Torkay, one of our American bloggers, has been on the mailing list of a new group calling itself RealCatholicTV.com. RCTV puts out internet videos exposing various points of clerical corruption, usually connected with the American bishops’ conference, the USCCB. A couple of weeks ago, RCTV did a week-long series about “progressives,” defining them and detailing the dangers they present to the Church. They were excellent – as RCTV’s productions usually are – but Torkay noticed a strange omission. Nowhere did these videos mention the role of “progressives” at Vatican II and afterward, including their masterminding and implementing of the radical changes in liturgy, theology and discipline that have so poisoned the Church ever since.
Torkay wrote in to express his concerns, and so began a brief but intense (and ultimately futile) discussion between himself and an official of RCTV, who shall remain nameless. In the thread below this one, you can read Part 1 of the conversation. This thread contains some additional excerpts from their exchange, in Part 2 of 2…
TORKAY: “Union between the SSPX and Rome have been and continue to be imperfect.” I believe the word Rome uses is “irregular,” and yes, I think this is a demonstration of the advanced nature of this crisis, the advanced state of penetration of the “smoke of Satan,” and the advanced nature of the “diabolical disorientation” within the hierarchy. That is, here we have a Catholic society whose position is unwavering fidelity to Tradition, but not in full union with Rome, who is the guardian of that Tradition, but who seems to have fallen victim to some very clever and unprecedented novelties since Vatican II. Only the enemy could think this one up. (Well, the novelties aren’t really unprecedented: many pre-Vatican II Popes warned us about them.)
“Not unlike what could be said about most Protestant denominations.” Actually, not an apt comparison, since the Protestants ARE in formal schism. They reject the authority of the Pope, of the Magisterium. The Orthodox Churches are also in schism: again, not an apt comparison (oops, I just noticed the end of your note, where you do state that they are in formal schism. Sorry.). Now, I hear you say, “But the SSPX also rejects the authority of the Pope!” Which leads me to ask: the SSPX, i.e. Abp. Lefebvre, disobeyed the Pope once. Yet everyone acts as though this disobedience is a permanent state of rejection of his authority. My understanding is that it is not. Does one act of disobedience make for a permanent rejection of Papal authority? Are you aware, for example, that the SSPX prays for the Pope and the Church continuously?
“All statements that I have read coming from SSPX leaders reject some teachings contained in the documents of the Second Vatican Council, most frequently the Declaration on Religious Liberty, but others as well.” I think “reject some teachings” is accurate, most specifically, as far as I can tell, certain statements on religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality (I think I left one out), as well as the Novus Ordo. However, it is important to add one word: they reject NOVEL teachings, i.e. those which contradict tradition, i.e. those which contradict the Magisterium.
“Many express more than a mere preference for the Traditional Latin Mass, suggesting the invalidity of the Novus Ordo Mass and other sacraments.” As far as I know, the official position of the SSPX, derived from Abp. Lefebvre, is that the NO is valid, but a danger to the faith because of the Catholic theology that has been stripped from it (see: Ottaviani Intervention). I have never seen any SSPX statement to the contrary, or that suggests inherent invalidity (unless the conditions of validity are not met – which, as we agreed, is highly likely to occur). By the way, who is this “many” who are expressing “more than a mere preference”?
“The mere fact that the SSPX even feels the need for discussion of doctrinal issues with Rome is a sign that the leaders, and probably most members, do not feel they are in union with Rome.” I think the leaders are probably acutely aware of this lack of union, or irregularity, or whatever you want to call it. However, what is driving them, in my perception, is a zeal to restore the health of the Church, not any regrets about their own status. Now, what about the other side of the coin? Why does Rome feel the need for doctrinal discussions? Is that a sign that perhaps the Pope thinks the SSPX may be correct in its doctrinal analyses? If the SSPX is wrong, in other words, why invite them for discussions? Why not just reject their positions out of hand?
“SSPX sophistry etc.” I don’t pretend to understand the canon law argument, but I’ve been told that many canon lawyers do not consider the excommunications valid since Abp. Lefebvre correctly invoked Canon Law, which allows for what he did in cases of perceived necessity: i.e. a bishop is permitted to take whatever action he deems necessary to preserve the faith. My personal reaction, though, is that if Canon Law does indeed permit such cases, I think it gives the bishop too much power. But the whole argument is way over my bald head. Are you familiar enough with Canon Law to comment?
“You cannot claim conditional submission to the authority of Rome.” What if Rome contradicts tradition? Didn’t St. Robert Bellarmine write about this subject? (But don’t ask me where!) In that case, where is the authority? With the human being who contradicts tradition, or with tradition?
“You cannot, as the Protestants say, proclaim the infallibility and the inerrancy of Scripture and then qualify that statement with ‘rightly interpreted.’” But rightly interpreted, to a Catholic, means the authentic teaching of the Magisterium on Scripture, doesn’t it? I didn’t understand where you were going with this statement.
“I could be wrong, but my impression is that the SSPX believes not that they have separated themselves from Rome but that Rome has separated itself from the Tradition and that this Tradition is now under the protection of the SSPX.” I’d say your impression is correct, as far as I understand the situation, but I would use “preserved,” rather than “protect.”
“SSPX priests do not submit to the authority of the local Bishop and, therefore, cannot be said to be in union with Rome.” Aren’t there religious orders who are not under the authority of the local Bishop? Anyway, everyone already agrees, I think, that the SSPX is not in full union with Rome.
“Their only heresy, if there is any, is their rejection of the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff as manifested in their rejection of authoritative teachings of the Church. I don’t understand how one can say “we are in union with Rome except” and be considered in full communion with Rome.” You’ve switched targets here: you’ve gone from “rejecting the authority of the Pope” to “rejecting the authoritative teachings of the Church.” Why? Also, you are incorrect in claiming that the SSPX rejects the authoritative teachings of the Church, for the following reasons: one, they embrace and defend the entire Magisterium; two, none of the documents of Vatican II are “authoritative teachings,” because both Council Popes declared the Council to be pastoral, not dogmatic (thus making the Council a historical aberration). Pope John XXIII did that because he knew that the “Progressives” were about to wreak havoc at the Council, and that was how he thought he could head them off. That means that Council documents are not binding on the faithful, despite two of the documents bearing the word “dogmatic,” thus disobeying the Pope.
