Latest topics
» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:24 pm by tornpage

» Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 pm by MRyan

» Revisiting Diocese/Parish Screening Policy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:03 pm by MRyan

» When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm by MRyan

» Doctrinal talks were conducted with Fr.Gleize on 'the other side'
Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Pope Benedict permitted Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead in doctrinal talks since he was a liberal ?
Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:59 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Padre Pio told Fr.Gabriel Amorth," It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church" -Bishop Richard Williamson
Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Mons. Brunero Gherardini misled the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and many traditionalists
Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong
Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM too is teaching error : Bishop Sanborn cannot report at the Chancery office
Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:50 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades


The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  tornpage on Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:33 am

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.

I meant "warning" that the sede scenario would happen, not a warning about the antichrist or modernism - something about the throne of Peter being overrun by heretics.

After reading Larson and considering Vatican I again, I agree with Larson (and our own MRyan) that Vatican I gives us divine assurance that that won't happen. I had come to that conclusion before (no pope's faith will fail) after discussing that with Mike, but the possibility of a person who was a heretic before elevation - in which case you would not have a true pope, so the guarantee would perhaps not apply - being elected allows some wiggle room there. I believe that's John Lane's view - he agrees with Bellarmine, a true pope's faith won't fail, but that none of the Conciliar popes were true popes, being heretics before.

Just goes to show you, as I said, that the way out of this is not with the mind, but with the heart, and simple faith in the Lord's promises.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  tornpage on Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:54 am

George,

Yes, Mike posted some good, large swathes of Larson previously. Before that section, Larson talked about Vatican I, and this part hit me pretty good:

If Peter, in his simple person and through Christ, always rules through any given pontiff, then it is logically and theologically incorrect to assert that the direction or “orientation” given to the Church by any Pope can contradict that which is willed by Christ. This of course does not mean that Christ always wills to give us the most sublime gifts through the papacy, or that He may not use the papacy to chastise us - to take away graces, or to substitute lesser gifts for greater ones. Nor does it mean that the Pope may not make decisions and acts of governance which, at least from some immediate and human judgment, appear neither prudent nor wise. Nor does it mean that, within quite strict limits of prudence and charity, we do not have the right to try to show a Pope that he may he wrong in his course of action. It does mean (and we will see this fully substantiated in our examination of the next part of the Council’s teaching) that Christ always wills that we obey the Pope in his direction and governing of the Church.

Of course this "crisis" is willed by God. The issue is the proper response to it which is willed by God. Which is why I brought up the point, with Columba, of no Father, Saint, theologian foretelling us that a time would come when we would need to flee from the pope or the the visible Church in possession of the See of Peter. I believe there would have been some such if that were the proper response.

That, coupled with the clear and divinely revealed teaching of Vatican I, makes the Larson understanding the correct one I believe.

avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  Jehanne on Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:27 am

Some points:

1) A Pope's charism of infallibility is a negative charism, that is, it prevents a Pope from promulgating error upon the universal Church. The promise of the Holy Spirit does not protect a Pope from teaching poorly, using careless words in an interview, incorporating theological error into his personal writings, erring as a theologian even while as Pope, or from even going to eternal Hell having died in a state of mortal sin.

2) The charism of infallibility only "kicks in" when a Pope gets anointed as the Success of Peter, not before. A Pope does not necessarily have the guidance of the Holy Spirit prior to his elevation to the See of Peter and never to the extent which he has after his ascendancy to the Throne.

3) A Pope can err theologically just like anyone else. Theological error does not necessarily constitute heresy, which is the obstinate, public denial of some dogma of the Faith. In particular, one would have to show how the present Pope or his predecessors, or Vatican II, actually denied any dogma of the Catholic Faith in order to make the claim "stick".

4) Only the Pope can authentically interpret the decrees of an ecumenical Council, and only then, as Pope, not before. What Joseph Ratzinger wrote prior to his anointing to the Throne of Peter means absolutely nothing. No guarantee of infallibility exists for anything which he said and/or wrote prior to his anointing as the Successor to Peter.

In short, don't confuse the man with the office which he holds; the Holy Spirit will only protect the latter and not necessarily the former.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  George Brenner on Sun Nov 11, 2012 11:37 am

Columba,

I thought that there was much merit in most of what you had to say in your post: 11/10/12Yesterday at 10:32 pm and 11:38 pm When time permits I will try to be more specific on some questions for you.

I am still agonizing and praying about my visit to Notre Dame and in particular a discussion with what I believe to be a very holy priest. IMHO, he understands the crisis of faith in the Church. I am still not sure that I will post specifics but will continue to pray on this. Let me say Columba that there are two distinct subjects that we all discuss with passion and conviction. The essence, the beauty the holiness and the existence of Holy Mother Church is protected by the Holy Ghost. I do not believe that anyone really questions this or would ever attack the Church itself if they are of good will. The Ark of Salvation remains the Ark of Salvation but today as in past ages it is infested with termites. most who infiltrated from within who seek to destroy, water down, abuse the liturgy and undermine all that is good. You Columba along with others because of your love for your Faith can differentiate between the Church versus those who's lives, teachings, actions and works attack the Faith we love more than life itself. There is a clear and distinct difference and you understand this. To fight against those who wish to harm our Faith is why we are called the Church Militant. The danger in combat while on the Ark is not to step on a lady bug rather than a termite. And so we pray for wisdom and courage.


JMJ

Your friend,

George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  George Brenner on Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:55 pm

RE: Reply from Father Michael Rodriquez/ To question from Tornpage :

Dear Father Michael,

God Bless you Father Michael. Please keep me and my family in your daily prayers. My prayers are with you daily, Father. Thank you very much for the time you spent on your reply to me. You love your Catholic faith very much. Since you gave me permission, I will post your answer. I pray, hope and will fight that we live to see a better day. My daily activities, conversations, prayer and time that I spend posting on ' No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church ' continually reminds me of the Crisis of Faith that we have been in for far too long, There are so many who pray and struggle on how to be good Catholics pleasing to God in today's world and Church. There are so many diversified opinions and beliefs and we seldom are on the same page on hardly any issues. This should not be so. The teaching mission of the Church has not been successful since Vatican II. This is a punishment for not living and practicing our faith with reverence and understanding. We have not been taught the faith as we were before VII. There is so much babel. Our faith has indeed been compromised. Our faith has been watered down and clarity is all but lost. We did not heed the words, caution and warnings from Blessed Mother. We have not obeyed the wishes and instructions of Our Lady of Fatima. We treated the wise teachings of previous Popes, Saints and councils with neglect and miserably failed to address or discipline abuses with any teeth in it or resolve to remedy. I believe in my heart and soul that the intent of the Popes of VII had the highest intentions but that the works of Satan from within simply thwarted implementation and the positive results that they had hoped to accomplish. The Church we love so much is protected by the Holy Ghost and we know that the gates of Hell will not prevail. I am not sure how the Holy Ghost protects, guides or even impedes severe wrongdoing but we can be certain that Our Church always survives the storm no matter what time or century. I love our Pope so much and pray that he might navigate the Ark of Salvation out of harms way.

I was further reminded this past Friday at Notre Dame while representing our local right to life office of just how deep and severe the crisis of faith is in 2012. As we knelt before a good , holy Priest and asked for his blessing I was vividly told of the live and death struggle between good and evil. Notre Dame University has ceased to be a Catholic institution a long time age...and yet there are many courageous Catholics who are fighting the good fight against those that seek to destroy our Faith.

JMJ,

Your friend
George


From Father Michael:


Dear George,

May Christ the King reign in our minds, hearts, families, and nations! You asked me to provide my thoughts in response to following comment/question which
you received:

"George, I would simply note the interview and that Father Michael said the novus ordo "compromises 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."

Here are my thoughts and I hope you make them available to those who are interested:

I would like to begin by noting that the comments which follow are by no means an exhaustive treatment of the "status of the Novus Ordo." I offer
here some initial points of thought and argument, while recognizing that there is still plenty to discuss and clarify.
(1) As faithful Catholics, we must give full assent of intellect and will to the dogmas of faith, e.g. papal infallibility and Church indefectibility. No question about this.
However, I do think it is necessary to probe more carefully the exact nature of these dogmas and how they actually apply to the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae.
(2) I think a strong argument can be made that Pope Paul VI DID NOT make use of papal infallibility when promulgating the Novus Ordo Missae. In promulgating
the Novus Ordo Missae, Pope Paul VI was using legitimate papal authority, but I think a credible argument can be made that he was abusing this authority
(and not following God's Will) in promulgating the Novus Ordo Missae.

One of the serious problems in the Catholic Church today is that the vast majority of churchmen are judging things in the light of the Second Vatican
Council instead of judging the Second Vatican Council in light of the infallible definitions of the Catholic Faith (Catholic Tradition). I think an analagous
problem exists in relation to the Liturgy. Far too many Catholics (laity as well as hierarchy) are judging liturgical matters in light of the Novus Ordo
Missae instead of judging the Novus Ordo Missae in light of the infallible Liturgical Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.
Aside from the question of Mass validity, I think a very strong argument can be made against the Novus Ordo Missae based on the infallible Liturgical
Tradition of the Catholic Church. I think it can be demonstrated that there are serious theological, liturgical, historical, ascetical, and aesthetical problems
with the Novus Ordo Missae (e.g. please read the Ottaviani Intervention).

I remind all Catholics of some of the words from the Apostolic Constitution, Quo Primum (Pope St. Pius V, July 14, 1570), which pertain to
what is commonly known as the "Traditional Latin Mass":
[bold lettering is mine]

"Furthermore, by these presents (this law), in virtue of our Apostolic Authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that,
for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without
any scruple of conscience . . . We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is to be forced or coerced to alter this
Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force . . .
Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to venture to go contrary to this notice of
Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should
anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and
of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

I think it's a fair question to ask whether or not, based on the destruction of the Catholic religion and liturgy over the past fifty years,
we have not, in fact, been incurring the wrath of Almighy God and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul? Might not the "wrath
of the Blessed Apostle Peter" involve a grave crisis in the exercise of papal authority? Might not the "wrath of the Blessed
Apostle Paul" involve a grave crisis in the ability to evangelize and convert pagans as well as our own?

I think it's also necessary to view the whole issue of the Second Vatican Council and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo
Missae in light of Our Blessed Mother's message at Fatima. Recall also these words of Our Holy Father, Pope Pius XII,
when he was still Cardinal Pacelli, "I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence
of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in
Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul . . . "

I think it's a legitimate (and extremely important!) question to ask: Have the reforms following the Second Vatican Council
not, in fact, altered the Faith of the Church, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul? And mind you, no papal infallibility
has been exercised in the promulgation and carrying out of all these so-called "reforms"! Has the Novus Ordo, in fact,
compromised the Catholic Faith?

I don't think it's sufficient to limit the discussion of the Novus Ordo Missae to the question of its validity. We must examine
and evaluate the Novus Ordo Missae in light of the of the infallible Doctrines and Liturgical Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.
An example of such an exercise would be to examine the Novus Ordo in light of the following defined and infallible dogmas
of the Catholic Faith:

(1) The Holy Mass is a true and proper Sacrifice.
(2) In the Sacrifice of the Mass, Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross is made present.
(3) In the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the Sacrifice of the Cross the Sacrificial Gift and the Primary Sacrificing Priest are identical;
only the nature and mode of the offering are different.
(4) The worship of Adoration (latria) must be given to Christ present in the Eucharist.

