation of Vatican II, by Joseph A. Komonchak, found here:

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11375

Here is a sample:

If these new definitions of the relationship between the faith and “certain basic elements of modern thought” required the council to rethink and even correct earlier historical decisions, it did so to preserve and deepen the church’s inmost nature and identity.

If exaggerated and naïve “optimism” is a sin and an "error", then go ahead and scourge the Church. But it is completely false for you to suggest that Cardinal Raztinger/BXVI even remotely suggested that the Church should “attempt a reconciliation with the militant atheism of 1789”. However, to correct your egregious error would mean that you actually make an attempt at understanding what he said, and the context in which he said it, and to understand the difference between policy and doctrine; and I know this is asking too much since, for you, even Pope Pius XI “erred” on a matter of doctrine when his “new ecclesiastical policy … produced a certain openness toward the liberal understanding of the state”.

Pathetic, as is your statement (an indictment against Gaudium et Spes):

If two contradictory teachings exist then there's only one of two possible conclusions one can reach. Either both teachings are wrong or, one is correct and the other wrong. If we admit that one teaching is wrong then we accuse a Pope of teaching error on a matter of faith and morals. If we claim that both teachings are correct we are back at square 1 and forced to admit that our faith is contrary to reason.

So do tell us, Columba, where is the “error on a matter of faith and morals”?

I’m still waiting for a coherent response.

MRyan Fri Nov 09, 2012 5:53 pm

columba wrote:
If the Church prior to 1965 had never even attempted a reconciliation with the militant atheism of 1789 and reaffirmed her condemnation of such reconciliation in 1864 and at a time when she (the Church) was in stronger position to sue for peace with her enemies; why did it become all-important to reconcile the Church with her enemies in 1965 at a time when (without reason) she was throwing down many of her greatest weopons and leaving herself without the bargaining tools that were given her, not to bargain with in the first place, but rather to fight the enemy without compromising anything she had already received.

I defy you to demonstrate where the Church has EVER “attempted a reconciliation with the militant atheism of 1789”. Your entire bloviating indictment against the Church is flawed from the outset, but what else is new?

columba wrote:
Even if by some major stretch of the imagination you could reconcile the words of Gaudium et Spes with those of Syllabus Errorum, you would still have to admit that in its practical application, Gaudium et Spes has replaced everything the syllabus stood for.

They represent two different approaches in two different eras, and there does in fact exist a "discontinuity", which is best described, as Pope BXVI explains, as the “hermeneutics of reform”.

Gaudium et Spes has NOT replaced everything the syllabus stood for, and in fact nowhere suggests that "militant atheism" has somehow been rehabilitated and is no longer condemned. What "changed" is the Church's recognition that time has not stood still since the revolution of 1789, and that there are positive developments that open the door to the possibility for a “positive and fruitful understanding”, rather than a continuance of a policy marked almost exclusively by mutual acrimony and blanket condemnations.

This is not to sugarcoat the dangers inherent in forging new relations with non-Catholic actors/states who do not always have the best interests of the Church at heart, neither is it a pact or a compromise with militant atheism and with the traditional secular enemies of the Church. It is only what the Church and Pope Benedict XVI say it is, and you need to start paying attention and quit recycling these long discredited canards that suggest that the Church has "erred" on a matter of faith, and that she has no right to correct what she perceives as an outdated "siege" mentality and to correct policies that do no longer serve the best interests of the Church and her missionary mandate.

As I said, you can criticize the Church's abundant optimism and her policies, but you cannot indict her for teaching a false doctrine.

Well, you can, and you have, but you only look foolish when doing so.

columba Fri Nov 09, 2012 6:06 pm

tornpage wrote:Columba,

I suggest you email Larson and ask him to email you a copy of “War Against the Papacy.” Here’s his email:

James Larson <waragainstbeing@yahoo.com>

Read it with an open mind and heart . . . as I know you will.

Mark

Thank you Mark. I'll request a copy of the book.

Jehanne Fri Nov 09, 2012 6:57 pm

MRyan wrote:They represent two different approaches in two different eras, and there does in fact exist a "discontinuity", which is best described, as Pope BXVI explains, as the “hermeneutics of reform”.

Mike,

Traditionalists such as myself may come to accept completely Vatican II, ambiguous and poorly phrased as it was, but will never accept the fact that Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy are anything but heretical, whether the individuals who cling to such religions are only guilty of material versus formal heresy, or regardless of how many "elements of truth" those belief systems possess. We will never stop proclaiming that the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church and that the Roman Catholic Faith is the One True Faith, founded by Jesus Christ Himself, the God Incarnate, an eternal and uncreated spirit, both infinite and perfect, who became man for our salvation. Nor we will ever cease proclaiming that "it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" and that "No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." Likewise, we will never abandon the Roman Missal of 1962 and even its "pre-1962" elements, even if such means "holding our noses" when attending the Novus Ordo Mass, in spite of some of its ugly aspects.