[SIDEBAR: Uh-oh! Who gave those 2 documents those titles and disobeyed the Pope? And why didn’t they by their actions excommunicate themselves?] (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)
The Council documents do repeat Magisterial teaching, in their vague, frequently inconsistent, and even self-contradictory way, but as stand-alone documents, they cannot be said to be part of the Magisterium. I’ve heard some prelates, by the way, try to sneak around this by proclaiming something called a “post-Conciliar Magisterium,” but that is a completely transparent and specious ploy. How can there be two Magisteria?
And the third reason why the SSPX has not rejected the authoritative teachings of the Church is that there is no such thing as a “new teaching,” such as those contained in various Council documents. The SSPX judges the Vatican II documents against the infallible yardstick of the Magisterium, as taught by all the Popes before Vatican II, and finds them wanting. That yardstick is not their personal yardstick, it is the yardstick of the Church! What else could we –or they – possibly have to rely on?
But, I hear you say: “You (like the SSPX) have imposed your personal interpretation on Vatican II and its documents! You are acting like a schismatic Protestant! You think you know better than the Church!” To which I would reply: “No, all I have done is to recite the facts. Pope John decreed that the Council was pastoral, not dogmatic, so that its modernist/liberal/progressive errors, which he clearly saw coming, would not be binding on the faithful. This status was affirmed by Paul VI. Therefore, no Vatican II document can be considered to be binding on the faithful. Therefore, none of them can be considered Magisterial. Q.E.D.”
“It may not be a formal sin to participate in the life the SSPX in any way. It is, in my opinion, to place oneself in a “near occasion of sin” because of a pervasive “culture of doubt” that accepts conditional submission to the authority of Rome. Even the most devout Traditionalist who rejects the authority of Rome plants a cancer of disobedience in their soul. If you think I’m exaggerating, just look at the history of the Protestant Reformation: once they rejected the authority of Rome, all manner of doctrinal aberrations became thinkable, then possible, then doable.” You have set up a straw man argument here. First of all, the Vatican has given express permission to attend SSPX Masses to fulfill our Sunday obligation, so where is this “near occasion of sin”? Then, you once again compare traditionalists to Protestants, which is not valid – you can compare sedevacantists to Protestants accurately, but not any traditionalist who is guided by the Magisterium (and if they are not guided solely by the Magisterium, then they are not traditionalists, and lay false claim to that label). Then, you once again unjustly compare the SSPX to schismatics, after you’ve already had to backtrack and admit that they are not schismatic! Sorry, but I think you got carried away with yourself, allowing one false assumption to lead you into an entire 3-story house of false assumptions. Are you aware that you did that?
“I reject the claim that Rome has abandoned the Tradition as inconsistent with the indefectibility of the Church.” In that case, the onus is on you to read the encyclicals of previous popes, to read Pope St. Pius X Pascendi, the Syllabus of Errors, and many more, and to then demonstrate how these are not contradicted by Vatican II. And as for the indefectibility of the Church, John XXIII’s decree making the Council pastoral has preserved that indefectibility, since the errors contained in the documents are not binding on the Church.
But here’s a thought I had while typing the above paragraph: in a strange sense, you are correct in claiming that Rome has not abandoned Tradition, because, thanks to John XXIII, no Vatican II error is binding on the Church. Which means the problem really is this: Rome acts as though it has abandoned Tradition in several areas, by acting as though the false new ideas of Vatican II have legitimately replaced Magisterial teaching. So, if I have my Latin correct, it is a de facto abandonment, not a de jure abandonment. Example: remember Joseph Ratzinger’s “Countersyllabus,” a description of one of the VII documents (which one was it, Lumen Gentium?) he made when he was a young, and very progressive, peritus? So let’s see: the Syllabus is Magisterial. What then would a “Countersyllabus” be? Could it be…..ANATHEMA????? [accompanying image: Dana Carvey as the Church Lady on Saturday Night Live]
This reminds me of something else: I’ve read in a couple of places that the Novus Ordo was never really promulgated, and for two reasons: one, Paul VI’s apostolic letter (?) introducing it was deliberately mis-translated, and two, the Pope himself stated that he only intended to offer the Novus Ordo as an alternative. If this is true, we have the well-placed enemies of the Church acting as though, once again. The tragedy, and the heart of the crisis, therefore, is that acting as though, the sleight-of-hand of the progressives, has been made to obscure the truth.
RCTV: Before going much further, I want to invite you to visit this page in our online “Amazon Partner Store” and, whether you order the books from our site or not, purchase and read “More Catholic Than the Pope: An Inside Look at Extreme Traditionalism” (by Pete Vere and Patrick Madrid) and “I Am With You Always” (by Michael Davies). The first book, “More Catholic etc.” is co-authored by a former member of the SSPX and currently a Canon Lawyer. It addresses each and every SSPX argument from Canon Law and, to my mind, dismantles them as “selective articles taken out of context and without regard for the historical record.” The second book, “I Am With You Always” is written by the premier apologist and sympathizer of the SSPX and, again to my mind, successfully refutes all the standard SSPX arguments, both moderate and extreme, advancing what amounts to a charge of defectibility of the Church. If all you do is read the comments entered for each of these books, it will raise and answer a lot of questions.I have probably, already, spent over $100 of my own money seeking satisfactory answers to every issue you have raised. I have talked with a priest of the FSSP. I have spent considerable personal time thinking about “The Traditionalist Critique of the Contemporary Church” and all its implications: theological, philosophical, psychological and sociological. I have learned an enormous amount, been blessed plentifully by all this. My faith has been questioned and strengthened in the process. I am truly grateful that you have crossed my path as one obviously in love with the Church without an agenda. I will not begin to question the sincerity of your search for Truth and the integrity of your conscience: those are rare qualities in any man.Nonetheless, I must invite you to do more of the heavy lifting on your own behalf. You have found a “pearl of great price” that brings you joy, happiness and peace. It is extraordinarily difficult to engage in a serious, objective search for a Truth that risks robbing you of so much that brings you joy. “It can’t be wrong when it feels so right” can be sung about religious as well as romantic matters. When we are invested in a “pearl of great price,” only God can make us move to another investment which, if true, will bring us even more joy than we think possible from where we are. If our current investment is making us rich, it’s hard to believe that another could make us even richer or, if it could, why we would need more than we have.I am convinced from everything I have read that the SSPX is far more right than wrong. What it is wrong about, however, is more important than everything it is right about. The SSPX critique of the contemporary Catholic Church is in the finest traditions of the prophets. Where it strays is in the arena of action, where critiques demand that they be expressed concretely. Riddled throughout the SSPX “ideology” is the belief that, somehow, Rome has strayed from its divinely mandated role to protect