Finally, I would like to offer two final "initial" observations with resepct to the Novus Ordo Missae.
Number 1: The Second Vatican Council (Sacrosanctum Concilium #23) mandated that before any part of the liturgy be revised,
a thorough investigation was to be made, one which is theological, historical, and pastoral. I will make the argument that to do
this day, this mandate has been egregiously disobeyed. As I stated earlier, I think a strong argument can be made regarding
the existence of serious defects in the Novus Ordo Missae of a theological, liturgical, historical, ascetical, aesthetical, and
pastoral nature.
Number 2: History is very important in our Catholic religion. History, when viewed, studied, and understood in light of the truths revealed by
God, is a great help in discerning the (present) divine action and Will of God. Any discussion of the Novus Ordo Missae must involve
an honest appraisal of the liturgical disaster that has devastated the Catholic Church during the period, 1965 to the present.

Again, these are only some initial thoughts and points of discussion.


Thank you, George, for your continued prayers and support. May God bless your efforts to give Him glory, contribute to
the salvation of souls, and exalt the Catholic religion, outside of which there is no salvation.

Fr. Michael Rodríguez
Santa Teresa de Jesús
Presidio, Texas



JMJ,


George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  MRyan on Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:39 pm

Dear George,

Here are my thoughts and I hope you make them available to those who are interested:

(1) As faithful Catholics, we must give full assent of intellect and will to the dogmas of faith, e.g. papal infallibility and Church indefectibility. No question about this.
Does that include the dogma of Papal Primacy, the dogma that declares:

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received.
I wonder.

However, I do think it is necessary to probe more carefully the exact nature of these dogmas and how they actually apply to the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae.
Here we go again.

(2) I think a strong argument can be made that Pope Paul VI DID NOT make use of papal infallibility when promulgating the Novus Ordo Missae. In promulgating
the Novus Ordo Missae, Pope Paul VI was using legitimate papal authority, but I think a credible argument can be made that he was abusing this authority
(and not following God's Will) in promulgating the Novus Ordo Missae.
So, the Supreme Pontiff, in the legitimate exercise of his Supreme Primacy over the rites and disciplines of the Church (it is "legitimate" every time he exercises it, and not when Fr. Rodriguez says he does), may have "abused" his Supreme "authority (and not following God's Will) in promulgating the Novus Ordo Missae.”

George, are you following this?

Is this what you signed-up for? Count me out.

It is really quite sad.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  tornpage on Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:11 pm

George,

Thank Father Michael for his time and his response. I expected something different, but this is consistent with what he said, which was, after all, that the NO "compromised the Cathlic faith."

Out of my respect for Father Michael and with knowledge that he actually offers Mass in the Novus Ordo (or has in the recent past), I thought the language was simply sloppy, and Father Michael was really talking about the abuses, and not the NO according to the rubrics and offered faithfully.

But, apparently, consistent with the way it was said, Father Michael would also apply his "comprises" language to the NO intended by Paul VI himself.

As Mike said, how sad.

Almost as sad, for me, as the fact that, had I heard Father Michael say that a few days ago, my reaction would have been quite different.











avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  tornpage on Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:33 pm

Columba,

If rejection of the Novus Ordo Missae constitutes an act of schism, then I quite possibly might have unwittingly already fallen off.

Yes . . . as to falling off, and as to unwittingly.

You have to either say the pope is not the pope, or the Church is not the Church, or accept the NO while rejecting the abuses. The SSPX position of recognizing the pope and holding that the NO Mass offered by the "pope" is "sacrilege" and "in itself sinful" (per Father Peter Scott) is just so much nonsense.

And I know you know that, Columba.

Your fellow "not sure" will be here, with the pope, waiting for you. Very Happy
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  columba on Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:52 pm

Mark,

Re, SSPX.

Was not Pope St. Pius V one of those who succeeded to the chair of Peter and, obtained by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church,
and, while holding that office, issued a decree that was to be observed "in perpetuity," and said, "We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience?"
Did he not conclude with a dire warning to those who would dare to ignore this decree?

If we acknowledge the authoritative and binding nature of Vat Council I under the papacy of Pius IX, we must also acknowledge as authoritative and binding, the decree of St Pope Pius V.
Vat Council I, rather than disregarding the decree of St Pope Pius V, has actually added more weight to his words.
The SSPX then is quite justified, even obligated, to avoid the NO, even caution the faithful concerning it and even if ordered to offer it by a succeeding pope.

Fr. Michael Rodríguez has stated (even a cursory look at the state of the Church would confirm what he says) that, "Might not the "wrath of the Blessed Apostle Peter" involve a grave crisis in the exercise of papal authority? Might not the "wrath of the Blessed Apostle Paul" involve a grave crisis in the ability to evangelize and convert pagans as well as our own"?

The warning issued by St Pius V seems to have retained its force. If that's true, then so does his decree.

Does one have to become a sede to say what Fr. Michael has said?
One would have to have a disregard for souls not to say it.



avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  tornpage on Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:53 am

Columba,

Here's the problem: even assuming the truth of all you said, it doesn't add up to a rejection of the Novus Ordo Missae promulgated by a reigning pope.

If your reading of Pius V's Quo Primum is correct, that it is a decree "binding in perpetuity" (actually standard and pro forma language for disciplinary decrees that are not binding in perpetuity), you are wrongly asserting that decree of a former pope against the decrees or authority of subsequently reigning popes - to the extent you fall back on it to avoid the Mass of the conciliar pontiffs.

As Pope Leo XIII said:

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

You don't escape the problem: either Paul VI (and his successors) are popes whose disciplinary decrees and governance of the Church you are bound to follow (in this instance, to avoid the schism of not going to Mass to worship Our Lord with the rest of the Mystical Body) , or he's not, in which case, no schism, no problem.

There is no in-between.

That's an SSPX crock. An unction for their zealous but misguided souls.

Fr. Michael Rodríguez has stated (even a cursory look at the state of the Church would confirm what he says) that, "Might not the "wrath of the Blessed Apostle Peter" involve a grave crisis in the exercise of papal authority? Might not the "wrath of the Blessed Apostle Paul" involve a grave crisis in the ability to evangelize and convert pagans as well as our own"?

There is a crisis, so? So you take it upon yourself to reject the Primacy?

Again, that is not the solution, and Our Lord doesn't ask for such a response.

Give us precedent for schism in from a successor of Peter.


avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  Jehanne on Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:07 pm

I agree with the late Brother Thomas Mary Sennott said:

That someone would think that an ecumenical Council whose decrees have been approved by the Holy Father, no matter how badly phrased, is heretical, and that the Novus Ordo Mass which was established by Pope Paul VI with such a high authority, despite its ugliness, could be invalid, should tell us a priori that such a person could not do good theology. He has cut himself off from the necessary grace, so he is on the outside looking in.

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/laisneyism.html
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  George Brenner on Wed Nov 14, 2012 6:32 pm

" Proclaim the truth and do not be silent through fear.
Be who God meant you to be and you will set the
world on fire"

Saint Catherine of Siena


The Popes of the Vatican II and after are most certainly valid and are the Vicars of Christ.

The Novus Ordo is most certainly valid and in many instances has been abused with those abuses being encouraged and tolerated with the expected quick and proper discipline severely lacking. Silence and apathy has been rampant.

The all but elimination of the traditional sacred reverent Latin Mass has been a tragedy beyond measure. The Latin Mass will be restored to its level of worship as in previous ages.

Implementation of the hopes and desires of VII has not been successful and has cost untold loss of souls. There is accountability before God.

The crisis of Faith remains. There is not full admission or the resolve to cure the crisis with restoration of teaching the faith and reverence in worship.







Paul Harvey, Somewhere in Time 1965:






JMJ,

George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  tornpage on Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:11 am

George,

Before the novus ordo, there was the TLM. The bishops, priests and pope who gave us the NO offered the sacrifice in the Tridentine Rite, as did all the Catholic world. It did not prevent Vatican II, the Novus Ordo - despite all those graces released by the TLM.

I finally realize it is not about the Latin Mass.

If the Latin Mass makes you holier, and you can participate in the offering of it with a priest who is in union with the Pope and not part of a formally or materially schismatic society, such as the SSPX, that’s great.

One can become just as holy in a Novus Ordo parish. If you ask me, in a Novus Ordo parish is where all of us would make the most difference.

And yeah, that’s a departure from my recent thinking.

But I “departed” from Feeneyism a few years ago and have never looked back.

I trust this “development” will be as permanent, by the grace of God and with the prayers of Mary.

I no longer wonder why Sister Lucy didn’t revolt against the NO. No longer. She was saintly, and “knew."

Ciao.

Mark

avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  columba on Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:49 pm

mark.

In your reply to George you list a series of resons justifying your current position.
As I said before, If that's your position based on the evidence as you see it then under the circumstances, you're concluding the only reasonable way you can.

Are you reading the situation with all the facts at hand? I think not. I myself am not privy to all the facts but from what's available I cannot embrace your position.
The list of points you used in reaching your conclusion are far from being free from controversy.

tornpage wrote:
I finally realize it is not about the Latin Mass.

If it's not about the Mass then you are correct in what you deduce concerning everything else, because if it's not about the Mass then it's about nothing at all. The Catholic faith is exactly what the majority believe it to be; one faith among many others with no claim to being the True Faith. Once the Mass is removed from the centre of the Faith (and from the centre of our consideration) IMO we've already lost the faith.

One can become just as holy in a Novus Ordo parish. If you ask me, in a Novus Ordo parish is where all of us would make the most difference.

Is that a statement of fact or opinion? If it's fact, show some evidence. The FSSP wouldn't agree; that's why they don't have a Novus Ordo parish nor go along with the NO Mass.

But I “departed” from Feeneyism a few years ago and have never looked back.

And probably that's the very reason why you now conclude what you conclude (one presumption leading to another).
When you say feeneyism, I take it you mean the acceptance of baptism of desire as an article of Catholic faith? If that's so, define what the Church is asking you to believe concerning baptism of desire? I'm not asking that you give me again the arguments for baptism of desire; simply explain the Church's definition of the term and to whom the Church says it applies. For example, does she teach implicit vs explicit? For example; has the Church presently got a working definition of or even one practical case of baptism of desire?

I no longer wonder why Sister Lucy didn’t revolt against the NO. No longer. She was saintly, and “knew."

To convince me at least you'd need to use a less controversial example of an adherent of the NO.

If all what you said were factual, I'd have to throw in the towel and concede that Yes, you are correct, there are no remaining issues. The reality however is that not one of the considerations you present are based on fact or evidence.
Back to the drawing board for me.

avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  columba on Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:50 pm

tornpage wrote:
Columba,

Here's the problem: even assuming the truth of all you said, it doesn't add up to a rejection of the Novus Ordo Missae promulgated by a reigning pope.

If your reading of Pius V's Quo Primum is correct, that it is a decree "binding in perpetuity" (actually standard and pro forma language for disciplinary decrees that are not binding in perpetuity), you are wrongly asserting that decree of a former pope against the decrees or authority of subsequently reigning popes - to the extent you fall back on it to avoid the Mass of the conciliar pontiffs.

As Pope Leo XIII said:
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

You don't escape the problem: either Paul VI (and his successors) are popes whose disciplinary decrees and governance of the Church you are bound to follow (in this instance, to avoid the schism of not going to Mass to worship Our Lord with the rest of the Mystical Body) , or he's not, in which case, no schism, no problem.