"Non-negotiable," is my reply, and I will go to my death and judgment with those words on my lips. If the Pope considers us to be in full communion with him, great; if not, I already know what I will have to say to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ when I meet Him ("Our Lord first served.")

Just remember what Pope Benedict XVI said about condoms a few years back when you reply to me, if you do.

columba Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:37 pm

tornpage wrote:

Columba,

We have been in the same boat. I only say “have been” because one foot is already out of that boat and on its way back to the Barque of Peter, so I take the liberty - humbly and prayerfully - of speaking in the past tense. I pray that my other foot follows.

Mark, I understand your position and have no doubt that the decisions you make or the conclusions you draw concerning the matters we discuss/debate will be sincere and your intention pure. Even if you were to conclude erroreously, I for one would not condemn you. In fact the most exhausting and difficult part of this crisis is the absence of means to draw any definite conclusions and, not having that surety even if one does, that the conclusions are corect.

tornpage wrote;

It is “divine law” that Peter’s faith will not fail and that he is the rock and center of the unity which is at the heart of the Mass.

I have no problem believing the above and I could not consider myself Catholic if I refused to believe it. It would actually be much easier to reconcile the Church of the present with the Church of the past if the above were not true; we could merely say that Peter's faith had no divine guarantee of endurance. But the reality is, we don't have the luxury of disposing of such doctrines when they don't seem to fit in with the observable facts.

So, where does that leave me? I believe that Peter’s faith will not fail while at the same time witnessing apparent failures of Peter's faith. I must either ignore the kissing of the satanic Koran, the drinking of a witch doctor's brew, the acceptance of a blessing from a shaman, the permitting of the worship of idols on consecrated ground, and accept these actions as not being contrary to that same divine guarantee. Or, I could conclude that the one who participates in such practices cannot be the same Peter to whom the Lord promised this unfailing faith.

The fact that I have not concluded anything as yet and still sit on the fence, doesn't necessarily mean that my own faith is failing (though I grant that it could), but I just accept that I don't have the competence to judge either way on such matters and, even if I were to judge that those actions mentioned did not constitute a failing of the faith of Peter, this judgment of mine would have no guarantee of infallibilty.

We all maintain that the our own conclusions are based on infallible Church teachings.
Sedes believe (and have some great arguments in support) that they have reached their conclusions by having recourse to infallible Church teaching. Many others take an opposite view (with likewise excellent arguments) which they also maintain are based on infallible Church teaching.

I still have one foot in the conciliar boot and one in the traditional. If it turns out that both are one and the same then I'll be ok. If it turns out that they are two different animals then I'll be doing the splits while they drift apart and hope I have enough agility to jump on the right one.

As Larson says, “ '[h]aving' the Old Mass, the New Mass, or any other Mass is not intrinsically necessary for salvation. Being in union with the Church and subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation.”

The Mass may not be intrinsically necessary for salvation in one sense but it certainly is intrinsically necessary in another in that it is the source and summit of the Christian life. Without it there would be no grace on earth.

The CCC 1324 says, The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life. The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."

Without the Eucharist there would be no Church, no unity, nor would there be any purpose in subjection to the the Roman Pontiff as none of these in themselves could bring about the salvation of souls. Therefore in this sense, the Mass is absolutely necessityof means for salvation and the papacy is a necessity of precept.

1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."

If one form of Mass was much the same as another then the graces obtained by souls would be equal. If it is not by now obvious that this is not the case, and if it can be theologically stated that it makes no difference and has no effect on the virtue of faith whichever form one attends, then we will have to once again depart from practical and observable reality to cling to the theology. If the theology itself was correct it would be in accord with reality.

St. Thomas teaches that “the reality of the sacrament (Eucharist) is the unity of the mystical body without which there can be no salvation (III Q.3 A.3).”

St. Thomas also teaches that some truths are self-evident and don't require explanation.

The way out of this “mess” is not with our minds, but with our hearts.

Get and read the book.

Mark, for an non-intelectual like me it's actually the heart that first sounds the alarm bells. it's the heart, not the mind that caused me to cry like a baby when I first saw the statue of Buddha on the Holy Tabernacle in Assisi. It's not only that. It's all to do with our Blessed Lord and what He deserves. Like St. Paul said, He loved me and sacrificed Himself for me. The only determining factor in this mess for me is...What's due Our Lord.

I will definately get the book though.

columba Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:38 pm

Mike, I'll get to your post tomorrow as I'm out of time right now.

tornpage Fri Nov 09, 2012 9:24 pm

Columba,

I believe that Peter’s faith will not fail while at the same time witnessing apparent failures of Peter's faith.