the Tradition and SSPX is called to protect that Tradition. It absolutely violates all understandings of the indefectibility of the Church to hold that position. The Church is protected by God Himself from teaching errors of divinely revealed faith. It is not protected from bad management, ineffective articulation of the faith or poor pastoral decisions. Absolutely every apparent contradiction of the faith can and must be resolved in a way that maintains the Supremacy of the Petrine Office and the indefectibility of the Church.The Office of Peter is the “ultimate legislator,” the judge whose judgments are not subject to appeal, the one whose interpretations of Canon Law are final and definitive. The SSPX apologetic is, as I wrote earlier, self-serving casuistry and sophistry.There is no articulation of divine Truth that can ever be considered fully adequate. Transubstantiation, for example, is not an object of faith but an explanation of the Truth to which it points. No articulation of what we believe about the divine mystery of the Mass, the Eucharist, can ever be complete or perfect. But no attempt to better articulate that Truth can ever contradict it and be True.Transubstantiation, however, is of an order of Truth quite different from the Truths articulated in “The Declaration on Religious Liberty” where we wrestle with issues like “the human conscience,” “coercion” and “the right of a human being to be wrong.” These are issues which are truly subject to understandings heavily conditioned by historical realities that change over time. Pope Leo XIII, for example, may have said, very explicitly, that the divine Truth of the Catholic faith gives it certain prerogatives in the natural order by virtue of its divine origin. That may be true, and the examples he uses may be valid, but a growing understanding of the radical love of the Father for each of His children may lead to a “new Truth”: that our respect for human beings demands that we respect them as much as God, who never coerces, does. “Divine prerogatives in the natural order for the Catholic Church” may no longer be an adequate articulation of divine Truth. The “new Truth” may logically contradict some parts of the old, but it’s because we now have a better articulation of the Truth. It’s called “Development of Doctrine” and any such “development” will render some parts of earlier articulations wrong. Final example: Jesus is traditionally defined as the final, complete, self-revelation of God. Nothing more can be said, in human terms, about the nature of God that was not said in the Incarnation. This is why Catholics believe that there can be “no new divine revelation” because everything has already been said in the person of Jesus. However, we are also told, in Scripture, that Jesus will leave with us the Paraclete who will lead us into all Truth. That means Jesus knows that we will need the assistance of the Holy Spirit, over time, to come to the knowledge of Truth. We have the Holy Spirit to both protect and reveal the Truth of God, not Truth that at one time was false and now is true, but Truth proportionate to our ability to understand, Truth we are better able to grasp now than before. When we were children, we spoke and understood as children. It’s expected that we will grow and that our level of understanding and articulation will mature. Firm belief in the Supremacy of the Roman Pontiff and the Indefectibility of the Church are capable of providing the necessary guidance for addressing issues of disagreement with Rome. Any belief that suggests that the Holy Father may one day wake up and realize that the SSPX had it right all along is just not compatible with Supremacy and Indefectibility. I’m not going any further with you on this journey. I’ve learned a lot. I also know where I cannot go. It is my judgment that you ought to know where must go.
TORKAY: I can’t say that I’m surprised at your decision to terminate this discussion without responding to any of my original points. Instead, you have raised one straw man after another and tried to turn this into a referendum on the SSPX. You apparently cannot face the fact that the crisis in the Church is the deliberate, planned creation of progressives, both at Vatican II and in its aftermath, from liturgy to theology to discipline, so you engage in evasive behavior. That’s a real shame. This would be the equivalent to our federal government warning us about Arab terrorists, but then carefully scrubbing from its warnings all references to the fact that 9-11 was perpetrated by….Arab terrorists.
It might interest you to know that I never even heard of the SSPX during my original phase of reading about Vatican II – though I did read about Abp. Lefebvre’s efforts to counter the liberal alliance that had taken over the Council, while the Council was still in session. My initial opinion of the Council was formed by Father Wiltgen, Dietrich von Hildebrand, and Michael Davies. This initial opinion was confirmed, later on, when I came across various SSPX articles, as well as Abp. Lefebvre’s book “Against the Heresies,” and other books.
Your thinking tends to be not only imprecise, but quite Modernist: orthodox one moment, heretical the next. Here is a classic example of the Modernist pattern from your post above:
“But no attempt to better articulate that Truth can ever contradict it and be True.” That’s the orthodox part. But then you say this:
“The “new Truth” may logically contradict some parts of the old, but it’s because we now have a better articulation of the Truth. It’s called “Development of Doctrine” and any such “development” will render some parts of earlier articulations wrong.” Not only do you contradict yourself, but you have produced sheer heresy. Your note contains several other contradictory statements.
I’m sorry that you cannot face the real cause of the crisis. That being the case, kindly remove me from your mailing list. However, should you ever decide to aim for the bull’s-eye, instead of flailing around on the outer circle, then you may once again send me your videos. END.
Tags: realcatholictv, sspx, vatican II
-
Torkay,
My understanding is that Archibishop Lefebvre’s signature appears on all sixteen of the documents of Vatican II, including the Declaration on Religious Liberty.
What say you?
-
Off-topic:
I see the Rorate Caeli blogspot has published a letter from a gentleman called Mr David Brower which he has sent to priests invited to the study day, organised by the Archdiocese of Glasgow and the Scottish Catholic Education Service, is entitled, “Teaching as Jesus Did: Handing on the Faith in the 21st Century”.
“A Layman’s Appeal to Scottish Catholics
All mention of the event mentioned here, “Teaching as Jesus Did: Handing on the Faith in the 21st Century”, has been expunged from various websites that had previously announced it. However, it is unclear if the event itself has been cancelled, and given the gravity of the situation we are thus posting this article submitted to us by Mr. David Brower. CAP. ”Text can be found at:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
SATURDAY, APRIL 17, 2010 -
Caledonian Priest
Enemies of the archbishop often try to use that against him. There’s a simple explanation. Archbishop Lefebvre voted against Dignitatis Humanae. In fact, he played a leading role in the Coetus Internationalis Patrum which submitted an alternative document. The piece of paper often referred to was little more than a sign in sheet, listing the Fathers who had participated in the debate. The Archbishop said this concerning the piece of paper, ‘it was passed from hand to hand among the Fathers of the Council and upon which everyone placed his signature, had no meaning of a vote for or against, but signified simply our presence at the meeting to vote for four documents.”
If you want an authoritative account of Archbishop Lefebvre’s thoughts and actions at the Council, read ‘I Accuse The Council’ by the man himself.
-
Benet,
Thanks for posting that link. We’d heard from clergy that they have received a letter from David Brower, so that is great. We ran a thread on the scandal as soon as we learned of it.