There is no in-between.

That's an SSPX crock. An unction for their zealous but misguided souls.
Fr. Michael Rodríguez has stated (even a cursory look at the state of the Church would confirm what he says) that, "Might not the "wrath of the Blessed Apostle Peter" involve a grave crisis in the exercise of papal authority? Might not the "wrath of the Blessed Apostle Paul" involve a grave crisis in the ability to evangelize and convert pagans as well as our own"?


There is a crisis, so? So you take it upon yourself to reject the Primacy?

Again, that is not the solution, and Our Lord doesn't ask for such a response.

Give us precedent for schism in from a successor of Peter.


Let's take a logically look at this:

In a world of absolutes, everything progresses in an orderly fashion. In a world where absolutes are denied, chaos ensues. In which of these worlds are we currently living?

Once again I agree that you have justification in cautioning me; likewise, there is justification for cautioning you against rejecting the words of Fr. Michael Rodríguez. He is not alone in discerning as he does. With him we could include the likes of Archbishop Lefebvre (who undoubtedly would be well on the road to canonization but for Vat II) and many others well schooled in theology who love the Church no less than those who remain unmoved amid the crisis.

We use the word “crisis” a lot when describing the condition of the Church since Vat II. We could substitute that word for the word “problem.” There is in fact a problem. If there weren't, there may well be dissenting voices but none of the above mentioned would be among them. The very ones raising their voice are manifestly those who take their duty towards God and their flock seriously. They have concern for their own salvatin too in that they fear losing it by cowardly silence.

To look for a precedent in unprecedented times would be a contradiction. If a precedent cannot be found in the history of the Church, we could be looking in the wrong place. It could possibly be found in the history of God's Chosen People. I haven't looked too deeply into this -and do not consider myself qualified to do so- but Robert Sungenis took a good thorough look and discovered things that could well agree with what Fr. Rodriquez has said.
One does not need to deny the legitimacy of a pope or make any personal judgment concerning him in order to assert that two paths can be set before the people of God while the Chosen People” (in our day, The Church, including the one occupying the chair of Peter) must decide individually which one of those paths to follow.

An easy way (for me at least) to determine which of these paths is the correct one to trisk one's soul on, is to observe how the Holy Eucharist is treated. The path that shows disregard and irreverence for the Eucharist being the wrong path, and that which shows the same regard and reverence of old, the correct path. All the theological arguments in the world cannot trump this one supreme test of authenticity. Theology is theology; Jesus Christ is a person. How we treat the Person of Christ is the only constant in the equation.

Another reality check:
Let us say that the Novus Ordo Missae -in its original form- was adhered to without any further alteration; it would look much the same as the Mass of St. Pius V and the same reverence would be present. Except for those few occasions where the congregation made the Latin responses it would be hard to discern any major differences between the NO and the old form which it was meant to be replacing. If there were no major, discernible differences, one could ask.”Why bother having changes at all?” if those same changes could so easily have been incorporated into the already existing Mass of Pope Pius V. why was this not done? We would still have a single form of the Roman Rite with no need for two at all.

It would appear that one form of the Roman Rite was in fact the initial intention. That's why everyone (including popes) took it for granted that the Mass of Pius V had been abrogated. The most charitable consideration as to the intention of the Council fathers would be, that there was never the intention on their part to have a situation where there were two forms of the one rite existing side by side. The fact that it ended up that way (two forms of the one rite), speaks more of there having been a subversive intention present at the time of the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, and because of its inherent potential for manipulation it could later be developed into what it has become today. If that were not the intention, there seems no logical reason for not having kept the Mass of St. Pius V and included the minor changes in it.
If however that was the intention, the Novus Ordo Mass was itself an evil.

It could -also from the evidence- be determined that the fact that we have actually ended up with two forms (instead of the initially intended one form) is solely because of the faithfulness of a certain proportion of hierarchical members, priests and laity against what had now become a total farce in too many diocese. As we know, some discerned this outcome long before it ever materialized. These are the ones now excommunicated and under threat of excommunication for refusing to accept as legitimate, a Mass that could develop into what it has become today. Through the persistence of such Catholics, it eventually had to be (reluctantly) conceded that the Mass of St. Pope Pius V was never abrogated nor never could be. Only for them (the faithful few) we would still to this day believe that the NO had replaced the TLM.

This is where we see the promises of Our Lord being fulfilled concerning His Church; not in the irreproachable conduct or intentions of His vicars on earth, but in the faithfulness of a few among the lower ranks of which we in fact do have a precedence in history.

Does anything in what Fr. Rodriguez has said (or what I have said above) contradict the First Vatican Council's decree on the Papacy or deny the authority invested in Peter when he is bound (whether reluctantly or not) to concede to the promptings of the Holy Ghost even if they be made manifest via the faithfulness of the few; even if they be made manifest in the total rejection of one form of Mass in favor of the full acceptance of the other and again by the few, not the many?

If there were no resistance from the lower ranks against the upper when the upper becomes corrupted, the Lord's promise of indefectability would have to be -of necessity- manifest by a miraculous outpouring of grace upon the person of the Pope (possibly contrary to His justice) even where the recipient were totally unworthy of receiving it. If the Lord should use the lesser to confound the greater, we can't say there's no precedent for that.

Also, this argument about the meaning of "in perpetuity" having absolutely no meaning at all, is the last resort of the those who have (possibly through weariness) abandoned reason in their attempt to find a way to nullify something that was meant to have an important message for those who would read it, in an effort to make things add up an conform with their own still shakey conclusions.
Can another example be given of the use of that term "in peretuity" in a similar context having subsequently been rendered meaningless?
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  George Brenner on Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:03 pm


The problem is not the Novus Ordo Mass. I have posted repeatedly that the parish I attend celebrates a reverent Novus Ordo Mass. The issue is that to this very day there does remain many abuses, irregularities and liberties taken with the Novus Ordo liturgy and celebration. You would think after fifty plus years that this would be under control or at the very least rare or isolated. I attend both the Novus Ordo at our home parish and the Latin Mass by FSSP. In fact we are finally getting our local FSSP Parish and Priest due to the attendance at this Mass. Their seminary is crowded. Wonder why? The Novus Ordo was NEVER intended to replace the traditional Latin Mass. In fact this would be an impossibility. The intent of the introduction of the Novus Ordo was that it was to be in addition to the Latin Rite and not to move furniture and plunge into something that was not thought through. The safeguards against abuse were not in place. Far too many in the Church act as if they will allow this Sacred rite as a favor to some fringe and outdated sentimentalists. Our Pope has said repeatedly this must not be so. The Crisis of faith is one of lack of discipline. cover up, reverence and teaching the faith with clarity. and so we pray.


JMJ,


George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  tornpage on Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:31 pm

Columba,

A quick reply on the "perpetuity" issue of Quo Primum.

You wrote:

Was not Pope St. Pius V one of those who succeeded to the chair of Peter and, obtained by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church,
and, while holding that office, issued a decree that was to be observed "in perpetuity," and said, "We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience?"
Did he not conclude with a dire warning to those who would dare to ignore this decree?

Here's Michael Davies and Neri Capponi, D. Cn.L., LL.D.:

Since the introduction of the new Mass in 1969, many traditional Catholics, including some priests, have maintained that the Bull Quo Primum Tempore of Pope St. Pius V precluded anyone, including his successors in the Chair of Peter, from making any change whatsoever in the 1570 edition of the Roman Missal, and that the Missal of Pope Paul VI is therefore illicit. This opinion is not simply wrong; it also makes traditional Catholics appear ridiculous to anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the legal language used in Church documents. Father Fr. Thomas Glover, JCD, formerly professor of canon law at Econe, explains:

Canon law is a very specialized subject: even in the past, most priests received only very limited instruction in it during their seminary courses, and lay people had little cause to concern themselves with it at all. It is not surprising that in the minds of many Catholics there is utter confusion on the legal status of the rites of Mass. There are those who believe that St Pius V's Bull Quo Primum makes any alteration in the rite of Mass unlawful ...No Pope can bind his successors in disciplinary matters, and St. Pius V's Bull was disciplinary. The strong wording and prohibitions against future changes were customary at a time when Church government was far less centralized than it is today, and were not aimed at future Popes.

Pope versus Pope

A fundamental legal principle is that an equal cannot bind an equal: therefore, as Fr. Glover has explained, no pope can bind his successor in disciplinary matters. Each pope is the supreme legislator during his pontificate, and no predecessor can prevent him from using his authority in disciplinary matters. This means that clauses in papal documents stating, for example, that they have the force of law in perpetuity, or that they can never be revoked or modified, that they shall for ever remain valid and have the force of law, apply only to clerics up to and including cardinals.

Such phrases are common to hundreds of bulls, as can be discovered by anyone able to obtain access to a bullarium (a collection of bulls). The word "bull," incidentally, is derived from the leaden seal with which papal and royal documents were authenticated.

A bull can be defined as an apostolic letter with a leaden seal. The Jesuits were suppressed by Pope Clement XIV in 1773 with the Brief Dominus ac Redemptor, which used identical and similar phrases to those found in Quo Primum, including the stipulation that the order could never be restored at any time in the future; but Pope Pius VII saw no incongruity in doing precisely this in 1814.

http://www.unitypublishing.com/NewReligiousMovements/TridentineDavis.html


Not too happy about that "reversal," either. Smile

But likewise perfectly legitimate.

"Perpetuity" simply doesn't mean perpetuity in Quo Primum.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  tornpage on Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:09 pm

One can become just as holy in a Novus Ordo parish. If you ask me, in a Novus Ordo parish is where all of us would make the most difference.

Is that a statement of fact or opinion? If it's fact, show some evidence.

Columba,

The second sentence is clearly opinion.

I pray you are not disputing the first sentence.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  tornpage on Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:21 pm

George,

The problem is not the Novus Ordo Mass. I have posted repeatedly that the parish I attend celebrates a reverent Novus Ordo Mass.

I know.

I was responding to this statement, the “tragedy":

The all but elimination of the traditional sacred reverent Latin Mass has been a tragedy beyond measure. The Latin Mass will be restored to its level of worship as in previous ages.

The restoration would put us back to the status quo just prior to VII and the NO.

The “evil” council and the novus ordo were unleashed on a Church that was fed by the TLM.

I don’t see it, the TLM, as the issue.


avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  George Brenner on Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:38 pm

Tornpage said:

One can become just as holy in a Novus Ordo parish....

IMHO, absolutly true. Good point! But the opposite has also proven to be true and that is to get caught up in the abuse of the liturgy, irrereverence, liberties taken and erroneous teachings during the homily of many priests and parishes and thus loose ones soul. The Crisis of Faith is very complex. The tried, true and Holy was compromised in the implementation of the hopes and desires of the Popes of VII. The 50 year report card is a very poor grade and there is accountability. The job description of a priest is to lead as many souls as possible to Heaven before he dies. Once the Pope takes office the spiritual hands of the Holy Ghost are on His heart, mind and soul. He becomes a 'Thou art Peter" however for those who seek to undermine and destroy our faith let us not be naive or in denial. the Pope is surrounded by enemies of the Church and Jesus. We must love our Faith enough to fight and die for it. Mark, my heart leaps for joy that you have done a turn about but we are still in a spiritual war of good versus evil. and so we pray

JMJ,

George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  columba on Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:09 pm

Mark,

That is very interesting.
The fact that Pope Clement XIV abolished the Jesuits and intended it to remain that way (I take it he used the term "in perpetuity") further goes to show that the ignoring of such a decree -even by a subsequent pope- has negative repercussions on the Church and its members.