Maybe the Holy Ghost was moving your fingers at the moment, for the highlighted word is not gratuitous. Very Happy

We will both get there, where we need to be. What has always bothered me is the lack of evidence, the lack of "warning," the lack of "guidance" from the Holy Ghost before the "event" - 50 plus years of impostors, frauds, anti-popes on the throne of Peter?

Name one, one, Father, Saint, theologian, who said that a succession of heretics would take over the See of Peter or that the the "elect" would actually have to flee from the Rock itself for salvation?

And I don't mean Protestant "divines" who equate Rome with the Whore of Babylon of Revelation. Very Happy

I look forward to continuing our discussion. Glad you're getting the book.

Mark

George Brenner Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:23 pm

I have always taken great comfort and inner peace in the spontaneous and easy to understand (for me) words of the Popes on numerous occasions. Such was the case as posted below from ICN:

Posted: Monday, October 15, 2012 12:03 am
Email Print

On Thursday evening, Benedict XVI appeared at the window of his study overlooking St Peter's Square to greet participants in a torchlight procession organised by Italian Catholic Action (ACI) and the diocese of Rome to mark the opening of the Year of Faith and the fiftieth anniversary of the beginning of Vatican Council II. The procession, which left Castel Sant'Angelo at 7.30pm, is part of a broader initiative entitled 'The Beautiful Church of the Council' organised by ACI and the diocese of Rome.

"Good evening to you all and thank you for being here", the Holy Father began. "On this day fifty years ago I was in the square looking up at this window where the Good Pope, Blessed John XXIII, appeared and addressed us with unforgettable words, words full of poetry and goodness, words from the heart.

"We were happy", he added, "full of enthusiasm. The great Ecumenical Council had begun and we were certain that a new springtime for the Church was in the offing; a new Pentecost with a new and powerful presence of the liberating grace of the Gospel".

The Pope continued: "Today too we are happy. We have joy in our hearts but, I would say, it is perhaps a more sober and humble joy. Over these fifty years we have learned and experienced how original sin exists and is translated, ever and anew, into individual sins which can also become structures of sin. We have seen how weeds are also always present in the field of the Lord. We have seen how Peter's net also brings in bad fish.

"We have seen how human fragility is also present in the Church, how the ship of the Church is also sailing against a counter wind and is threatened by storms; and at times we have thought that the Lord is sleeping and has forgotten us.

"This is part of the experience of these last fifty years. But we have also had a new experience of the Lord's presence, of His goodness and power. The fire of the Holy Spirit, the fire of Christ, does not devour and destroy, it is a silent fire, a small flame of goodness and truth which transforms, giving light and heat. We have seen how the Lord does not forget us. Even today, in His humble way, the Lord is present and brings warmth to hearts, He shows us life, He creates charisms of goodness and charity which illuminate the world and give us a guarantee of God's goodness. Yes, Christ is alive and is with us today. And today too we can be happy because His goodness does not die, it remains strong even today!

"In closing I make bold to echo the unforgettable words of Pope John: 'Go to your homes, give your children a kiss and say it is from the Pope'.

"In this Year, from the bottom of my heart I impart my blessing upon you: 'Blessed be the name of the Lord'".

Thank you Pope Benedict XVI and God Bless our Holy Father.

And speaking of James Larson, I am still convinced in my heart that all that post here want to be faithful Catholics as we struggle with the battle between good and evil. Many things probably frustrate us all and one of my main frustrations is that I know that I posted the following reply to me by MRyan three times and not even a comment. It may be that only now is it beginning to sink in and have a a strong influence on many of us. There is no doubt in my mind that Mike defends the pureness, core and very essence of our Catholic Faith. I personally have no issues with loving and accepting what is true and undefiled in being pure from stain or blemish in regards to our deposit of Faith, including all of the official teachings of Vatican II. My issue and fight has been and always will be against those that attack, abuse, water down, fail to enforce, implement or practice the faith within the framework of orthodoxy ,reverence and obedience to the intent of Holy Mother Church. I spent quite a bit of time yesterday at Notre Dame representing our local Right to Life group. I met and had discussions with many. I came away mentally and spiritually drained. I was humbled and tearful as we knelt before one priest and asked for his blessing. There is a spiritual and theological war of biblical proportions for true Catholicity. More on that later. I now re re post the answer that Mike sent me that had a very profound effect on me for which I am grateful:

And I applaud your efforts to this end; truly. I admire your perseverance and obvious love for the Church and our Faith.

Unfortunately, as you know, these types of scandalous examples of infidelity to the Faith and to the Church can be multiplied almost without end.

I don’t know how it is that the scandals by Farther Reginald Foster, and others, to include Bishops, “go unanswered and Our Church is not defended from such attacks”.