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/blog/2010/02/laicised-priest-to-lecture-priests-teachers-in-glasgow-courtesy-of-the-archdiocese/Petrus,
Thanks for that clarification about the signatories of the Council documents. Another excellent book on the Council is Michael Davies’ “Pope John’s Council. revised and expanded edition” in which Michael admits that his own position immediately post-Vatican II was to defend and support the Council. He decided to study all the critical books on it with a view to answering them, but instead realised the truth of the matter and wrote accordingly.
-
I think that there is a little more to this matter than Petrus would have us believe:
-
I fail to see how your link changes anything, caledonianpriest, unless you are alleging that Archbishop Lefebvre was lying. The link you provide clearly has an agenda against the the SSPX. The Archbishop’s words are good enough for me.
-
Petrus,
It requires little intuition to conclude that the linked publication is indeed not convinced of the SSPX position. There are however no grounds to suggest that anyone here has accused Archbishop Lefebvre of lying, as is clearly expressed in the article.
In many senses what he signed is an irrelevancy, however given the importance attached to it by some, it appears to be an easily provable matter of objective fact to determine whether the extracts in circulation are genuine. It would seem remiss of those promulgating Archbishop Lefebvre’s words with such conviction, the society in particular, not to verify the claims made or publicise any alleged counterfeit of conciliar documentation.
-
Interestingly there were bishops who did not sign some of the documents of Vatican II and they were not traditionalists by any means, so your argument is a red herring.
-
Here’s an extract from The Biography: Marcel Lefebvre by Bishop Bernard Tissier De Mallerais on the subject of the Archbishop’s signatures…
“…having voted against religious liberty to the bitter end, Archbishop Lefebvre, like Bishop de Castro Mayer, finally signed the promulgation of the declaration Dignitatis Humanae. What could seem like a volte-face should not be surprising in the least. Once a schema was promulgated by the Pope, it was no longer a schema but changed in nature to become an act of the Magisterium. Archbishop Lefebvre himself underlined the weight of papal approval in his talk on September 15th, 1976, when he admitted having signed lots of Council texts “under moral pressure from the Holy Father, because,” as he said, “I cannot separate myself from the Holy Father; if the Holy Father signs, morally I am obliged to sign” (footnote to source). According to Wiltgen:
‘Basically, this was the attitude of all Council Fathers…: each was convinced that his own position on a given topic was the correct one…But these men, trained in Church law, also realized that both sides could not be right. And ultimately they went along with the majority view, when this finally became clear and was promulgated by the Pope as the common doctrine taught by the Second Vatican Council. (Wiltgen: Rhine Flows into the Tiber, 252).’
(Biographer continues)
There was neither dishonor nor inconsistency in this submission. After all, the clauses included in Dignitatis Humanae on “the true religion” or on the “just limits” of religious liberty made it just about possible to interpret the eleven lines that strictly speaking were the declaration (no.2) in a Catholic manner, even if that was not the obvious meaning of the text, as the rest of the document makes clear. In any case, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer’s support was officially registered in the Council’s Acta (footnote to source).
If later Archbishop Lefebvre stated several times that he did not put his signature on the declaration of religious liberty – as with Gaudium et Spes – it was a claim in line with his opposition before and after the promulgation, and the result of an error or a memory slip (footnote to source). He seems to have confused his final votes against Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae with refusing to sign. Such a mix-up appears from the denials that the Archbishop made in 1976 and 1990 (footnote to source). This would seem to imply that while on the one hand he gave his final placet to all the conciliar schemas except two, he did not think of the signatures as a promulgation of the Council documents with the Pope, even though he signed them all (as appears in the Acta Synodalia).
Putting that to one side, if we compare the number of voters on religious liberty (2,386) and the number of Fathers present who signed the promulgation, we find that at least twenty-two Fathers who voted for or against did not sign the documents. Archbishop Lefebvre was not one of them. Nonetheless, if certain facts prove to have escaped us, or if another interpretation is found to be more plausible, we would be quite open to accepting it. In our opinion, the Archbishop’s signing Dignitatis Humanae takes nothing away from the value of his fight against religious liberty.”
END OF EXTRACT. -
Tut, tut, Petrus. Only spoiled brats throw their toys out of the pram when they are not allowed to have their own way. I have accused no-one of lying. However, what is clear is that your affirmation that ‘The piece of paper often referred to was little more than a sign in sheet, listing the Fathers who had participated in the debate’ is something of an understatement. In fact, there were bishops present at the debate who did not sign the document.
As for the Editor’s quotation from Tissier de Mallerais biography of the Archbishop, that is more a work of hagiography than objective history.
-
caledonianpriest,
I’m an expert at spotting “spoiled brats throwing their toys out of the pram” and Petrus doesn’t fit the description. He didn’t accuse you of “lying” but made the point that “IF” you are alleging that the Archbishop is lying… etc.
The fact that you dismiss the explanation given by the Archbishop’s official biographer, suggests to me that you are in bad faith.
I’m not a “spoiled brat”. I’m not “throwing my toys out of the pram”. I merely say “suggests” you are in bad faith. Please prove me wrong and I’ll switch to Champion Groveller mode ponto.
Are we to take it that you are a novus odo “presider” at the “assembly” and thus, should save our breath since no matter what evidence we provide, you are not going to see Archbishop Lefebvre in a good light, come what may – and we’ll include his forthcoming canonization in what will one day come, because canonized he will be, trust me. I have my sources…
-
Editor,
If I were you, I would do the honest thing transfer this blog from the internet to a ‘Catholic Truth Scotland’ intranet where you and your cronies can blog incestuously to your heart’s content without ever meeting an opinion or point of view different from your own.
You seem to set yourself up as the judge of orthodoxy for Catholic Scotland when more than anything else you are shot through by the Protestant principle of the private interpretation of divine revelation. ‘Long live the Pope, but only as long as he is saying what Patricia McKeever is saying.’ Protestantism through and through.
-
WOW! Talk about throwing the dummy out of the pram. Man alive!
I’m very disappointed with your outburst above, Caledonianpriest. You have always been treated with respect and kindness on this blog. Unfortunately, the editor seems to be right – your actions suggest you are in bad faith. What is particularly disappointing is your use of the editor’s name. That, caledonianpriest, is cowardly. Since you have used real names, why don’t you apply the same standard to yourself? I don’t think you’ll be too keen to do that.
Anyway to get back to your silly post.
“Only spoiled brats throw their toys out of the pram when they are not allowed to have their own way.”
I have been more than willing to engage with you. That’s not the actions of someone who “throws their toys out of the pram”.