The using of the term "in perpetuity" would lead one to believe that at that particular time in history it was the informed opinion of the pope that there would never be a time in the future where his decree could be overturned without serious reulting, consequences for the faithful and the Church at large.

Granting, as I do, the authority of a reigning pope to overturn the disciplinary decrees of a predecessor, that reigning pope would obviously have to admit of a greater benefit to the Church that grossly outwieghed the wisdom of his predecessor when issuing the decree using the strong language he used at the time . The now reigning pope would (according to the prevailing circumstances) either be acting for a real benefit or a real loss for the Church in overturning the decree of his predecessor.

To maintain that a reigning pope acting against the implied wish of a predecessor must always be acting out of some perceived benefit for the Church rather than conceding to presure brought to bear from her enimies, is disputable to say the least.

If it could be ascertained that a pope overturned a decree of an earlier pope, not from some necessity, but for no other reason than for the sake of change for change sake or to curry favor with those who should have no part in Church policy, we could conclude with certainty that this decission of the pope was not based on principles pertaining to the welfare of the Church but in some other considerations unworthy of his office. In such a case (as at present), non-resistance to the new decree would be an act of betrayal on the part of those who did not resist.

I actually agree with the late Michael Davies that a prior, disciplinary, papal decree does not bind a future pope. Regarding the decree of St Pope Pius V concerning the "in perpetuity" clause in his bull on the Mass, it was presumably taken for granted that Pope Pius V understood the limits of such a clause and that this clause did not prevent authentic, organic development , profitable for the Church, taking place in the future.
If that's how the Novus Ordo had been developed there'd be no promblems today. The fact that this development resulted in two distinct and opposing forms means that there are HUGE problems.

If the limits of the "in perpetuity" clause had been considered as they ought to have been considererd, there would be, to this day, one form of the Roman Rite. Thus we have two forms; one of which is the product of overstepping the limits of the binding decree of a successor od St. Peter.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  columba on Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:29 pm

tornpage wrote:
One can become just as holy in a Novus Ordo parish. If you ask me, in a Novus Ordo parish is where all of us would make the most difference.

Is that a statement of fact or opinion? If it's fact, show some evidence.

Columba,

The second sentence is clearly opinion.

I pray you are not disputing the first sentence.

Only in so far as the odds are stacked unfavorably against this.
If in fact the Novus Ordo Parish had departed from the Catholic faith in all but name only, it would remain -as always- theologically impossible to become holy in a false religion. One who possessed a desire to seek only the truth would infallibily be led away from it and into the the only ark of salvation.

I pray you are not disputing this.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  George Brenner on Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:33 pm

It should be obvious that under the Novus Ordo that there have been people born, died and are now Saints. We just do not know their particular names. It is obvious that there are many priests, nuns and laity who have tried to do the will of God and lead very good if not holy lives during the time of the Novus Ordo. It should be obvious that we can never be of the disposition or mindset in approaching the Novus Ordo that we are saying to ourselves I wander what this joker is going to say or do. It should be obvious that clerics who strive to do their best before God and who baptize, confirm, consult, marry, hear our confessions and give absolution, say Mass, bury the dead and respond at all hours of the day or night to the needs of their flock should be appreciated, thanked often, helped in time of need, encouraged, prayed for, assisted and not ridiculed or grouped together with the abusers and those that teach error, set bad examples and seek to destroy our Faith. I will not allow those that attack our Faith to get away with it without a fight. We have done a terrible job on this forum of discussing the CAUSE(S) for the crisis of Faith that we have been in for so long. I pray that I have the wisdom and help from God to discern friend from foe and pass no judgement without prayer before action. Father Chuck (Novus Order) Father Michael (Traditional Latin Mass) and Father George (FSSP) are very good priests and if more were like them the Crisis of Faith would end. and so we pray.


JMJ,

George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  columba on Fri Nov 16, 2012 12:31 pm

George Brenner wrote:
It should be obvious that under the Novus Ordo that there have been people born, died and are now Saints.

George,

I believe that to be true also.
There are many who have lived and died through the Novus Ordo regime with their faith still in tact; among them I would include my own parents and many of my older relatives. I believe there are still many who plod the minefield of post-conciliarism without denying doctrines of the faith and hold fast to their devotions and novenas despite the temptations to cave in to the now common ridicule associated with such practices. Unfortunately the young, having come through the present educatuion system and having been subject to pastors who themselves have lost the faith are much more vulnerable to losing (or not even gaining in the first place) the faith.

There are signs of hope however in that many of the younger generation (who never knew anything of the traditional Church) are miraculously discovering it for themselves even despite the incredulity of their post-modernist parents. It seems the young are beginning to lead the old. They are seeing and experiencing the spiritual bankruptcy of the current secilarized church and know intuitively that this can't bethe real deal.


avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  MRyan on Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:01 pm

columba wrote:Mark,

That is very interesting.
The fact that Pope Clement XIV abolished the Jesuits and intended it to remain that way (I take it he used the term "in perpetuity") further goes to show that the ignoring of such a decree -even by a subsequent pope- has negative repercussions on the Church and its members.

The using of the term "in perpetuity" would lead one to believe that at that particular time in history it was the informed opinion of the pope that there would never be a time in the future where his decree could be overturned without serious reulting, consequences for the faithful and the Church at large.

Granting, as I do, the authority of a reigning pope to overturn the disciplinary decrees of a predecessor, that reigning pope would obviously have to admit of a greater benefit to the Church that grossly outwieghed the wisdom of his predecessor when issuing the decree using the strong language he used at the time . The now reigning pope would (according to the prevailing circumstances) either be acting for a real benefit or a real loss for the Church in overturning the decree of his predecessor.

To maintain that a reigning pope acting against the implied wish of a predecessor must always be acting out of some perceived benefit for the Church rather than conceding to presure brought to bear from her enimies, is disputable to say the least.

If it could be ascertained that a pope overturned a decree of an earlier pope, not from some necessity, but for no other reason than for the sake of change for change sake or to curry favor with those who should have no part in Church policy, we could conclude with certainty that this decission of the pope was not based on principles pertaining to the welfare of the Church but in some other considerations unworthy of his office. In such a case (as at present), non-resistance to the new decree would be an act of betrayal on the part of those who did not resist.

I actually agree with the late Michael Davies that a prior, disciplinary, papal decree does not bind a future pope. Regarding the decree of St Pope Pius V concerning the "in perpetuity" clause in his bull on the Mass, it was presumably taken for granted that Pope Pius V understood the limits of such a clause and that this clause did not prevent authentic, organic development , profitable for the Church, taking place in the future.
If that's how the Novus Ordo had been developed there'd be no promblems today. The fact that this development resulted in two distinct and opposing forms means that there are HUGE problems.

If the limits of the "in perpetuity" clause had been considered as they ought to have been considererd, there would be, to this day, one form of the Roman Rite. Thus we have two forms; one of which is the product of overstepping the limits of the binding decree of a successor od St. Peter.
Reading this latest “the Church according to Columba” spin can be as painful as watching you deconstruct Guadiaum et Spes with your caustic little meaningless sound bites. You knows not of which you speak, and this is a classic example.

Columba, you lead one to believe that you understand that the standard formal language of a “prior, disciplinary, papal decree does not bind a future pope” to that same decree should he wish to reform or abrogate the discipline or law in question, and that such declarations shall remain in force indefinitely (e.g., "perpetuo validas", the words of Clement XIV in Dominus ac Redemptor) until subsequently modified by another sovereign Pontiff for the good of the Church.

But notice the spin zone we enter when you say:

The using of the term "in perpetuity" would lead one to believe that at that particular time in history it was the informed opinion of the pope that there would never be a time in the future where his decree could be overturned without serious resulting, consequences for the faithful and the Church at large.
Actually, “the term ‘in perpetuity’" would NOT lead any right-thinking Catholic (those informed of its true meaning) to believe that it means “that there would never be a time in the future where his decree could be overturned without serious resulting, consequences for the faithful and the Church at large”, as if a future pope who overturned or reformed an existing decree for the good of the Church (as if there is any other motive) is acting in opposition to his predecessor(s) who believed that at no time in the future could his decree be overturned or reformed without negative consequences for the Church.

The Columba spin goes like this:

The fact that Pope Clement XIV abolished the Jesuits and intended it to remain that way (I take it he used the term "in perpetuity") further goes to show that the ignoring of such a decree -even by a subsequent pope- has negative repercussions on the Church and its members.
In other words, “Pope Clement XIV abolished the Jesuits and intended it to remain that way” because he knew that, for the good of the Church, those pesky and troublesome Jesuits should remain suppressed forever, and that any subsequent Pope, such as the very next Pope, Pius VII, who dared to reinstate the Order (which he did), would bring only negative repercussions upon the Church; I mean, just look at what happened to the Jesuits in the 20th century, and just look at the system of grace the 16th century Jesuit, Luis de Molina, let loose upon the Church!

In the imaginary world of Columba, Pope Clement XIV is saying to his immediate (and to all of his) successors, “See, I told you so”!

Columba wrote:

To maintain that a reigning pope acting against the implied wish of a predecessor must always be acting out of some perceived benefit for the Church rather than conceding to presure brought to bear from her enimies, is disputable to say the least.
Notice the assumption being made -- that Pope Clement XIV, in suppressing the Jesuits, could not have been “acting against the implied wish of a predecessor” and that he was in no way “conceding to pressure brought to bear from her enemies”, for the wisdom and prudence of Pope Clement XIV was absolutely beyond reproach, while any successor to the Chair who reinstated the Jesuits would bring only negative consequences upon the Church, and thus, any subsequent reinstatement made for the benefit of the Church “is disputable to say the least”.

What is “disputable” is your entire premise about Clement XIV, as if he was immune from those same pressures brought to bear from her enemies. History serves as a rebuke to your discredited "theory" and, in his historical novel “A Danger to the State”, Philip Trower places this most unfortunate affair into historical perspective:

In 1773, surrendering at last to a 20 year long campaign of intrigue and calumny, Pope Clement XIV suppressed the famous Society of Jesus, founded 200 years earlier by St. Ignatius of Loyola. Just sixteen years before the French Revolution, Europe's Catholic kings, threatening to take their countries into schism, pressured Pope Clement into destroying the strongest bulwark and the Church's most successful band of missionaries.

What lay behind this apparent act of madness? There was no popular opposition to the Jesuits, and the Kings were mainly dupes. The driving force came from the writers and thinkers of the French Enlightenment, agnostics and atheists that included a number of Europe's leading statesman among it's members. "Once we have destroyed the Jesuits", wrote Voltaire, "we should have easy work with the Church."
Paving the way for the French Revolution, these “agnostics and atheists” hated the Jesuits with a passion. Columba forgets that the Jesuits were loyal and able defenders of the Papacy and the Faith. In fact, they were everything that columba finds lacking in many of our present day ecclesiastics – they were tough as nails, courageous, brilliant, militant, and filled with a missionary zeal. They were men. They made enemies all right, and those enemies had their way, causing untold harm to the Jesuits and to their missions, such as the Reductions in Paraguay which were left in shambles after the suppression.