That’s THE question of the last several decades, is it not? And there are no easy answers.

I didn’t have this at my finger tips (it was on my book shelf), and I just finished scanning several pages into my computer; but the following words of James Larson from his book “The War Against the Papacy” represent a fairly accurate summation of my own feelings about this vale of tears and devastated vineyard we find ourselves in, while a weak and even a seemingly oblivious Vatican does nothing to stop the pain, the scandal and the bleeding. As someone once said, enough about the rights of man, what about the rights of God?

Let me begin with this bit of profound wisdom:

For a Catholic, the demands of supernatural charity, according to the Will of God, can supersede the demands of natural justice and natural reason.

I will have Larson return to this further on, but first, he writes (Note: to facilitate ease of reading, I am not wrapping these extracts with the customary "quote" function):

"As I have said before, the most effective chastisement which God can inflict upon man in such a situation is simply to hand him over to his own natural freedom. I believe that that is what Dignitatis Humanae is all about. It is what the New Mass facilitates. And it is what a whole host of other "new" things in the Church is all about—the relaxation of the fasting laws, the permission for altar girls, the indiscriminate promotion of NFP, etc. And, possibly, pre-eminent among these chastisements is the ecumenical movement by which the Church, and all the faithful, are in effect lowered into the pool of the world's errors and sins. If we had come to the point of living profoundly duplicitous lives; if we had surrendered ourselves to serving the world in all the other aspects of our lives: political, economic, educational, recreational, etc. – then why should we deem it surprising that God should hand us over to Satan in our spiritual lives so that we might "learn not to blaspheme?" (1 Tim 1:20).

"All these things have the effect of promoting natural freedom, and a veiling of the protective cover of Christ's Kingship over our lives. They are, in reality, spiritual democracy. And we have deserved it, and for the most part still do. I believe, in fact, that Mr. XXXXX' superficial view, that full responsibility for everything that is wrong with the Church lies upon John Paul II, is profound testimony to this "desert" on our part. It is, after all, the dominant view among those who call themselves traditional Catholics. It is in fact this orientation towards blaming Popes, bishops, priests, etc. which prevents us from perceiving the real roots of infidelity in our own duplicity – such double-mindedness being at the root of the present chastisement and chaos in the Church.

"What is necessary in order to understand this crisis is true Christian piety. In one of its roots the word piety connotes "fidelity" in fulfilling ones obligations towards God, and to others in any way responsible for our existence or well-being. In another nuance, it finds roots in the Italian word for "pity" – thus we have the "Pieta" of Michelangelo. And in another root, it means "appeasement" (which, of course, is closely linked to the Catholic idea of reparation and sacrifice). True piety therefore reaches almost infinitely deeper than any strictly human rational analysis into the roots of suffering, confusion, and chaos that is present in the Church. It reaches into the very Heart of Christ, into His Merciful Love, and therefore into the mysterious interplay between chastisement and blessing through which God works to "draw good out of all the evil in the world."

"It is this "piety" which came into play in my attempted analysis of the events at Assisi. I first of all established quite clearly through the Pope's Wednesday General Audience, held just previous to this event, that Pope John Paul II believes that there is no salvation except through Jesus Christ. He cannot therefore be justly accused of heresy. How then do we account for what I have also called the "nightmare" of Assisi? The whole Pontificate of Pope John Paul II, as I see it, is devoted to the "project" of God's Divine Mercy through Jesus Christ. In the promotion of God's mercy John Paul II looks deeply into the heart and nature of man and sees God's image, and therefore the profound dignity of every man, even the greatest sinner. According to his own writings therefore, he believes that even within the most pagan religions there are "seeds of the Word" – towards the one true God. This is not a new idea confected by Pope John Paul II. Certain early Church Fathers spoke of this concept, and Saint Clement of Alexandria even went so far as to speak of a "dispensation of paganism." At any rate, the Pope believes that the time has come that God wishes us not to try to impose Christ's Kingship from the top, but to draw out, through dialogue and ecumenism, these "seeds of the Word" into the fullness of truth in Christ.

"As I say, I believe I can understand what he is doing. There is no denial of Catholic doctrine in such a position. There is also, certainly, some truth in it. It does not make Pope John Paul II a heretic. But it does make for nightmare. And I think the nightmare is one we deserve.

"We deserve the nightmare because we have possessed the faith of Catholicism, but not its heart. We have “tithed mint and rue and every herb; and passed over judgment, and the charity of God." (Luke 11:42) In other words, besides the spiritual duplicity which sought to have the things of this world more than ever before, there was in pre-Conciliar Catholicism something akin to the religion of the Pharisees. The Pharisees possessed God's promise and covenant, possessed God's law, possessed the Promised Land, and possessed the true religious worship. And they used these possessions to deny God's love and mercy not only towards other human beings, but even so as to destroy in themselves and many others the very love man owes to God – thus causing Christ to say through his Prophet: "I saw no one to comfort me."