“I have accused no-one of lying.”
I didn’t accuse you of accusing anyone of lying. I simply spelt out the consequences.
“However, what is clear is that your affirmation that ‘The piece of paper often referred to was little more than a sign in sheet, listing the Fathers who had participated in the debate’ is something of an understatement.”
I accept the word of Archbishop Lefebvre. End of.
“In fact, there were bishops present at the debate who did not sign the document.”
Big deal. That just goes to show how insignificant the piece of paper was.
-
CaledonianPriest
You will find that you are wasting your time on this blog if your opinion differs even slightly from the main protagonist. They are not open to reason, and soon you will be accused of all sorts of calumnies, with out a shred of evidence.
Petrus
Is the editor’s last paragraph in her last post what you consider to be respect and kindness? Are snide remarks like these acceptable to you? If so, you have a different measure of repect and kindness than most folk.
-
I think it makes sense, the extract from Archbishop Lefebvre’s biography, about the seeming discrepancy between the archbishop’s memory and the facts. He was human, and in a completely unique situation, so wouldn’t be thinking he had to log his every comment. Also, his biographer, one of the SSPX bishops, should know, so I don’t have any problem with the explanation. Even canonised saints can be wrong about things and have been shown to be wrong, even the great Angelic Doctor, St Thomas Aquinas, so there is no big deal here, caledonianpriest.
I can’t see how you can accuse the editor of Catholic Truth of being a Protestant. She’s been accused of being a liberal and quarrelsome, so I don’t suppose it’ll faze her but I don’t think it helps to call anyone names.
Catholic Truth has helped a lot of us to work through the crisis in the Church and to see the truth, so I’m surprised that more priests don’t come out in support of CT instead of putting the boot in.
You say CT shouldn’t be on the internet yet recently a man in the USA came onto say this site beats anything that is on offer on Catholic website in America which is quite a compliment. It also beats anything on offer in the UK, if you ask me.
-
Editor
Your quote from Bishop de Mallerais above may have opened a can of worms pertinent to the topic under discussion:
Once a schema was promulgated by the Pope, it was no longer a schema but changed in nature to become an act of the Magisterium.
We have been claiming all along that the documents of VII are not Magisterial because of what Pope John did. Does this not contradict our position?
-
Cathedralman,
I am perplexed at your remark about the final paragraph in my post above, lacking respect and kindness. Archbishop Conti described himself (or at least spoke of the priest) as the “Presider” over the “Assembly” in the Scottish Catholic Observer recently. It’s logged somewhere on this blog/newsletter.
So, I am at a loss. If, as seems to be the case, the new Mass requires a priest to act as “Presider” over the “Assembly”, why is it disrespectful or unkind to note that any priest who subscribes to this false understanding of the priest offering Mass is unlikely to be a fan of Archbishop Lefebvre? Where is the lack of charity in that? It’s a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw. Of course, if caledonianpriest tells me that he considers himself to be a sacrificing priest offering Mass as the Sacrifice of Calvary re-enacted, I will thank him for that clarification and express my delight at having drawn the wrong conclusion.
Are you, Cathedralman, likewise delighted to be wrong and offer me a considered apology for your rash judgment on my soul?
Torkay
Those words are not mine, they are from the SSPX Bishop who wrote the biography of the Archbishop, but he was speaking of the norm, remember. Read the whole quote to see those words in context; the archbishop (like other doubters) felt able to sign because a Catholic interpretation could be put on the key statement. If we are confused now, some fifty years on, at the machinations of the liberals in the Church, how much more difficult for the Fathers of the Council at the time, to discern the extent of the dangers inherent in applying those documents, when they had left perfectly healthy and thriving dioceses to participate in a “merely” pastoral Council (“merely” being the operative word from just about every conciliar pope).
If modern Catholics today, with the evidence hitting them in the face every time they walk into a parish church, cannot believe that any pope would permit the things to go on that are going on (“presidents of the assembly” being a case in point) it is little wonder that Archbishop Lefebvre and other Council Fathers were non-plussed. As the biographer says, having made his opposition known, and trusting the Pope, Archbishop Lefebvre signed in good faith, having made his objections known over and over again. Those critics who accuse him of arrogance in thinking he knew better than the Pope, would do well to reflect on this fact.
Unless someone can demonstrate that the Bishop biographer has got it wrong, I don’t see any other way to explain the apparent discrepancy.
-
Editor
Youir comment, as I said, was meant to be snide and insulting. If you claim otherwise, you are being disingenuous. This is another example of your quarrelsome disposition.
-
Editor
I’m not sure I’m convinced yet (perhaps another payment would do the trick
)I understand that Bishop Mallerais was speaking of the norm, but it seems to me unavoidable that he was also speaking of the particular. That is, unless he somehow forgot what Pope John did? What year was this book written?
I’m not contesting that a Catholic interpretation could be put on questionable statements (which makes those statements all the more dubious), I’m asking why +Mallerais considered VII documents, once having been signed by the Pope, as Magisterial.
And let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that they are Magisterial, i.e. binding on the faithful. What does that do to the “indefectibility” of the Church?
-
Torkay,
The Biography was published by Angelus Press in 2004, previously in 2002 by Clovis.
There are different levels of “magisterial” teaching. Not every “magisterial” statement has the same force of law. And always, only that which is in harmony with traditional teaching, is binding.
In any case, during the course of the Council, the Theological Commission published a Declaration dated March 6, 1964. The text was subsequently inserted into an official series of Notifications appended to Lumen Gentium by Archbishop Pericle Felici, Secretary General to the Council. It therefore represents the authority of the Council itself in the matter:
“Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation.” (Gonzalez, Rev. J.L. ed. The Sixteen Documents of Vatican II and the Instruction on the Liturgy: with Commentaries by the Council Fathers. Boston. St. Paul Catholic Book and Film Centers. 1967.)
I think that is very clear, and confirms that we already know about the teachings of Vatican II – traditional teachings aside, the novelties such as ecumenism etc. are not binding on the faithful. And bearing in mind that Pope John XXIII had made very clear in his opening statements about the Council that it was not going to define any new dogmas, and bearing in mind the fact that Pope Paul VI confirmed this, I can’t see the problem. The Archbishop, being a faithful bishop, felt obliged to sign because, while opposed to the document, he felt moral pressure from the Pope, trusted the pope and so, knowing that his opposition was well documented, he signed. Not in bad faith, not as a hypocrite etc.
If the Council had been declared to be a dogmatic Council, that would have been a whole different ball game. Comprenez?