Our sovergin Pontiffs are human, and, while always acting in the best interests of the Church, they can be misled, they can act imprudently and it may take years before well-needed corrections are made to their well-intentioned reform efforts. But to stand up and suggest that “Peter”, in his universal acts of Papal Primacy may not be acting as Peter or may in fact be acting against the will of God (as you and Fr. Rodriguez suggest), is to become one’s own private Magisterium.

Anathema sit!

I haven’t responded to your alleged responses to my challenge for you to produce one single error against the faith in Guadium et Spes because your “philosophical” rants are nothing more than bloviating “opinions” on matters where you demonstrate only how thoroughly confused you really are. I ask for a specific example, I get hot air, contradictions and logical fallacies. You set out to prove that you know the difference between doctrine and discipline, and then prove by example that you haven't the foggiest.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  Jehanne on Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:28 pm

Mike,

I think that the issue is not "Can a Pope revise the Roman Missal or any other Missal for that matter?" (answer, "he can"); rather, the question is, "Can a Pope abrogate (that is, suppress, "outlaw", etc.) a Missal that was promulgated by one of his predecessors?" I would answer that question "in the negative"; hence, the 1962 (or before) Roman Missal will forever and always (at least until our Lord Jesus Christ comes again in Glory) remain valid and licit. Priests may celebrate such Masses and the faithful may assist at them. However, I think that everyone would agree that a previous Roman Rite, once priests have stopped celebrating, is "consigned to history," and therefore, it would be inappropriate to try to "resurrect" a Missal that was used centuries ago.

As for me, I am fine with the Missal of 1962 (i.e., the "Mass of Pope John XIII"), although, I prefer that the priest celebrating such Masses include some of the "pre-1962" rubrics that were removed from the Mass of Saint Pope Pius X.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  George Brenner on Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:45 pm


Mike said: Our soverign Pontiffs are human, and, while always acting in the best interests of the Church, they can be misled, they can act imprudently and it may take years before well-needed corrections are made to their well-intentioned reform efforts.

Very close to being he best brief sentence of describing he Crisis of Faith that I have read with one slight correction.

" Our Soverign Pontiffs are human" Yes they are and even though they bring their lives history of influence and knowledge to the Papacy, the help and intercession of the Holy Ghost has a supernatural relationship with the Pope unlike that of any other person on earth.

"...while always acting in the best interests of the Church" Not true and would be better said that Our Holy Fathers always acts in what they believe to be the best interests of the Church and as you confirm by saying "that they can act imprudently"

"They can be misled" Yes they can and are, but it is out of love or too much trust and yet find at times themselves being betrayed like Judas did with Jesus. Who could fault a Pope for this?

"and it may take years before well needed corrections are made to their well intentioned reform efforts" Bingo, well said but I would add decades instead of years.


Those on this forum that misspeak or show at times misplaced or mis worded frustration still intensely love their Catholic faith. Mike there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that you show and display the continuity of Peter in good times and in bad , in calm seas and turbulent seas. I do not know if we agree on just how much damage has been done to Our Catholic Faith by those who you say "mislead" and hurt Our Pope and our Faith and wish to destroy the very core of orthodoxy in clear teaching , reverence and discipline. I would implore you Mike to now give guidance and suggestions on how to be part of the solution to this crisis. I have many specific ideas but will leave it at this for now.


JMJ

Your friend,


George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  columba on Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:58 pm

Mike,

I must admit that yes, the post you responded to is full of my opinions. Likewise, your reply is crammed to the neck with your opinions. Don't get me wrong; I like reading your opinions but you really shouldn't object to others having theirs.
The humorous part of your reply (which you are oblivious to) was when you used the word "bloviating." Talk about the kettle calling the frying pan etc etc..

You take issue with my "opinion" that a pope may not always have the good of the Church at heart when overturning the decrees of a predecessor; then you go on to prove (from the real-life consequences) that Pope Clement XIV -at that time and in that particular instance- acted contrary to the good of the Church when issuing a decree against the Jesuits. Thus, you prove my opinion correct, that a pope may not always act in accord with right reason when either issuing or overturning a decree.
(If you are going to use examples, at least use ones which support your opinions).


It was Mark who brought up the example of the Jesuits.. My original concern was that of the overturning of the decree of St. Pope Pius V. I based my opinion (that a pope is capable of acting against the good of the Church) on observable reality. (Although I have my opinions I do base them on evidence that agrees with them).
The overturning of the Bull of St. Pope Pius V has had disastrous consequences for the Church;.. opinion based on eveidence or not?

Mike, I know you are ever-so theologically briliant and light years above most of us dodo's who post here; but despite this handicap there is still hope that by combining theology with actual reality, you will be able to see those things which are normally reserved only for the simple-minded.

I do intend to get back to Gaudium et Spes. I was temporarilly side-tracked by the current discussion and I want to begin reading James Larson's book tonight, but please don't take my initial lack of response as an avoidance tactic. Smile






avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  tornpage on Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:47 pm

Jehanne,

Here’s the rest of the Davies’ article I quoted from:


Although Pope Paul VI had the strict legal right to revise the Roman Missal, it does not follow that he was right to break with the practice of all his predecessors of never introducing any drastic change in the rite of Mass. This has been the unbroken tradition of all the churches (including the Orthodox) that can trace their origins back to the Apostles. The sixteenth-century Protestant Reformers were the first to break with this tradition and introduce radical liturgical reforms - with the objective, of course, of bringing their public worship into line with their heretical beliefs.

Msgr. Klaus Gamber, in his book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background, raises the question of whether Pope Paul VI exceeded his authority in abolishing the traditional rite and replacing it with a new one, as opposed to simply revising the existing Missal, which is all that the Second Vatican Council mandated. But before discussing whether Pope Paul VI misused his authority in promulgating a new Missal, let us examine the legal status of the Tridentine Mass following that promulgation.

The Legal Status of Quo Primum

Did the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of April 3, 1969, make the use of the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V illegal without a papal indult such as the one obtained by Cardinal Heenan in 1971 permitting the continued use of that Missal England and Wales? (The New Order of Mass {Novus Ordo Missae} was not actually promulgated by Missale Romanum but three days later on April 6, by a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. There are three ways in which legislation, including liturgical legislation, can cease to apply:

1. It can be abrogated; that is, abolished completely. If a law is abrogated the new legislation must state this specifically and clearly. There is not one word in Missale Romanum or the decree of promulgation abrogating either Quo Primum or the Missal of St. Pius V.

2. It can be derogated. This means that the legislation still remains in force but has been modified in some way. This would mean at the very least that the prohibition against the use of any Missal but that of St. Pius V could not be said to apply to the Missal of Pope Paul VI. It has been argued by the French canonist, Fr. Raymond Dulac, that whatever the extent to which Quo Primum has been derogated, the perpetual privilege permitting every priest to use the Missal of St. Pius V is still valid.

3. It can be obrogated. Obrogation occurs when new legislation by the authorized legislator is evidently intended to replace the existing law, even though it contains no specific words of abrogation. A strong case can be made that the new legislation of Pope Paul VI obrogated Quo Primum, and this could even include the perpetual privilege.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that this is indeed what happened, and then examine the consequences. Would it mean that priests should celebrate the Traditional Mass only under the terms of the current Vatican legislation? By no means.

Customs and Uses

The Bull Quo Primum was the first written legislation in the Roman Rite governing the celebration of Mass. Until 1570 the celebration of Mass was governed by what is known as customary law, ex consuetudine. The method of celebrating Mass in a particular country, district, or even city was protected or regulated by "immemorial custom." There was no rigid uniformity in the Roman Rite apart from the use of the Roman Canon, and clear differences occurred in many places. The way Mass was celebrated either in Rome, Lyons or Salisbury was evidently different, but not different enough to constitute distinct rites of Mass, as is the case with the Ambrosian Rite in Milan or the Mozarabic Rite in Toledo.

The correct name to be given these variations is "use." Thus in England and Wales there were the Uses of Salisbury, Hereford, York and Bangor. Some religious orders such a; the Dominicans had the their own variations of the Roman Missal.

Respect for established customs and traditions has always been a primary characteristic of what Dietrich von Hildebrand termed the sensus catholicus, which might best be translated as "the Catholic instinct." The true Catholic attitude was well expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas when he quoted the dictum: "It is absurd and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed that we have received from the fathers of old" (Summa Theologica. I-II , Q.96, Art.4). St. Pius V manifested an authentic Catholic respect for tradition in Quo Primum, allowing missals which had been used continuously for a period of 200 or more years to be retained.

The Missal of Si. Pius V did no more than codify the rite of Mass that had been in use in Rome for centuries with very little change. The ordinary of the Mass in the first printed edition of the Roman Missal in 1474 is identical to that found in the Missal of 1570. As with all the other missals in use throughout the Roman Rite, the Roman Missal had been regulated by customary law until the written legislation of Quo Primum, and it certainly constituted an immemorial custom.

This raises the interesting question as to the status of an immemorial custom that becomes regulated by written law. It is the consensus of canonists that if an immemorial custom becomes regulated by written law, the latter does not take the place of custom but is added to it in such a way that the subject matter becomes controlled both by the preceding customary law and by the subsequent written law, but with no abrogation of the customary law which still continues to regulate the matter in question. Thus, at least until 1969, every priest of the Roman Rite was entitled to use the Missal of St. Pius V for two reasons: (1) because it constituted an immemorial custom; (2) in virtue of the perpetual indult contained in the Bull.

This raises a further question as to the status of an immemorial custom if the written law that had come to regulate it should lapse, which is the situation of the traditional Mass if Quo Primum has indeed been obrogated. It is our view that it would revert to its original status of an immemorial custom, and be protected by customary unless the legislator abrogated it by specific mention. Neither Pope Paul VI nor Pope John Paul II has made any such specific mention. We conclude that at least by virtue of established custom all celebrants should be free to use the Missal of St. Pius V, and all the faithful lo take pan in it.

On October 28, 1974, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship issued a notice signed by Cardinal Knox and Archbishop Bugnini denying that the Tridentine Mass could be celebrated under "any pretext of custom, even immemorial custom." But if a customary right exists, it continues to exist even in the face of a gratuitous denial of its existence by a Roman Congregation. This must be seen as a deliberate attempt to deceive the faithful on the part of Archbishop Bugnini, as must his denial that Protestant observers took an active part in the composition of the New Mass.

Justice and Church Law

This brings us to a final question. Would the right to celebrate the traditional Mass deriving from immemorial custom definitely be lost if a pope should abrogate it specifically? A very good case can be made for saying that it would not, based on the extent to which such an act would be unjust. Every ruler, the pope included - one might say especially the pope, is bound to rule justly. Justice is the cardinal virtue which prompts us to give each man his right or due. When a ruler does not legislate justly, his subjects are not bound to obey as the binding force of a law depends upon its justice. The consensus of Catholic theologians and canonists is that a law is unjust if:

1. it is not conducive to the public good

2. it is too burdensome for those subject to it, which means that it is impossible to carry out, or is too difficult or distressing.

All the objective evidence makes it clear that the post-Vatican II liturgical reform has not been conducive to the public good. The pastoral benefits that were supposed to flow from it have failed to appear. This is stated unequivocally by Msgr. Gamber: "The pastoral benefits that so many idealists had hoped the new liturgy would bring did not materialize. Our churches emptied in spite of the new liturgy (or because of it?), and the faithful continue to fall away from the Church in droves." And again: "In the end, we will all have to recognize that the new liturgical forms, well-intentioned as they may have been at the beginning, did not provide the people with bread, but with stones."