"[…] It is my belief, therefore, that the chastisement which we are experiencing, especially in this country and in the West generally, is the fruit of our having possessed the faith of Catholicism, but not its heart. We have become "as fat as butter" while two-thirds of the world goes to bed hungry every night. We have self-righteously dismissed all pagan people because "all the gods of the pagans are devils" while failing to realize that in the depths of the hearts of many of these same pagans are the hearts of children crying out implicitly, if not actually, for Jesus Christ. We gave our pittance to the missions and our hundred dollar bills to the purchase of new TV's, cars, boats and motors, snowmobiles, and degrees from secular and atheistic institutions.

"I believe that Assisi was a nightmare because it was an expression of false philosophical approaches (as examined in the final section of this book), and that it involves an extraordinarily naïve approach to dialoguing with error, superstition, and evil. Despite all this, I also believe that it involves the heart of a Catholic Pope who suffers deeply for the salvation of others in his desire to bring God's mercy to all men. Yet, it is also true that the whole concept of mercy can be abused. His writings reveal that he sees himself as ruling through serving, and that this serving is at the very heart of his concept of mercy. But it is equally true that in order to truly serve, a Pope must rule. And this I cannot see that he has effectively done. He has been merciful, and even rewarding, to Cardinal Law, but through his failure to govern, he has done little to prevent a whole generation (or two) of Catholic children from being spiritually, and in many cases physically, raped by those who are ministering in the name of the Church. I understand, in fact, that in his latest book Pope John Paul II also expresses personal misgivings about his government of the Church.

"And this is why I, and I think many others who are caught in the web of these extremes, feel as though "My heart is become like wax melting in the midst of my bowels." On the one hand, we have no idea how to convince Pope John Paul II that the cause of Divine Mercy may be best served through a return to the traditional concept of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ, to the Traditional Mass, and through a radically new commitment to the spirituality and passion of which this Mass is the perfect expression in prayer. On the other hand, we see a deeply fractured and divided traditionalist movement, divided for the most part because of a multitude of errors concerning the Papacy, these errors being rooted in a profoundly superficial understanding of the relationship of Christ to His Mystical Body the Church. I further believe that it is this division from the Papacy which is depriving the Church of that suffering and reparative charity which is necessary for its reform. Archbishop Lefebvre, for instance, called Pope John Paul 11 an "anti-Christ, and yet stated that he prayed for him at every Mass. How can there be anything of the power of reparation and reform in a prayer rooted in such a judgment, and in such duplicity?

An Attempt At Understanding

"So what is happening in the interior of Pope John Paul 11 that enables him to do what he does? Holy Scripture tells us, of course, that no man can understand another's heart. But there are qualities and realities built into both the nature of supernatural Revelation and man's response to it in faith that might at least give us a handle on how this strange and heart-rending state of affairs has come to pass. And it is precisely this "handle" which we are so much in need of in order to retain some sort of Catholic sanity in the midst of this confusion. We need, in other words, an explanation of how Pope John Paul II can do these things while still possessing the never-failing faith" guaranteed by Christ to all Popes.

The key to this explanation lies, I believe, in understanding the difference, and even conflict, which can exist between faith and personal philosophy."

[END OF EXTRACT]

And now, back to this bit of wisdom:

James Larson writes:

"For a Catholic, the demands of supernatural charity, according to the Will of God, can supersede the demands of natural justice and natural reason."

"This "charity through obedience" is not an option. It is a demand of our faith. The dogma of the Papal Primacy locks us into a sacrificially obedient love towards the Papacy in much the same way as marriage locks spouses into a sacrificial relationship to one another and to the sacrament which they have received. We have previously quoted St. Gregory's statement, "Divine Justice provides shepherds according to the just desserts of the faithful." We may now look at this statement in a deeper light. Bad shepherds are not just a punishment. They are a wound in our own Body which requires the reparative grace of our suffering charity. They are a specific call from God for an increase in this charity.

"… If there is anything that appears most striking about the Church at this moment in history, it is its apparent weakness. The Church seems drained of power. Priests have no power to resist the temptations of the world. The Pope seems to have no power over bishops, clergy, or religious. The Catholic man or woman in the world has no power to defend his or her faith against either militant secularism or Fundamentalism. Catholic works without a Catholic Heart is impossible. Faith without works is dead. We have become impotent because we have become independent. We must pray for the grace to return to the "first love" and "first works" which is the Cross of Christ, and, the power that overcomes the world.