-
I’m getting there, Editor. However, I’m still stumbling over this apparent contradiction between a. and b. (which I hope doesn’t make me a stumbling block unto the Novus Ordo Catholics):
a. “…the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. ”
VS.
b. “The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council.”
To me b. sounds like it means this: “everything which we do not openly declare to be binding on the Church, is binding anyway, because anything else we set forth is the magisterial teaching of the Church.”
What am I missing? (Besides the boat) Is it this strange use of the phrase OUGHT TO BE ACCEPTED AND EMBRACED? Sorry to be going ’round in circles….
-
Torkay, the fact that the Magisterium is always authentic is probably at the heart of your confusion. This means that even when it is not speaking infallibly, one should have a very compelling reason for rejecting the teaching of the Magisterium.
Such questions were dealt with in a document called ‘Donum Veritatis: On the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian’ promulgated by the Congregation for the Doctrine for the Faith (1990). Paragraph 17 has this to say, among other things:
‘One must therefore take into account the proper character of every exercise of the Magisterium, considering the extent to which its authority is engaged. It is also to be borne in mind that all acts of the Magisterium derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth. For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful.’
-
P.S. This whole thing about Presider/Assembly vs. Sacrificing Priest offering the Sacrifice of Calvary is a false dichotomy if ever there was one.
1. The Presider
Do I as a priest preside at Mass? Undoubtedly so! How? In persona Christi, in virtue of my priestly ordination.
2. The Assembly
The assembly is a fact. The Latin word for church (‘ecclesia’) derives from the Greek which is also used to render the Hebrew word ‘qahal’ meaning ‘assembly’ or ‘convocation’. It is for this assembly (albeit in the widest possible meaning of the term) that the priest, acting in persona Christi, offers the Holy Sacrifice, which is also, albeit on a different level, the sacrifice of the assembly. One of the most poignant moments in the Mass is when the priest turns to the people and says, ‘Pray, brethren, that my sacrifice and yours (meum et vestrum) may be acceptable to God the Almighty Father.’
Personally, I would never use the term ‘presider’ alone because it is heavily in need of the ‘in persona Christi’ doctrine in order to express its Catholic sense. In a similar way, I am hesitant to describe the Church as the People of God without stressing that it is also the Body of Christ.
-
caledonianpriest,
Is it, then, the case then, that Catholics “ought to accept and embrace” the new teachings such as ecumenism and religious liberty/freedom – notions previously condemned by the Supreme Magisterium? Please advise, since my understanding is that no pope has the authority to impose new teachings: that they are “new”is clear, because both ecumenism and religious liberty have always been condemned by the Church. Are you seriously saying that the Church can reverse those condemnations?
P.S. Prior to the Council, I never once heard the priest described as the “President” or “Presider” at Mass. Never once, until the post-Vatican II era when congregations became “assemblies” and laity have been clericalised to the extent that there are more lay people in sanctuaries than “Presidents” these days. A “President” presides at a meeting or holds a political position over a nation like Obama. A “Priest” offers sacrifice. The latest fashion of calling priests “presider” is no accident. It’s all part of the drive to distance the Mass and the priest from the centrality of the Sacrifice. No accident.
-
Editor
Did you move the post containing the link about Pope Benedict saying the Traditional Mass privately?
caledonianpriest
Your post of 6:38 is confusing. First you say that Presider vs. Priest is a false dichotomy, but then you add that you would never use “Presider” alone, without “in persona Christi.”
Yet the term presider is almost always – maybe even always, except for yourself – used alone, which robs the priest of his Catholic role and Catholic sense, as you admit. So it seems there is quite a valid dichotomy after all.
Moreover, why bother to use the word presider at all, if it requires “in personal Christi” after it? Was there something defective about the word “priest”? (Answer: only in the minds of the Freemasons, Communists and Protestants who were trying to re-make the Church in their own image, and destroy the priesthood into the bargain.)
-
Torkay,
I didn’t see the post with the link to the Pope’s private Mass report. Would you re-post it here?
Spot on about “presider” – this is another modernist attempt to eradicate the sacrificing priest. The former Rector of the now closed Scotus seminary is on record debunking that “concept”. Possibly, caledonianpriest was one of his student victims.
-
Editor
Here is the link to the article about Pope Benedict’s choice for private Mass:
http://salesianity.blogspot.com/2010/04/pope-benedict-uses-older-ritual-for-his.html
-
Editor
I received an interesting piece of news in my inbox this morning: UnaVoce has started a new chapter in Cincinnati, and announced that our (relatively new) Archbishop has given the FSSP their own parish in nearby Dayton. The email contained a link to the new UnaVoce website, so I dutifully visited.
Now get this: the website lists all the (precious few) parishes that offer the TLM in this area…EXCEPT for St. Pius X, our (and my) SSPX chapel. The email, however, was from the new UV president…whom I have seen at our 9:00 Sunday Mass every week for the past several months!
What sagacious person was it that once said, “You just can’t make this stuff up!”?
-
Editor
I see that the progressives at RCTV has left the building rather than answer simple “yes or no” questions. Perhaps it is easier to accuse others of acting like Protestants, schismatics, extreme traditionalists, or what-have-you, than to face the fact that their “spiritually enriching” Novus Ordo was created by the very progressives they “expose.” Which leads me to ask, how can a progressive expose another progressive?
-
(Oops, make that HAVE left the building, Ed)
-
I am leaving the building too. This blog is a waste of space.
-
caledonianpriest,
this blog is not a waste of space. It has opened a lot of eyes, mine especially, to the type of priests we’re stuck with and sorry to say you have just confirmed it. You come on here talking about Presider of the Assembly being fine and then you call us “a waste of space” because we don’t all agree with you. I seem to remember CMan going ballistic once at someone (Petrus, I think) because he used that phrase, all shock and horror at calling human beings a waste of space.
I notice that it is only on this website that people announce their resignations, they don’t do that on Damien Thompson’s blog or Rorate Coeil, or anywhere else and that’s because this blog is the most effective one of all. That’s what makes people like caledonianpriest furious.
Keep up the good work Catholic Truth!
-
rebel
I think caledonianpriest called the blog ‘a waste of space’, not another human being. There is a vast difference. I objected to this because Petrus claims that bloggers on this site treat fellow human beings with respect. This is obviously not the case.
I am sorry, but not surprised, that caledonianpriest is leaving. Sometimes it seems pointless talking to some of the characters on this site, whose only means of reply is the snide comment or insult. I am sure CP has better things to do.