It can hardly be claimed that enforcing changes that constitute the pastoral equivalent of providing stones in place of bread is conducive to the public good. The subjects for whom the law has been enacted have every right to resist it for this reason alone. Countless faithful Catholics who would normally be the last to question any decision of the Sovereign Pontiff most certainly find the new liturgy not simply distressing and difficult but impossible to accept, and it is consequently unjust.

Canon 214 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states that the faithful have a right to worship according to the prescriptions of their own rite. Many of the faithful of the Roman Rite find it impossible to recognize what takes place in their parish churches each Sunday as their own rite. Cardinal Ratzinger has remarked: "Today we might ask: is there a Latin Rite any more? Certainly there is no awareness of it. To most people the liturgy appears to be something for the individual congregation to arrange."

The Cardinal's observation that the traditional Latin (or Roman) rite no longer exists does no more than confirm the brutally frank acceptance of this fact in 1976 by Fr. Joseph Gelineau, one of the most influential members of the commission which composed the new Mass:

The Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed." Msgr. Gamber testifies to the destruction of the Roman Rite several times in his book: "The real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman rite with a history of more than one thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was based, a faith that had been the source of our piety and our courage to bear witness to Christ and his Church, the inspiration of countless Catholics over many centuries.

Did this constitute just treatment of his subjects by Pope Paul VI, who was not simply their ruler but their shepherd? What would one say of a shepherd who drove his flock away from lush green pastures where sheep had fed in peace and flourished for a thousand years to the barren rocky slopes of hills where wolves lurked?

The New Mass and the Council

Msgr. Gamber also insists in his book that the abolition of the traditional Order of Mass by what constitutes a New Order, a Novus Ordo Missae, is a flagrant contravention of what the Liturgy Constitution of the Council actually ordered:

Unfortunately, and in summary, the Council's urging in Article 23 that "there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them" has been widely ignored... Although the argument is used over and over again by the people responsible for creating the new Mass, they cannot claim that what they have done is what the Council actually wanted. The instructions given by the Liturgy Commission were general in nature, and they opened up many possible ways for implementing what the Commission had stipulated, but one statement we can make with certainty is that the new Ordo of the Mass that has now emerged would not have been endorsed by the majority of the Council Fathers (emphasis added).

The stipulation of Article 23 of the Liturgy Constitution reflects very closely the principle laid down by St. Thomas Aquinas for changing any law: "Don't!" His explanation could have been based on witnessing the effects of the contemporary liturgical revolution:

Human law is rightly changed, in so far as such change is conducive to the common weal. But, to a certain extent, the mere change of law is of itself prejudicial to the common good: because custom avails seeing that what is done contrary to general custom, even in slight matters, is looked upon as grave. Consequently, when a law is changed the binding power of the law is diminished, in so far as custom is abolished. Wherefore human law should never be changed, unless, in some way or other the common weal be compensated according to the extent of the harm done in this respect. Such compensation may arise either from some very great and very evident benefit conferred by the new enactment; or from the extreme urgency of the case, due to the fact that either the existing law is clearly harmful. Wherefore the jurist says that "in establishing new laws. there should be evidence of the benefit to be derived before departing from a law which has long been considered just." (Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 97, Art. 2)

Every priest of the Roman Rite should, to quote Quo Primum, feel free to offer the traditional Mass "without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure." At least by virtue of established custom, all celebrants should be free to use the Missal of St. Pius V, and all the faithful to take part in it.

Paul VI could in fact “abrogate” the Pius V missal. We know he didn’t - Pope Benedict XVI told us so - but he had the power and authority.

And if he did it, it would be binding on us.

You can do what you want with Davies’ justice argument, which is not what we’re discussing, which is the “perpetuity” of Quo Primum.

Of course, as a supporter of Archbishop Lefebvre, I would be wary of the justice argument in the hands of someone like Davies - that’s a hole that eats the donut with those guys.

avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  tornpage on Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:49 pm

I was temporarilly side-tracked by the current discussion and I want to begin reading James Larson's book tonight, but please don't take my initial lack of response as an avoidance tactic.

Great, Columba. Be interesting to see what kind of reaction in moves you to.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  George Brenner on Sat Nov 17, 2012 8:46 am

Reply to Columba's post:

George Brenner wrote:
It should be obvious that under the Novus Ordo that there have been people born, died and are now Saints.


George,

I believe that to be true also.
There are many who have lived and died through the Novus Ordo regime with their faith still in tact; among them I would include my own parents and many of my older relatives. I believe there are still many who plod the minefield of post-conciliarism without denying doctrines of the faith and hold fast to their devotions and novenas despite the temptations to cave in to the now common ridicule associated with such practices. Unfortunately the young, having come through the present educatuion system and having been subject to pastors who themselves have lost the faith are much more vulnerable to losing (or not even gaining in the first place) the faith.

There are signs of hope however in that many of the younger generation (who never knew anything of the traditional Church) are miraculously discovering it for themselves even despite the incredulity of their post-modernist parents. It seems the young are beginning to lead the old. They are seeing and experiencing the spiritual bankruptcy of the current secilarized church and know intuitively that this can't be the real deal.

Yes, Columba. You are referring to the Crisis in the Church and lack of teaching the Faith. The faith that VII intended that we teach but did not. The faith that was passed on to us throughout the ages . The Faith that the VII Popes had hoped would be strengthened by the Council. But alas, Our faith was not safeguarded with reverence and discipline and the fungus and cancer spread. It spread far and wide and fed on itself that even those of good will were overcome. The Mass attendance went down, the Priest and nuns left the priesthood, the schools and parishes closed in increasing numbers and discipline was all but impossible because there were not enough priests to replace them with good priests so it was tolerated and naturally spiraled out of control. The smell of candles was replaced with the smell of money. The Bishops at the American Conference time this past week would have been much better off in spending their time in discussing the solution to the crisis but then again very few really have come to grips with it. What exactly is a year of Faith without a specific commitment to reverence, discipline and sanctity.


JMJ,

George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  MRyan on Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:40 pm

columba wrote:Mike,

I must admit that yes, the post you responded to is full of my opinions. Likewise, your reply is crammed to the neck with your opinions. Don't get me wrong; I like reading your opinions but you really shouldn't object to others having theirs.
I demonstrated that your “opinion” of “in perpetuity” is seriously flawed, and demonstrated why it is seriously flawed by using your own example. You have no response except to continue to demonstrate your confusion. The Church’s understanding of “in perpetuity” is not my “opinion”, it is the truth, and, unlike your “opinion”, I can back it up.

columba wrote:The humorous part of your reply (which you are oblivious to) was when you used the word "bloviating." Talk about the kettle calling the frying pan etc etc..
No, I am not “oblivious” to the fact that I can bloviate with the best of them, but I usually try to have something constructive to say (of course, you are free to disagree).

columba wrote:You take issue with my "opinion" that a pope may not always have the good of the Church at heart when overturning the decrees of a predecessor; then you go on to prove (from the real-life consequences) that always have the good of the Church at heart when overturning the decrees of a predecessor -at that time and in that particular instance- acted contrary to the good of the Church when issuing a decree against the Jesuits. Thus, you prove my opinion correct, that a pope may not always act in accord with right reason when either issuing or overturning a decree.
(If you are going to use examples, at least use ones which support your opinions).
This is what I mean about useless prattle … you just don’t get it, but you go on and on as if you do. You say that I take issue with your "opinion" that “a pope may not always have the good of the Church at heart when overturning the decrees of a predecessor”, and yet nothing you say subsequent to this demonstrates that this or that particular pope did not “have the good of the Church at heart when overturning the decrees of a predecessor”.

Never once did I suggest that Pope Clement XIV did NOT have the good of the Church at heart when he suppressed the Jesuits; and no, that history bears witness to the fact that political pressure and the threat of schism by the Bourbon Kings influenced the Pope’s decision does NOT mean that he acted against “right reason”, for he had every reason to believe he was making the right decision for the good of the Church. Neither does it follow that Pope Clement XIV acted contrary to the good of the Church when issuing his decree against the Jesuits “in the name of peace of the Church and to avoid a secession in Europe", for what’s good for the Church (in the subjective judgment of Clement XIV) may not be what’s good for the Jesuits (in the short term, and humanly speaking). Some additional perspective on the actions of Clement XIV (form New Advent):

An ever-recurring and almost solitary grievance against the Society was that the Fathers disturbed the peace wherever they were firmly established. The accusation is not unfounded: the Jesuits did indeed disturb the peace of the enemies of the Church, for, in the words of d’Alembert to Frederick II, they were "the grenadiers of the pope's guard".

At the death of Clement XIII the Church was in dire distress. Gallicanism and Jansenism, Febronianism and Rationalism were up in rebellion against the authority of the Roman pontiff; the rulers of France, Spain, Naples, Portugal, Parma were on the side of the sectarians who flattered their dynastic prejudices and, at least in appearance, worked for the strengthening of the temporal power against the spiritual. The new pope would have to face a coalition of moral and political forces which Clement XIII had indeed manfully resisted, but failed to put down, or even materially to check. The great question between Rome and the Bourbon princes was the suppression of the Society of Jesus. In France, Spain, and Portugal the suppression had taken place de facto; the accession of a new pope was made the occasion for insisting on the abolition of the order root and branch, de facto and de jure, in Europe and all over the world.

The one and only motive for the suppression of the Society set forth in this Brief is to restore the peace of the Church by removing one of the contending parties from the battlefield. No blame is laid by the pope on the rules of the order, or the personal conduct of its members, or the orthodoxy of their teaching. Moreover, Father Sydney Smith, S.J. (in "The Month", CII, 62, July 1903), observes: "The fact remains that the condemnation is not pronounced in the straightforward language of direct statement, but is merely insinuated with the aid of dexterous phrasing"; and he contrasts this method of stating grounds for the suppression of the Society with the vigorous and direct language used by former popes in suppressing the Humiliati and other orders. If Clement XIV hoped to stop the storm of unbelief raging against the Bark of Peter by throwing its best oarsmen overboard, he was sorely mistaken. But is unlikely that he entertained such a fallacy. He loved the Jesuits, who had been his first teachers, his trusty advisers, the best defenders of the Church over which he ruled.

No personal animosity guided his action; the Jesuits themselves, in agreement with all serious historians, attribute their suppression to Clement's weakness of character, unskilled diplomacy, and that kind of goodness of heart which is more bent on doing what is pleasing than what is right. He was not built to hold his head above the tempest; his hesitations and his struggles were of no avail against the enemies of the order, and his friends found no better excuse for him than that of St. Alphonsus: What could the poor pope do when all the Courts insisted on the suppression? The Jesuit Cordara expresses the same mind: "I think we should not condemn the pontiff who, after so many hesitations, has judged it his duty to suppress the Society of Jesus. I love my order as much as any man, yet, had I been in the pope's place I should probably have acted as he did. The Xompany, founded and maintained for the good of the Church, perished for the same good; it could not have ended more gloriously."