"There are millions of people who assisted at the Traditional Latin Mass during all the years of their childhood, and yet effectively lost their Catholic Faith during a few years subsequent to Vatican Council II. Retention of the Faith is not primarily dependent on "having” the Old Mass. It is primarily dependent upon being faithful to God's grace – believing in His Truth, being obedient to His commands and precepts, and possessing that sacrificial love for Christ and His Mystical Body which we have already examined. We cannot communicate this love, which is necessary for salvation, to our children if we are in rebellion against the Holy Father.

"It is therefore absolutely essential for our children to see and sense in us this love for the Pope and the Church. It must be a deeply personal love; and since the Church is now in terrible agony, it must be a deeply suffering love. Our children can certainly sense if this love is insincere. If we pray for the Pope during Mass, and afterwards gossip about what we think are his latest sins, then our children will discover our hypocrisy and be drained of their faith –that faith which, according to St. Paul, is dead without charity.

"There is no doubt that our responsibilities as parents are increased in times such as these. If we assist at a Mass where there is irreverence or where our children might hear something that is not in accord with the faith, we must spend additional time explaining to them what is right and true, Even more important, we must spend additional time praying for these people and in reparation for such offenses committed against God. We must impart to our children a vision of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ – pure and unstained in its invisible nature – wounded, scourged, and defiled in its visible nature, even by those who are its members. We may have to travel many miles on Sunday to find a Mass offered in a manner more in keeping with God's Will. We have to shelter our children – surround them with friends, books, entertainment, and (most important) schooling, which are in accord with our faith. All this, hopefully, will be communicated to our children as a love and passion for Christ and His Church.

"In this sense we are blessed. The pre-Vatican II parent felt little of the holy terror of the world which we feel. Father and Mother trusted the bishop, trusted the pastor and sister, slowly amalgamated their faith to American pluralism, and watched their children slip away.

"We are blessed if we and our children learn from all this how to love as Christ loved us.

"And now we follow thee with all our heart, and we fear thee, and seek thy face. Put us not to confusion, but deal with us according to thy meekness, and according to the multitude of thy mercies." (Dan 3:41-42)"

[END]

Sorry for he length of this response.

MRyan

Posts: 1831
Join date: 2010-12-18

JMJ,

George

columba Sat Nov 10, 2012 4:07 pm

columba werote:
I believe that Peter’s faith will not fail while at the same time witnessing apparent failures of Peter's faith.

tornpage wrote:
Maybe the Holy Ghost was moving your fingers at the moment, for the highlighted word is not gratuitous. Very Happy

I intentionally used that highlighted word "apparent" as one or other of its definitions is applicable; we just don't know which one yet. Smile

What has always bothered me is the lack of evidence, the lack of "warning," the lack of "guidance" from the Holy Ghost before the "event" - 50 plus years of impostors, frauds, anti-popes on the throne of Peter?

I see the warnings (if not the specific details as to how things will play out) in the words of St Pius v and St. Pius X, the results of which would be dependant on whether or not their words were heeded by successive generations.

columba Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:32 pm

MRyan wrote:
No, we are NOT saying the same thing, and your sarcastic analogy does not hold

Are you sure? Lets have a look and see.

MRyan wrote:
You erroneously suggest that I hold that Popes Pius IX and Benedict XVI are saying the same thing when in fact a measure of discontinuity actually exists.

We are saying the same thing here. So far so good.

MRyan wrote:
Actually, you are the one who imposes his own meaning on the words of the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX, as well as on the words of Cardinal Ratzinger and on Gaudium et Spes.

How does one impose meanings on words? Isn't it the case that the words themselves contain the meaning and express the thoughts of the one speaking or writing them? The reader can only draw meaning from the actual words written. Granted, if the writings are ambiguous a variety of meanings may be possible but this ambiguity has already been condemned as error.

For example, the word "counter" as used by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger can be checked in a dictionary to discover which meaning (it has 3 possible meanings) he intended to give to the word. Only one definition matches. "Counter: In the opposite direction to or in conflict with:." Synonyms: oppose - resist - opposite - contrary - reverse - adverse - converse (source: Random online dictionary)
This definition also accords with another instance where (as Benedict XVI) he used the same word; "..how the ship of the Church is also sailing against a counter wind and is threatened by storms;.." (Benedict XVI to Italian Catholic Action;) courtesy of George.

MRyan wrote;
It is also clear that you do not know the difference between doctrine and discipline, and anyone with “a properly formed Catholic mind would immediately see through extremists” such as yourself,

I actually do know the diference between doctrine and discipline. Many disciplines however have their source in doctrine and this is what you Mike don't seem to grasp. For example, the discipline prohibiting interreligious prayer gatherings has its roots in divine law -First I am the Lord Thy God thou shalt not have strange gods before Me. The duty of remaining faithful to the first commandment outweighs any perceived good that could possibly derive from interfaith worship.