-
caledonianpriest
This blog is a waste of space only for those who, like yourself, are unwilling to admit that the post-Conciliar Church is Protestant, with a few lukewarm holdover Catholic features thrown in to make it look as though things are pretty much the same. Two forms of the same rite? Two forms of the same priest? Two forms of the same Church? Sorry, not even close. And all of it de facto, not de jure.
Not only are we a waste of space for you and your ilk, we are a genuine irritant who must be put in our proper place.
-
Cathedralman,
Thank you for your support. Dealing with most of this blog’s contributors is wearisome indeed. Same old people, same old predictable comments, same old theological confusion stemming from an incapacity to realise that the documents of the Magisterium cannot be interpreted as if they were mathematical formulae.
I too believe that there is much that is wrong in the post-Vatican II Church, just as there was that was wrong with the pre-Vatican II Church. Then again, the Church perfect has never existed historically and will only be manifested at the end of time when Christ -and Christ only- separates the sheep from the goats.
In the present situation, this blog does more harm than good. It seems to be populated by people afflicted by an extreme form of control freakery for whom the Magisterium is to be treated in as much the same summary fashion as a traffic warden treats the local parking bye-laws. Sorry to say this, but one almost never smells the sweet perfume of Christ on this blog. There is just the rancorous odour of anger, conceit and a certain misplaced intellectual pride which is born of pig ignorance in matters divine.
In a word, the Pharisees rather than Christ seems to be the accepted paradigm here. Can anyone seriously imagine a Torkay or a Petrus having a conversation such as Our Lord had with the Samartian woman at the well as recounted by St. John in Chapter 4 of his Gospel? Not on your life! Their instinct would be to hit her over the head with the the Magisterium (Catholic Truth Scotland Publications edition, of course) before flinging her down to the lowest depths of the abyss with her bucket tied around her neck.
-
Back to the matter of the Archbishop signing the Council documents, folks.
A traditional priest friend informs me that there are divergent opinions on this matter amongst those who knew the Archbishop, and amongst the SSPX priests in general, and that the question is far from settled yet – so watch this space!
-
Editor,
Then it could have hardly just been a matter of a ’sign in sheet’ as some would have us believe, could it?
-
Anyway. I have had enough. Over and out, in saecula saecolorum. Amen.
-
caledonianpriest
It’s a pity that you don’t have the talent or ability to stay and argue your position. What does that tell us? Quite simply, it tells us that your position is just as shaky as your debating skills.
-
Caledonianpriest:
I assume from your pen-name that you are indeed a priest. If so, then by your ordination, you received the ability to transform bread into the body of Christ, which none of the rest of us is able to do, no matter what form of words and intentions we may use.
For that reason alone (and there are probably other good reasons too) you deserve more respect than has been shown to you here in recent hours.
Your take on circumstances may differ from that of other bloggers, but that does not mean they can address you in the derogatory terms we have seen used.
I hope you will find it in your heart to pray for them when you are next offering the sacrifice of the Mass, and for me too.
God bless you.
-
If only tirocinium had shown the same tolerance towards DSimon, who is an atheist, as he shows to this modernist priest…
-
Torkay, re one of your yesterday’s posts, there is all the difference in the world between must and ought. I have never found it easy to fully appreciate the difference between the extraordinary and ordinary magisteria, but I think I am at last getting there!
I am sad to have come back after a spell away to read a thread such as this, and particularly so to read Caledonian Priest’s post of 6.28. Although Tirocinium is indeed right about the respect due to a priest because of the awesome power that is his, it is difficult to remember this when he descends to so low a level of personal abuse.
-
…the documents of the Magisterium cannot be interpreted as if they were mathematical formulae.
Can anyone venture a guess as to what this statement by caledonianpriest means?
-
CaledonianPriest
You sum up this blog very well. I have said many times that it identifies with Pharisaism more than Christianity. (editor: You’ve said in a previous post, when caledonianpriest called the blog “a waste of space” that you didn’t think he meant the people, just “the blog” – I’ve not had time to respond to ask you to explain that because I always think that when people comment on “the blog” they really mean the bloggers. So, enlighten me, please, as to how a “blog” can be a “waste of space” but not the bloggers.)
Petrus constantly states that bloggers are treated with respect, but continually insults those who disagree with him, as in his post of 9:29. If anyone criticises Petrus in any way, the toys are out of the pram. (editor: if caledonianpriest has been following this blog for any length of time, he will know that you hate Petrus as you used to hate Athanasius – now, since he joined the ranks of those who make personal criticisms of me, he’s your buddy – and, of course, me. You see the worst in our posts always. If caledonianpriest has any pastoral sense and any Christian charity about him, he’ll give you a very wide berth)
As you say, CP, dealing with the characters on this site is wearisome. (editor: well don’t deal with us then. There’s the door…) Their modus operandi is to insult, deride and moderate bloggers who do not share their narrow view, until they get weary and disappear. (editor: well, it sure ain’t working with you, the proverbial bad penny) Then they can continue their personal assaults on those with whom they disagree. (editor: for example?) I see Bishop Moran is the latest victim. He must be trembling in his boots when intellectual giants like the editor and Petrus assail him. (editor: So, Bishop Moran calling the Vatican “stupid” is your example of “a personal assault on someone with whom we disagree? In any event, Petrus has not commented on Bishop Moran’s arrogance in calling the Vatican “stupid”. Tell us what you think about Bishop Moran’s nasty comment? Silence denotes consent, it is by our silence that we are complicit in the sin of another. If you think the Bishop was wrong to call the Vatican “stupid”, then say so, without prevarication.)
Petrus
It is not CP’ lack of talent or debating skills that are evident, but your selfrighteousness and pig-headedness. A time for reflection, I think. (editor: a tad judgmental, think ye not)
Ed: now, I am going to release this post but – as I’ve said repeatedly, no more posts from you that contain any personal nastiness. There’s not a single sentence in this post or any of your posts which addresses the issues of this thread. You are a troublemaker. I want caledonianpriest to see the kind of person who agrees with him. But for that fact, this post would not have made in through moderation. Nobody is forcing you to blog here, Cathedralman. We had nasty bloggers who forced an atheist off this blog but who are happy to tolerate you, who – it seems manifest – doesn’t have a Christian thought in his head, let alone any kind of level of knowledge of Catholic doctrine or practice because you seldom, if ever make any meaningful contribution to our discussions. You’ve had plenty of warnings and this is the last. Start participating in the debates or take a hike. -
Torkay,
since Maths is an exact science, I guess he means that we cannot look for definitions in the Vatican II documents and he’s right there – the Council popes told us there wouldn’t be any definitions so there’s no use defending ecumenism or religious liberty and telling us we must accept them (as the modernist do) when the concepts have not even been defined – how are we to accept something when we don’t know – in terms of Catholic doctrine – what it means?
-
Editor
To answer one of your questions: you criticse Bishop Moran for calling the Vatican ’stupid’, yet you do so yourselves, when, for example, your poster boy Fr Gruner was under suspension, as confirmed by a Vatican spokesman:
“the Congregation for the Clergy, upon a mandate from a higher authority wishes to state that Rev. Nicholas Gruner is under an a divinis suspension”
Was the Vatican being ’stupid’ then? (editor: not “stupid” but “unjust”. If you went into work and your boss said you’d been suspended, not because of anything you’d said or done, but on the orders of a “higher authority” and then refused to name that alleged “higher authority” what would you do? I know what I’d do – I’d head straight for my union representative to fight it all the way. To read the whole saga of Father Gruner’s unjust suspension visit http://www.fatima.org By the way, everyone, but everyone who attended our Fatima conference, told me they were struck by Father Gruner’s obvious humility.
Your comment on the ‘waste of space’ issue is jesuitical in the extreme. (editor: to support this statement, you need to demonstrate what you and caledonianpriest mean by “this blog is a waste of space”. That needs to be explained clearly. I can understand that you and he might – uncharitably – describe people, bloggers, as “a waste of space” but not “a blog”. So please explain – clearly.)
I don’t hate anyone, editor, not even your good self. I only try to counter the baloney and dangerous assertions on this blog. As I have said ad nauseam, your personal attacks on clergy and bishops is pharisaical, exactly the behaviour condemned in the Gospel.
The Pharisees, as you know, were famed for their self righteousness and their adherence to every single aspect of the law, and their condemnation of those who were not of a similar disposition; they thought that this would save them and justify them in the eyes of God. Jesus disabused them of this idea. This pharisaical attitude is the overwhelming one on this site.
If you cannot see this, then no amount of debate from CP or from me will change this.
(editor: if you can quote to me any sentence anywhere on this blog, where I am saying that I am better than anyone else, I will concede that I am pharisaical. I rather think I have said more than once, that I am only too well aware of my sinfulness, weaknesses, character faults and failings, but if you perceive me to be pharasaical, I can only thank you for alerting me to this added failing.)
Ed: Please, now stick to the issues. You gave the impression that you were about to answer a question then didn’t, If that happens again, I’ll delete the post. I’ve already deleted your post dredging up past newsletter reports – move on.
-
Editor
I was not dredging up old newsletter reports in my deleted post. You asked me for an example, and I gave you five. If you don’t want top know the truth, don’t ask.
Editor: the five names you mentioned as examples of personal attacks, were all from newspaper reports. We don’t make “personal attacks”. We attack, rightly, the failure of priests and bishops to do what they are supposed to do. It’s called accountability. Do you think the Daily Telegraph exposure of MPs fiddling their expenses were “personal attacks”?
And about that “don’t ask” – if you don’t want to know the truth about the state of the priesthood and the Church in general, don’t read Catholic Truth. -
Editor
I did not call this blog ‘a waste of space’; it was caledonianpriest. Rebel then quoted me as ‘going ballistic’ when Petrus described someone as a ‘waste of space’. I did not ‘go ballistic’; I merely pointed out the uncharitable nature of calling another human being ‘a waste of space’. That is different from calling this blog, an inanimate object, if it is such, ‘a waste of space’.
Is that clear? (Editor: the blog is not an “inanimate object”, so no, your explanation is not clear. We know CP called the blog “a waste of space” but you defended – as you are now doing – that description. so, no. Your explanation is not clear. How can a blog be a “waste of space”?)
-
CMan,
Where I come from we use the description “going ballistic” to mean someone is annoyed about something and you were annoyed at Petrus from calling someone a waste of space. That’s why I said “ballistic”.
You are on editor’s case again, I see, and it is really amazing how she keeps bothering to answer you. I wouldn’t bother at all because although I used to think you were having a laugh, I now think you are really being personal and it’s not charitable. I also can’t see the difference between the blog and bloggers by the way. If the blog is a waste of space, what about the bloggers? The priest didn’t say anything about not meaning the bloggers, and that’s because he meant the bloggers.
I’m not a “crony” by the way, just like reading this blog and putting in my tuppence worth when I can, but when people come on being nasty like the past few days, the blogger with the L plate (“tiro” something) and you, I’m afraid that spoils it.
Back on the topic, I was really pleased, but not surprised, to read that the Pope says the Tridentine Rite of Mass in private, because I think I read that before but also because he is known to appreciate the beauty of the old rite, so it would be surprising if he didn’t say it himself. I wonder why he won’t say it in public, though? Can he really be that intimidated by people like Cardinal Bertone or Sodano, as has been said on this blog before?
-
In view of all the talk about religious liberty the following would be intereting to read; Outside The Church There Is No Salvation
The doctrine that “Outside the Church there is no salvation” is one that is constantly misinterpreted by those who won’t submit to the Magisterium of the Church. Faith does not depend upon our ability to reason to the truth but on our humility before the Truth presented to us by those to whom Christ entrusted that task. This is why the First Vatican Council taught that it is the task of the Magisterium ALONE to determine and expound the meaning of the Tradition – including “outside the Church no salvation.”
Concerning this doctrine the Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:
We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?
Again, in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore of 10 August, 1863 addressed to the Italian bishops, he said:
It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.
These statements are consistent with the understanding of the Church contained in the documents of Vatican II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as explaining why the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney (that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved) has been condemned by the Magisterium. It is ironic that precisely those who know their obligation to remain united to the Magisterium, and thus on whom this doctrine is morally binding, keep themselves from union with the Roman See on this point.Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL
Apologetics – Doctrine – Canon Law – Eastern Churches – General – History – Liturgy – Moral
NFP – Philosophy – Pro-Life – Scripture – Spiritual -
jkearney
A very deceptive and dishonest conclusion by Mr. Donovan, who knows full well that (a) the document on religious liberty is NOT united to the Magisterium, and (b) is NOT morally binding on the faithful, as Pope John decreed.
Why do you suppose, I wonder, that he quoted pre-Conciliar documents at such length, yet failed to quote the Conciliar document which contradicts them? Could it be, oh, I don’t know, that he was trying to wrap himself in the mantle of orthodoxy and ascend to the platform of tradition, in order to lash out more convincingly at…oh, I don’t know…the SSPX?
What a fraudulent clown. He should join RealCatholicTV.com immediately.
Comments are now closed.
51 comments