It should be noted that the Brief was not promulgated in the form customary for papal Constitutions intended as laws of the Church. It was not a Bull, but a Brief, i.e. a decree of less binding force and easier of revocation; it was not affixed to the gates of St. Peter's or in the Campo di Fiore; it was not even communicated in legal form to the Jesuits in Rome; the general and his assistants alone received the notification of their suppression….
In all such matters the pope alone determines what’s good for the Church, and if history suggests that he may have acted imprudently, that does NOT mean that he harmed the Church, even if it appears that an injustice has occurred; and even if the suppression had some negative repercussions, particularly where the Jesuits missions were flourishing (on a side note, in Prussia and Russia Catherine the Great had forbidden the papal decree to be executed). Our Lord allowed His Vicar to suppress the Jesuits for a reason (that a greater good might come of it), and 41 years later they came back stronger than ever, “as evidenced by the large number of Jesuit colleges and universities established in the 19th century. In the United States, 22 of the Society's 28 universities were founded or taken over by the Jesuits during this time.” (Wikpedia)

columba wrote:
It was Mark who brought up the example of the Jesuits.. My original concern was that of the overturning of the decree of St. Pope Pius V. I based my opinion (that a pope is capable of acting against the good of the Church) on observable reality. (Although I have my opinions I do base them on evidence that agrees with them).
The overturning of the Bull of St. Pope Pius V has had disastrous consequences for the Church;.. opinion based on eveidence or not?
Whether Mark brought it up or not is irrelevant, you ran with it, and ran in the wrong direction based on false assumptions. You do not get to sit in judgment of the sovereign Pontiff by suggesting that Pope Clement XIV did not “have the good of the Church at heart” or that his actions were “not in accord with right reason”. Neither do you get to sit in judgment of the Pope Paul VI or any of his successors by suggesting that the reform of the Liturgy that resulted in the new Order was against “the will of God”, that Supreme Pontiff did not “have the good of the Church at heart” or that his actions were “not in accord with right reason”.

The “observable reality” of a poorly planned implementation, an almost overnight suppression of the ancient rite, as well as egregious abuses do NOT mean that the reformed Mass “goes against [the] right reason” of the pope, or that it is in any way displeasing to God. You can criticize the implementation and the abuses all you want, but do not confuse imprudent actions with the intention [will] of the pope or his sovereign authority, or with the holiness of the Mass itself.

columba wrote:
Mike, I know you are ever-so theologically briliant and light years above most of us dodo's who post here; but despite this handicap there is still hope that by combining theology with actual reality, you will be able to see those things which are normally reserved only for the simple-minded.
It does not require “theological brilliance” (I’m far from it) to make proper distinctions and to think with the mind of the sovereign Pontiff, who will tell you what he’s thinking (for the good of the Church) if you will just listen.

columba wrote:
I do intend to get back to Gaudium et Spes. I was temporarilly side-tracked by the current discussion and I want to begin reading James Larson's book tonight, but please don't take my initial lack of response as an avoidance tactic. Smile
Yes, you made the accusation, and you have yet to demonstrate where in Gaudium et Spes can be found an “error on a matter of faith and morals”.

I don’t take your lack of a coherent response as an “avoidance tactic”, I take it for what it is, a refusal to acknowledge that you can’t produce the so-called error on a matter of faith or morals.

Some things never change.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  columba on Sat Nov 17, 2012 10:41 pm

MRyan wrote:
The Church’s understanding of “in perpetuity” is not my “opinion”, it is the truth, and, unlike your “opinion”, I can back it up.

We'll get to that in a minute.

MRyan wrote:
No, I am not “oblivious” to the fact that I can bloviate with the best of them, but I usually try to have something constructive to say (of course, you are free to disagree).

In fact I agree with you. You do have constructive things to say and your particular kind of opposition provides me a means of thoroughly testing my own opinions. Your own constructions also need testing and actually work quite well in theory, but when tested against reality.. Well.. That's where the cracks appear.
In fact, if you weren't such a hardline baptism of desire advocate I may not have probed as deeply into your other assertions and may well have missed the flaws there in.

MRyan wrote:
..yet nothing you say subsequent to this demonstrates that this or that particular pope did not “have the good of the Church at heart when overturning the decrees of a predecessor”.

I may have phrased that badly.
Subjectively the pope could be working with the best of intentions (like the well intentioned boy trying to extinguish the fire with gasoline) but objectively the results are the same; The intention doesn't prevent the consequences, proving the old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

MRyan wrote:
Neither does it follow that Pope Clement XIV acted contrary to the good of the Church when issuing his decree against the Jesuits “in the name of peace of the Church and to avoid a secession in Europe",

This may seem like nitpicking but the devil is in the detail.
History shows that Pope Clement XIV did not prevent war by his suppression of the Jesuits but merely postponed it for a couple of decades with the Church less one of her WMD's i.e, the Jesuits.
His actions may well be the reason why most of Europe is now under atheistic government. Intentionally or not, this was not for the good of the Church. My point being; contrary to your interpretaton of Vat I, a pope is not always bound to act in accordance with the good of the Church. If he is, and he doesn't, that creates a huge problem. (Brings us back on topic. Has Vat II and its calibre of popes and their teachings been good for the Church? If No, what does that mean for the Church? if Yes, how does one deal with observable reality)?

From New Advent:
It should be noted that the Brief was not promulgated in the form customary for papal Constitutions intended as laws of the Church. It was not a Bull, but a Brief, i.e. a decree of less binding force and easier of revocation; it was not affixed to the gates of St. Peter's or in the Campo di Fiore; it was not even communicated in legal form to the Jesuits in Rome; the general and his assistants alone received the notification of their suppression….

I asked Mark if there was another example of a decree issued "in perpetuity" that was subsequently overturned by a later pope. The example he provided was the one we are discussing. The quote you provided above makes this example irrelevant as it was issued with the means of its revocation already implied.

MRyan wrote:
In all such matters the pope alone determines what’s good for the Church, and if history suggests that he may have acted imprudently, that does NOT mean that he harmed the Church, even if it appears that an injustice has occurred; and even if the suppression had some negative repercussions,

Does a negative repercussion not equal harm to the Church?
Do you mean that a pope can never do harm to the Church and her members?
If then we find that harm has been done to the Church by a particular pope and it's an infalible certainty that a pope cannot harm the Church, we must conclude that the harm done was perpetrated by one who was not a true pope? If this conclusion is false can you show me how?

Our Lord allowed His Vicar to suppress the Jesuits for a reason (that a greater good might come of it), and 41 years later they came back stronger than ever, “as evidenced by the large number of Jesuit colleges and universities established in the 19th century. In the United States, 22 of the Society's 28 universities were founded or taken over by the Jesuits during this time.”


Mike this is pure speculation.
How do you know that there would not have been double or triple the amount of Jesuit colleges if they hadn't been suppressed? The fact that the Jesuits later in the 20th century took a turn for the worse could equally be a consequence of their initial supprssion by a pope not acting in accord with the will of God. Who Knows?

MRyan wrote:
The “observable reality” of a poorly planned implementation, an almost overnight suppression of the ancient rite, as well as egregious abuses do NOT mean that the reformed Mass “goes against [the] right reason” of the pope, or that it is in any way displeasing to God. You can criticize the implementation and the abuses all you want, but do not confuse imprudent actions with the intention [will] of the pope or his sovereign authority, or with the holiness of the Mass itself.

Mike the Mass was not reformed. If it was reformed it would have had to be reformed from something that already existed. It could not have been formed from the Mass of Pope Pius V because that Mass would not now exist if it that were so. Therefore, it did not organically evolve from anything that was currently existing in the Church. You recently stated that Cardinal Ratzinger's criticism of the Novus Ordo Missae was taken out of context. I think you are clutching at straws with that assertion. Regardless of the abuses a problem exists even without them.

MRyan wrote:
It does not require “theological brilliance” (I’m far from it) to make proper distinctions and to think with the mind of the sovereign Pontiff, who will tell you what he’s thinking (for the good of the Church) if you will just listen.

If that were the case and the sovereign Pontiff was telling me what he was thinking I'd be a relieved Catholic. He says things that require interpretation beyond the abilities of most. Simple statements of faith by the pope could well settle all the Church's problems, including those of the SSPX and probably 90% of the sedevacantists. Sadly, in order to do so it would require giving grave offense to the modernists/liberals and not forgetting the Jews as well. If he is acting from fear of the Jews rather than fear of the Lord, he's bringing the Church back to pre-pentecost times. Could be why we've heard much talk about Vat II heralding a "New Pentecost" for the Church. The first Pentecost was led by the Pope. Best get their skates on.

The only other theory one could entertain is that the Pope believes that the SSPX and the sede's are A OK and their congregations getting well fed. He's concentrating on the modernists who are now the majority in the Church and destined for a hot eternity if he fails to convert them.
The problem with this theory is, the SSPX and the sede's are being excommuicated in the case of the former, and self excommunicating in the case of the latter.

Yes, you made the accusation, and you have yet to demonstrate where in Gaudium et Spes can be found an “error on a matter of faith and morals”.

I don’t take your lack of a coherent response as an “avoidance tactic”, I take it for what it is, a refusal to acknowledge that you can’t produce the so-called error on a matter of faith or morals.

Some things never change.

We shall see.
I'll consider this venture through Gaudium et Spes as a penance.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  MRyan on Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:10 pm

Columba,

You remain very confused about the immutable concept of “cannot give harm” as it is properly understood, for you are using it in a false sense when you attempt to demonstrate its failure when applied to reformable disciplines and to the reformable contingent elements that often form a part of doctrinal explications.

I know for a fact, columba, that you cannot identify an “error” against the faith in Guadium et Spes, but can only point to perceived inconsistencies with previous magisterial teachings.

Please read carefully the following extract taken from Opuscula’s “On Rupture Theology” (note, all but one footnote removed, see the enclosed link to read the full article):

http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html#_ftnref29

Monday, May 18, 2009
On Rupture Theology


The Prudential Order

Prudence is the habit of intellectual discernment regarding what should be done or left undone. The prudential order, therefore, involves practical reason or the application of reason to action. While speculative reason deals with universals and principles of a general order, practical reason, on the other hand, deals with the particular order or the application of general principles to individual cases. How do we identify magisterial acts that involve aspects belonging to the prudential order? Cardinal Journet provides a general description as follows:

Thus then, God has not left us without guidance in the immense accumulation of ideas bearing on the speculative life, on private, economic and political morality, on artistic activity, in the spheres into which the full light of revelation has not yet descended and in which nevertheless convictions are formed, syntheses elaborated and decisive choices taken which may either open or obstruct the road to the fullness of the faith. He helps us through His Church to whom He entrusts a new mission, no longer that of irrevocably defining the data of the faith, but that of prudentially marking the truths which point towards the things of faith or the errors that turn men away from it, that of ratifying or rejecting certain suggestions of the theologians and the philosophers and certain beliefs of popular piety. In this sphere the Church acts no longer in virtue of her declaratory power, as a simple messenger or mandatory for utterances of divine origin. She acts now in virtue of her canonical power, as promulgator of what can fittingly be taught and believed if the minds of the faithful are to be kept from the dangers that threaten their faith.
We can think here of various teachings that form part of the social doctrine of the Church. The social teachings will often involve prudential aspects where the weight of a given teaching may vary to the extent that it teaches principles of a general order or whether it addresses matters that relate to the particular order (i.e., the prudential application of general principles to particular circumstances). Doctrines of a general order will carry more weight and demand a higher degree of assent to the extent that it is “independent from contingent and variable elements”. In the area of liturgical discipline there are also many pastoral decisions that involve prudential judgement. We can consider here, for example, questions regarding liturgical orientation, the manner of distributing Holy Communion or the use of female altar servers. Many of these questions involve prudential judgement including the possibility of errors that lead to unintended results or harmful effects related to the spiritual life and the salvation of souls. Other examples involving the prudential order could include the practical guidelines for initiatives such as ecumenism or interreligious dialogue. The prudential judgement in such cases involves weighing the desired good effects against unintended yet possible harmful effects (e.g., scandal, indifferentism, etc.). Yet even such examples of pastoral and prudential error should not be confused with the teaching of heresy or defection from faith or morals, per se.