"Extremist" is one of those PC demonizing words, usually employed to make a certain individual (in this case yours truly) look like evil personified. I don't think you used it in that 'extreme' way but I accept the charge that I am extreme. You see extremism is a relative term. What would have been considered liberalism 60 years ago is considered extremism today. Fine by me; the word has become meaningless anyway.

MRyan wrote:
It is true that “Pope Benedict describes the church’s reaction to this under Pius IX as one of ‘bitter and radical condemnations’ [which was] met with equally drastic rejection by representatives of the modern era

And?
What's wrong with having a bitter reaction or condemning those forces that wish to impose their own ideology on the Catholic Church?
And what response does the Church expect from atheistic modernism whether she reproves it gently or severely? The Lord Himself has already told us what to expect.

MRyan wrote:
In light of what Cardinal Ratzinger said above and in light of what he has said since then as Pope, and most recently about the proper interpretation of Gaudium et Spes and the other documents of VCII, we can affirm the following facts:

1. There is no discontinuity between Popes Pius IX and BXVI on matters of faith and morals

Well then why do modernists approve of Gaudium et Spes and the other documents but hate the Syllabus of Errors?
You will reply that the change is merely in approach as opposed to substance; disciplinary rather than doctrinal. Try telling the modernist that. He will say, "No, the Church has changed her teaching and exposed Pope Pius IX as a bigot." This is what they read and with some legitimacy. Strangely too, the traditionalist will draw the same meaning as the modernist

2. Thus, there are no “errors” or doctrinal discontinuity between the Syllabus and Gaudium et Spes

That's what you say, but where are all these intellectual, linguistic geniuses who can read the Syllabus and Gaudium et Spes and find them compatible? Even theolgians are trying to explain the differences while trying with all their might to maintain this "hermeneutic of continuity," that post-conciliar term which had to be invented of necessity to sustain the councils credibility even in light of its continuing disasterous effects upon faith and morals.

3. There is a discontinuity between Popes Pius IX and BXVI in their respective teachings on Church-state relations and rapprochement with the modern world

I see.... I just wasted my time replying to point 2. The discontinuity does exist but is yet continuous. Silly me.

4. The “discontinuity” between the two approaches is NOT what is called the “hermeneutics of discontinuity”, neither can it be called the “hermeneutics of continuity”

Is there an interpreter in the room? ... Anyone?

5. Rather, the discontinuity is most aptly described as what Pope BXVI calls the “hermeneutics of reform”

Ahhhh... Finally.... It's reform. That explains the whole Martin Luther celebrations recently attended by Pope Benedict. So forget that it's not in continuity with the past and accept that its a continuity of reform. Nah.. It has to be organically linked with what went before or no "hermeneutics of reform" (whatever that is) can save it.

MRyan wrote:
In other words, as the New Advent Encyclopedia explains:

The importance of the Syllabus lies in its opposition to the high tide of that intellectual movement of the nineteenth century which strove to sweep away the foundations of all human and Divine order. The Syllabus is not only the defence of the inalienable rights of God, of the Church, and of truth against the abuse of the words freedom and culture on the part of unbridled Liberalism, but it is also a protest, earnest and energetic, against the attempt to eliminate the influence of the Catholic Church on the life of nations and of individuals, on the family and the school. In its nature, it is true, the Syllabus is negative and condemnatory; but it received its complement in the decisions of the Vatican Council and in the Encyclicals of Leo XIII. It is precisely its fearless character that perhaps accounts for its influence on the life of the Church towards the end of the nineteenth century; for it threw a sharp, clear light upon reef and rock in the intellectual currents of the time. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14368b.htm)

Mike do you not see the problem here? Leo XIII's encycllicals were a complement to the Syllabus. Paul V encyclical was a counter to the Syllabus. Big difference don't you think?

MRyan wrote:
However, and more to the point, Cardinal Ratzinger went on to say:

Since then many things have changed. The new ecclesiastical policy of Pius XI produced a certain openness toward the liberal understanding of the state. In a quiet but persistent struggle, exegesis and Church history adopted more and more the postulates of liberal science, and liberalism, too, was obliged to undergo many significant changes in the great political upheavals of the twentieth century. As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was to a large extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no statement of the relationship that would exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789.

I don't know, but was there ever a time when the relationship between the Church and the world needed defining? Do we not already know what that relationship was, is and always will be til Christ comes again? Maybe that's the reason why no statement existed after 1789 nor none prior for that matter.

quoted by Mike:
If these new definitions of the relationship between the faith and “certain basic elements of modern thought” required the council to rethink and even correct earlier historical decisions, it did so to preserve and deepen the church’s inmost nature and identity.

I take it the above words are those of Pope Benedict.
If one is honest it would have to be admitted that it didn't work. If it didn't work, why persist in it?

MRyan wrote:
If exaggerated and naïve “optimism” is a sin and an "error", then go ahead and scourge the Church. But it is completely false for you to suggest that Cardinal Raztinger/BXVI even remotely suggested that the Church should “attempt a reconciliation with the militant atheism of 1789”

Nay nay nay. Scourging the Church is not my thing. Preventing the scourging is.
If naïve “optimism” is a sin and an "error" and it is scourging the Church, then it must stop and must be exposed and countered.

I never suggested that Cardinal Raztinger/BXVI suggested that the Church should attempt a reconciliation with the militant atheism of 1789. If I suggested anything it's that Cardinal Raztinger/BXVI has attempted a reconciliation with the militant atheism of today. If you don't believe me then go look what he has to say to the communist-run "state catholic church" in China. It's somewhere on this forum.

However, to correct your egregious error would mean that you actually make an attempt at understanding what he said, and the context in which he said it, and to understand the difference between policy and doctrine;

Yep.. context, context, context. Which context? Historical, literary or political?
To take it in its widest context (which is the bulk of his writings as both Cardinal and Pope), the result doesn't inspire confidence. If one went a bit further and took it in context of his actions and in context of its observable fruits, the picture gets worse.

for you, even Pope Pius XI “erred” on a matter of doctrine when his “new ecclesiastical policy … produced a certain openness toward the liberal understanding of the state”.

Wrong again Mike. An openness to understanding is not the same as compromise.

MRyan wrote:
columba wrote:
If two contradictory teachings exist then there's only one of two possible conclusions one can reach. Either both teachings are wrong or, one is correct and the other wrong. If we admit that one teaching is wrong then we accuse a Pope of teaching error on a matter of faith and morals. If we claim that both teachings are correct we are back at square 1 and forced to admit that our faith is contrary to reason.

So do tell us, Columba, where is the “error on a matter of faith and morals”?

I’m still waiting for a coherent response.

Coherent responses are conditional upon coherent questions. You ask me to point out the error while from your own post you admit that error exists. Dressing the error up in flowery language only conceals it but doesn't deal with it. When one must appeal to a non-defined "hermeneutic of reform" in order to reconcile two opposing documents, the cat is already out of the bag.

Thus far we've had a hermeneutic of reform in the liturgy, a hermeneutic of reform in all the sacraments, a hermeneutic of reform in language, a hermeneutic of reform in expression, a hermeneutic of reform of the monuments of the Church, a hermeneutic of reform of lay ministries, in short, a hermeneutic of reform of the of the whole Church both spiritually an physically. I'm drowning in a sea of hermeneutics.

I have Mike, some specifics in mind concerning points of faith or morals contained in the Syllabus that are contradicted in Gaudium et Spes but I've used up my free time for now and will provide them tomorrow when I go through the documents again.

columba Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:38 am

PS.

MRyan wrote:
I defy you to demonstrate where the Church has EVER “attempted a reconciliation with the militant atheism of 1789”. Your entire bloviating indictment against the Church is flawed from the outset, but what else is new?

Mike,

Since you threw down the challenge I'd better deal with it before signing off for now.

First of all: You keep equating "The Church" with its human members. The Church would still be the Church even if all its members on earth were deceased or reduced to one solitary soul. Therefore, if I am indicting at all I am directing it not at the Church but at what certain members (be they high or low) are doing to the Church.
If you are equating the Church solely with the person of the Pope then history will show that it is not the Pope who is being referred to as the spotless bride of Christ.

That out of the way I'll continue.
You defied me to demonstrate where the Church has EVER “attempted a reconciliation with the militant atheism of 1789”.

If the militant atheism from centuries ago is any different from the militant atheism of today then you need to show me in which way it's so.
Militant atheism can take many forms while refusing the name "Atheist."
The Protestant persecution of the Church from the time of Henry VIII was atheist militancy in action. Using the name of Christ doesn't make them Christian.

These same persecuters of Christianity had a say in Council Vat II and the Novus Ordo Missea was one of their major triumphs. So not only were false members of the Church doing their damnedest to destroy the Church but from within her own ranks were found members cooperating with them. Did the Church do a deal with the devil? No, But members in position of authority did.

My point once again is, stop painting everyone who see's compromise going on within the Church at high levels as some kind of enemy of the Church. The true enemies of the Church are those who see the corruption before their eyes and justify it either by defendng it or remaining silent.

In answer then; Yes. there has been compromise in high places not only with the devil but with the world and the flesh as well. Each Vat II document is compromised in one way or another and even if this compromise only pertained to the grammar it's nonetheless compromised.

Sponsored content