Therefore, some magisterial acts while resting on immutable principles or linked to infallible truths of faith yet commingled with certain “contingent” or “conjectural” elements may be subject to review and are “reformable” in light of changed circumstances or even subsequent correction on account of new research or some other prudential error. The CDF explains as follows:

Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent...When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question.

Therefore, it is important to distinguish these various aspects when considering Vatican II and its subsequent reforms. While we should never entertain the thought that the Magisterium, as such, has taught heresy, it is possible to consider deficiencies within doctrines of the third degree that involve matters related to the prudential order. The CDF instruction continues: “…some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress.”

In addition to the possibility of prudential error, one has to consider non-definitive and reformable magisterial teaching in light of a contingent order that is subject to changing circumstances. Pope Benedict XVI highlighted this aspect in his famous address to the Roman Curia on the “Hermeneutic of Reform” in continuity with Tradition:

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters…should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within. On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change…Basic decisions, therefore,continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change.

Doctrines of the third degree are reformable to the extent that they relate to the contingent order or to particulars related to a given time and place framework. This necessarily involves the use of practical reason (prudential order) that is not immune to error in every instance. Therefore, there is an inverse relationship between the immutable truth of a doctrine and the degree that practical reason is employed. In other words, if a given doctrine is free from contingent and variable aspects then it does not involve practical reason or the prudential order. In such cases we can be virtually certain that the doctrine expresses immutable truth.

In light of this we may now explore the question of dissent from teachings of the Magisterium. While serious reservations or doubt may prevent one from giving assent in the internal forum, there is no so-called right to openly dissent from the Magisterium in the external forum. Neither does the rupture theologian have a legitimate appeal to “conscience” as a pretext to dissent from Church teaching because Catholics are obliged to form their conscience in conformity with the Magisterium. Opposed to the example of rupture theologians we may contrast the example of Archbishop Lefebvre at the time of the close of the Second Vatican Council. After having argued against various aspects of some hotly-debated schemas that were put to vote by the Council Fathers, it was upon the dictates of his duly formed conscience that Archbishop Lefebvre felt morally obliged to sign each of the 16 Vatican II documents.

Tradition and Doctrinal Development
Characteristics that divide “progressive” and “reactionary” rupture theologians can also be noted in their understanding and approach to sacred Tradition and the development of doctrine. The former tendency seeks “progress” by creating artificial novelties that more or less deliberately and explicitly reject the past (i.e., sacred Tradition and doctrinal development admit substantial change according to this view). In this sense, progressive rupture theologians “need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries…”

The tendency for reactionary rupture theologians, on the other hand, is to seek a past state while rejecting a present state that has not been recognized or appreciated as an organic development of the same substantial reality. Tradition, according to this view, is understood in a limited or narrow sense that corresponds to an “inert” conception of the deposit of faith rather than a living and organic deposit.[29] Therefore, the risk inherent in this view is to confuse accidental change with substantial change.

[29] Cardinal Journet puts it as follows: “The handing on of the deposit involves its explanation. For there are two kinds of deposits, lifeless deposits, such as a gold ingot, which is kept just as it is, and living deposits, such as a plant, or a child, which are preserved by being allowed to grow. The evangelical deposit is of this kind” (Cf. Journet, What is Dogma?, Hawthorn, 1964, p. 53). Congar develops other aspects of the question as follows: “The conservative reflex is also shared at times by the most careful and best-informed men in history. Dedicated to the study of documents, they are apt to refuse to recognize the existence of definite ideas, albeit subconscious and unexpressed, beyond the explicit statement of a document. Since the advent of the historical and documentary sciences, that is, since the sixteenth century, there have been periodic protests against innovation, protests made in the name of textual authority, and against “living tradition”, in the name of the monuments of tradition. It is no coincidence that the expression “living tradition” was first used during the Jansenist debate. The Jansenists were followers of the sacred Text, men of the past and of the literal words of St. Augustine, who, according to them, condemned the practice of the time. Their conception of tradition was documentary, historical and static.” (Cf. Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, Ignatius, 2004, p. 118)

Each variety of rupture theology, therefore, carries its own risks and dangers. The progressive, for example, will seek progress by cutting down and uprooting the oak tree in order to pave the way for new designs and the man-made structures of the future. The reactionary, on the other hand, not recognizing the oak tree for what it really is, will cut it down and uproot it while searching for the acorn of the past. In either case the result is practically the same insofar as each will “sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.”

Conclusion

In order to avoid the pitfalls of the theology of rupture one must retain simultaneously the Catholic doctrine on both Papal Infallibility and Indefectibility that rests on Peter’s unfailing faith. In addition, one must strive to maintain a “hermeneutic of continuity” where magisterial documents are understood within the full context of sacred Tradition and according to the mind of the Church guided by the living magisterium. In some cases one may find apparent discontinuities that are reconciled only by giving due consideration to contingent aspect as well as those aspects that relate to the prudential order. Some of the Vatican II documents, such as Dignitatis Humanae on Religious Freedom, for example, require a careful consideration of contingent and historical aspects. These resulted, for example, in some immutable principles being especially highlighted or newly applied in light of modern history and circumstances. Other Vatican II documents have either a pastoral goal or attempt to position the Church anew in her relations with society and other religions based on considerations of the requirements of circumstances in the modern era. While resting on immutable principles that remain sound, many aspects relate to the contingent and practical prudential orders. In this respect, and certainly without taking extremely rigid or “one-sided positions”, Catholics in good standing ought to be free to discuss in charity the prudential aspects of a question and the degree to which certain reforms, pastoral initiatives and disciplinary practices remain capable of meeting their stated goals for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls. This involves staying far away from rupture theology or the “hermeneutic of discontinuity” and pursuing a “hermeneutic of reform” in various areas that are in real need of reform.


avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2257
Reputation : 2429
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  tornpage on Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:33 am

Mike,

Love that opuscula blog - thanks for that link.

Here's a good piece from one of the posts:

ROMAN LOGIC

MAJOR PREMISE: The teaching authority or Magisterium of the Church enjoys the "certain charism of truth" in matters of faith. All authentic acts of the Magisterium enjoy the divine assistance necessary for the indefectible transmission of the Faith. The doctrine proposed by the authentic Magisterium is binding on the faithful to the degree that it demands our assent.

MINOR PREMISE: The documents of Vatican II promulgated by the Pope are authentic acts of the Magisterium.

CONCLUSION: The teachings of the Second Vatican Council demand an appropriate level of assent by the faithful and are guaranteed to be free from doctrinal errors against the faith.

http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2012/02/tale-of-two-syllogisms.html
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  columba on Tue Nov 20, 2012 3:49 pm

MRyan wrote:
Columba,

You remain very confused about the immutable concept of “cannot give harm” as it is properly understood, for you are using it in a false sense when you attempt to demonstrate its failure when applied to reformable disciplines and to the reformable contingent elements that often form a part of doctrinal explications.

Mike,

If there is a certain amount of confusion concerning what is, and what is not reformable, the blame doesn't lie solely with the confused party.
When it's the case that those matters which were once believed to be irreformable and promulgated in such a way by the Church so as to rule out in the mind of the listener any idea that such statements should be considered relative to a particular time in history only, and later (for expediency sake) are then to be considered changeable, confusion is bound to arise. When even indisputably dogmatic statements are found to fall into that category of " reformable teachings," the reasons (if any) for reforming those lesser-weighted teachings, become themselves all the more suspect of religious or political expediency.

Even granting that some of those teachings are in fact reformable (and I agree that such exist), there must still be an obvious reason pertaining to the good of the Church for so reforming them. Thus far, those decrees issued "in perpetuity" which have since been "reformed" have proved to be to the detriment of the faith and morality of ALL the Church's members both High and low.

We, (you and I) are in agreement that the Church in her disciplines and sacraments cannot provide that which is harmful to her members. This is what's really under dispute and where you and I heve reached different conclusions. Your conclusion is based upon the above mentioned premise, and likewise mine. You conclude that even despite the evidence (and I'll even go so far as to say even if it meant you accepting a new religion) you would still domatically hold to your conclusion and, this dogma of yours would trump any other dogmatically declared teaching of the Church.
You would be inclined to do this rather than at some point calling into question the authority that not only permits this but impliments it.

I, while still holding the above premise as true (and judging by the irrefutable evidence), that the damage being perpetrated on the Church because of these reforms cannot be inflicted by the same indefectible Church; the damage must be the result of another entity which is not the Church. While the Pope himself remains in favor of these damaging reforms and expects from them a "new Pentecost," a "new evangelization" or a "new springtime," he must be held at least suspect of treason while the damage continues uninteruputed.

In 2006, Pope Benedict XVI met with leaders of various ecclesial movements. He clearly has noticed new outpourings of the Holy Spirit and the tremendous fruit they are bearing. In the above-mentioned speeches, compiled in New Outpourings of The Spirit, he points out that the Holy Spirit is “at it again” when he says: “For me personally it was a marvelous event when at the beginning of the ’70s I first came into close contact with the movements like the Neo-Catechumens, Communione e Liberazione and the Focolarini and thus experienced the enthusiasm and verve with which they lived out their faith, what had been vouchsafed to them … Suddenly here was something nobody had planned on. The Holy Spirit had, so to say, spoken up for himself again ... In young people especially, the faith was surging up in its entirety, with no ifs and buts, with no excuses or way out, experienced as a favor and as a precious life-giving gift.” (Source: Today's Catholic)

A little research into the groups mentioned by Pope Benedict where he see's the "Holy Spirit is at it again" is quite dishearting to say the least.

From their own website:
The Focolare Movement is an international movement, inspired by the gospel, working for unity in all spheres of life.
For over sixty years it has drawn together people of all Christian traditions and from many of the world's religions, alongside people with no formal faith, who share the aim of building a united world.

Their videos are even more revealing.


The Neocatechumens

The Neocatechumenals typically celebrate the Mass in the form of a banquet, around a large square table, taking communion seated. Moreover, together with the homily, they give a great deal of latitude for the spontaneous comments of those present.
At least, this is what they did until a short time ago. And as, in part, they continue to do.
On December 1, 2005, Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the congregation for divine worship, sent them a letter, in the name of the pope, to call them back to faithful observance of the liturgical regulations. And the following January 12, Benedict XVI in person urged them to obey. But in practice, this twofold reminder fell on deaf ears almost everywhere.

As for the 'Communione e Liberazione,' They are so secretive it's hard to find out much about them.

If the Pope had included those many groups (even among the younger generation) who are regaining and spreading the faith through revival of the traditional faith there would have been at least something to inspire hope in a new springtime; but No; not a word about them.

avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  George Brenner on Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:01 pm

Columba,

I think that we would be shocked to know the details of the fight behind the scene to repair the great Crisis of faith. If you are in agreement let us begin to share the specifics of how we can be soldiers for the Church militant and be part of the cure. Our Holy Father suffers much and is doing more than we might ever know, He needs our prayers, loyalty and support in the fight.

JMJ,


George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum