Vatican Latest: Our New History…
Lutherans and Catholics have many reasons to retell their history in new ways. They have been brought closer together through family relations, through their service to the larger world mission, and through their common resistance to tyrannies in many places. These deepened contacts have changed mutual perceptions, bringing new urgency for ecumenical dialogue and further research. The ecumenical movement has altered the orientation of the churches’ perceptions of the Reformation: ecumenical theologians have decided not to pursue their confessional self-assertions at the expense of their dialogue partners but rather to search for that which is common within the differences, even within the oppositions, and thus work toward overcoming church-dividing differences. Source
Comment
Well, we’ve had a new Mass, new Rosary, new Catechism, new Evangelisation – so, what’s the big deal about a new history? (After all, check the source again) it’s the Vatican speaking.
And what better way – after 100 years of diabolical disorientation – to celebrate the Fatima Apparitions?
Comments (103)
As incredible as it is, I think the celebrating of the birth of Protestantism is the logical conclusion of the whole ecumenical movement.
Exactly!
Why should we be surprised?
After all, Pope John Paul II regarded Luther as a man of “profound religiousness and spiritual heritage”.
Pope John Paul II also said:
What we need today most of all is a joint new evaluation of many questions raised by Luther and his preaching.
If Trent is wrong now it was wrong then. Unless of course you are a modernist and believe doctrine can evolve over time. I don’t know why the neo-Catholics don’t just admit they believe that, instead of this ludicrous veneer of ‘orthodoxy’ they like to portray.
Did Martin Luther not have a strong devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary?
I believe so. But what does it merit if one does not have a strong devotion to the Church, of whom Our Lady is mother?
That’s one of the ludicrous elements of Protestantism: a lot of contemporary ‘hard-core’ Protestants would regard Luther as an idolatrous Mary-worshipping papist.
If one takes the trouble to read the document ‘DAL CONFLITTO ALLA COMUNIONE’ (there is no Latin text so presumably the Italian text is definitive), the invitation is to all Christians to study the report with an open mind and a critical spirit (a studiare il rapporto della nostra Commissione con mente aperta e spirito critico).
So, unless minds are completely closed, it really is an idea to read before commenting. Had you read the document, it would be obvious that it is about ‘commemorating’ the past, not ‘celebrating’ it.
No Christian in their right mind would celebrate division – read the report and you will discover that is one of the many points it makes.
Doc
It was disobedient “Chrstians” who caused the division in the first instance, so well done for admitting that they were not in their right mind.
Dr Dowden,
I read it. Right through.
Yes indeed, Fidelis! it is incredible… and scandalous.
To be honest, if such scandal hadn’t become commonplace by now, I would be struggling to believe that this was not a belated April’s Fool offering.
Another day, another snubbing of constant Church teaching. So this is what the Conciliar “convergence” looks like up close.
Did someone say “hermeneutic of continuity”?
It is an error to believe, “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church”- Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, 8 December 1864 n 18
“He who abandons the Chair of Peter on which the Church is founded, is falsely persuaded that he is in the Church of Christ”- Pope Pius IX, Quartus supra 6 January 1873
“For they contend that it is opportune, in order to work in a more attractive way upon the wills of those who are not in accord with us, to pass over certain heads of doctrine, as if of lesser moment, or to so soften them that they may not have the same meaning which the Church has invariably held…Few words are needed to show how reprehensible is the plan that is thus conceived.” Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Testem Benevolentiae, 22 January 1899
“We desire this unceasing prayer to rise to God from the whole Mystical Body,that all the straying sheep may hasten to enter the one fold of Jesus Christ.” Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, p 62
Louie Verrecchio, as usual expresses things very well.
http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/the-apparent-death-of-the-catholic-church/
I presume all this false ecumenism reflects the programme of the Council revolutionaries hinted at by the progressivist Father Edward Schillebeeckx when he pontificated that the Church had “officially abandoned her monopoly over the Christian religion at Vatican Council II”.
And by the way. They’re also tampering with the Good Friday prayers for the Jews again.
Pope Francis obviously wasn’t trying to be funny when he remarked that proselytism was “solemn nonsense”. This ecumania isn’t so much a case of April Fool’s Day as one constantly repeating Conciliar Groundhog Day.
The cut-and-paste job on outmoded doctrines is easily enough done, but it does obscure the fact that these statements from the Dead Pope’s Society do not accurately represent the actual teachings of the Roman authorities.
To cut-and-paste the official document of the present apostolic see, that teaching is ‘che coloro che sono stati battezzati e credono in Cristo, ma non fanno parte della Chiesa cattolica romana, sono stati “giustificati nel battesimo dalla fede, sono incorporati a Cristo e perciò sono a ragione insigniti del nome di cristiani, e dai figli della Chiesa cattolica sono giustamente riconosciuti quali fratelli nel Signore”‘.
It is a fair old while since I studied in Rome, but unless I have forgotten Italian completely, that little lot says that those baptised believers who do not belong to the Roman [sic.] Catholic Church are incorporated in the body of Christ and are entitled to be honoured with the name of Christian.
You may not agree with the Roman Catholic Church aka Chiesa cattolica romana (join the club!) but what I honestly cannot get is this business of people loudly proclaiming their adherence to dead popes while being far more rude about the present popes than the blackest orange masonic so-and-so would dare.
The report is worth reading to understand what the position of the Roman bit of the Catholic church actually is.
Doctor
“The Dead Pope’s Society” says it all really. Would that be a statement from the blackest orange masonic so-and-so? It certainly looks like it to me.
,
I might be wrong but I thought I heard your phone ringing, maybe my tinnitus though, perhaps you should check in case someone in Italy needs some saws sharpened.
In your obvious ignorance of the Catholic religion, you have made an error- presumably one of many. I think you mean to say- ‘the teachings of the Roman authorities do not accurately represent the infallible teachings of their distinguished predecessors’. You’ll call me a ‘bigot’ as you did on the catholic schools thread, but I’m only telling you this in light of God’s eternal truth.
Catholic concert,
One basic lesson is to tackle the idea not the person. So while dismissing an entire Christian community ‘a pestiferous mindset’ is bigotry and risible bigotry at that, the person uttering in opinion need not be a ‘bigot’ and one has no way of knowing that without knowing the individual. It would not exactly be the first time a schoolboy or an undergraduate delivered some outrageous opinion under the apprehension that it was in some way clever or amusing to say something offensive. A half-decent tutor in a half-decent university usually knocks that nonsense out of them by the end of the Michaelmas Term.
So no, it would never be the case of calling anyone ‘a bigot’ and no, no error – by ‘Roman authorities’ I said what I meant to say, ‘Roman authorities’. The report (which a few of us have read and many more have commented on) is in formal terms part of the ‘acta’ of the apostolic see, but is the work of a subordinate body – approved by the higher authorities for publication but hardly infallible (if anything is these days). It is worth reading with an open mind – the history is very up to date stuff from a wide range of sources.
Were you not making a ‘risible comment’ when you disparagingly referred to the ‘Dead Pope’s Society’. You do not come on a Catholic blog and start insulting Popes of sacred memory. Please and thank you!
It would not exactly be the first time a schoolboy or an undergraduate delivered some outrageous opinion under the apprehension that it was in some way clever or amusing to say something offensive.
How on Earth do you know that I am an undergraduate? You alluded to this on the other thread.
Although it takes an effort to contribute to this blog, it is easier just to follow, so a while back, talking about the pro-monarchy, anti-semitic background that ‘The ‘Marshal’ came from you asked about how he squared his conventional catholicism with the regimental bordello. You mentioned then that you were a History student but since it was obvious you did not know the hilarious tale of the misfortunes of M. Le President, it seemed a fair inference you had not yet done General History to 1914. But, my apologies, if you are a post-graduate.
I’ve just been searching for our discussion on Marshal Petain. I was merely enquiring as to whether Petain was an actual Catholic, as opposed to one who practised for political and nationalist reasons. He attended Masses as Lourdes and Notre Dame, presided over by Cardinal Emmanuel Suhard, the Archbishop of Paris. When he was on trial, his lawyers told him they were passing through Lourdes, as he said ‘remember me to the Lady there’. These are places of national pride in France. I knew he was a philanderer, hence my original question concerning his Catholicism. He was a contradiction. I studied France last year up until 1940, if you must know, but I will be studying Vichy during the third year.
Thank you for your kind concern.
Dr John Dowden,
“Catholic concert” is actually “Catholic Convert” (a young man from England who is to be received into the Church at Easter.)
As for “very up to date history” – er… that’s the problem! A new history to match our new everything else! No thanks!
PS my memory is that even Luther’s highly sympathetic biographer described him as a man who was extremely stubborn and would brook no opposition. Actually, I think it was much stronger than that, the first bit (“brook no opposition” is an exact quote) but you know me, always charitable to a fault… 😀
I wonder what the “new” history/biographers have to say about Luther today? Something along the lines of “he was an extremely pleasant man, an expert in theology and we’ll brook no criticism as we launch our celebration of the turning upside down of Christendom”!
Thanks Ed. I had noticed his spelling mistake re my blog name, but I thought it was a genuine typo, hence why I did not mention it.
Leo,
Thanks for posting the link to Harvestng the Fruit… where Louie Verrecchio covers this topic, dated 10 April, 2014, with links to The Remnant article on the same topic – that one dated 9th April, 2014. So, dear old Dowden should take note; we’re later here, right enough, but only by a day or two, depending on which other blog you’ve read first. June 2013? Don’t think so, Dowden. You’re obviously thinking of one of the previous announcements that the Catholic Church owes everything to the Reformation and so will be marking it and celebrating it like good ecumaniacs. This is just, take note, the latest…
I laughed at the quote at the top of Christopher Ferrara’s, as usual, insightful piece at The Remnant: “In his Responsio ad Lutherum, St. Thomas More called Luther an “ape”, a “drunkard”, and a “lousy little friar”. But who was he to judge?”
Priceless! Next time anybody attacks Catholic Truth for our “judgmental tone and style” I’ll be quoting St Thomas More at them – big time ! And often !
Ecumenism is also an apparition, an apparition concocted by dishonest wicked men and their useful idiots, who are bent on one objective and one objective only: the death of the Catholic Church. Oh, not a death that appears to be a death, but a death of substance, replaced by gibberish and thinly concealed by a “simplified” structure that somewhat resembles the true structure. A revolution from within.
Sort of a diabolical reproduction of transubstantiation: the Church remains sort of the same in her accidentals (well, except for Rudolf the Red-Nosed Pope), but her substance is transformed into heresy and rot.
Comparing the Catholic Church to any other religion is like comparing The Pieta to a chocolate rabbit.
We have had one thread here which got off to a peculiar start when it was based on a misquotation or mistranslation of scripture. Here we have got a invitation to express outrage at the ‘Vatican Latest’.
But, before expressing outrage, read the text. And note the date: June, 2013. Those who have closed minds can express outrage (or be rude) without troubling to read the text. It is a poor show, however, when the outraged are ill-enough informed to think this is the Vatican’s ‘latest’.
What actually seems to be the case is that our slow-witted American cousins have woken up to this one only recently. The even slower CTS has simply jumped on the bandwagon.
CTS latest.
Dr Dowden,
We HAVE covered the plans to celebrate the Reformation before. Plans which came to fruition – study our website carefully until you find Presbyterian Moderator or ex-moderator (they go through them so fast) insisting that he (and not his pal Archbishop Conti sitting alongside) belongs to the original Church of Christ
As for “Vatican Latest” – I was so surprised at seeing this news again, that I checked and double checked and now triple checked to see if there is a date on the linked page and for the life of me I cannot see one.
Perhaps it is your infallible self who has made a mistake – just this once ?
In any event, were you a Catholic you would know that in the light of eternity, June 2013 is but a blip and could be yesterday, today or tomorrow.
Since the proposal is to mark/celebrate (pick your word – they’re all meaningless in this crisis) the gravely sinful division of Christendom by the Protestant “reformers”, the scandal remains.
What the Vatican SHOULD be saying is “get out and bring all those lost souls back to the one, true Church – and begin with Dr John Dowden….”
As for the repetition of the falsehood which you peddled elsewhere, none of our threads began or ever will begin with a misquotation from Scripture.
Your jibe about our quoting “dead popes” reveals the reason why you haven’t got the proverbial clue about Catholicism. TRADITION (which gave us Scripture, so that now they stand side by side of equal weight within the Church) demands that no pope may contradict his predecessors in teaching matters of Faith and Morals. That’s the bit somebody forgot to tell “Holy Father Francis”. No wonder the Protestants and atheists love him!
No, not infallible, just inclined to check the sources. There seems to be no Latin original, which makes the Italian text the default (fair enough for an Italian-based church with an Italian-speaking bishop). What the Italian version gives says is “Dal conflitto alla comunione. Commemorazione comune … ”. Rapporto … (2013) and “Dal conflitto alla comunione”: Presupposti e possibilità … (17 giugno 2013)”.
A certain sort of American traditionalist supports the “Dead Poets’ Society” – the only good ones are the dead ones: it is just a WASP joke. The only real point of being part of what the Vatican report calls ‘Chiesa cattolica romana’ rather than, say, the English Church, is surely to have the assurance of both of the living popes. From what I can see of this blog, only Pius IX to Pius XII are respected. Everything from John XXIII is wrong, so it sure looks like the (long) Dead Pope’s Society. But from the response to that little quip the lesson is not even to attempt literary jokes here.
We get the literary connection, Dr Dowden – it’s just not terribly appropriate in this context, but, hey, you wanna share your literary gems with us, who are we to judge, I mean, discourage you! 😀
Doc
So you are a racist also are you?
Racism was prominent in the Church of Scotland- particularly manifested in hatred for the Irish. Moderator of the CofS, John White in the 1920s was known for his extremist views, as he issued The 1923 report The Menace of the Irish Race to our Scottish Nationality (produced during White’s Convenership of the Church and Nation Committee of the Church of Scotland) which accused the Catholic population in Scotland of subverting Presbyterian values and of ‘drunkenness, crime and financial imprudence’. The report further called for the ending of immigration of Irish Catholics to Scotland and the deportation of any convicted of a criminal offence or living on state benefits. White urged a “racially pure” Scotland, declaring, “Today there is a movement throughout the world towards the rejection of non-native constituents and the crystallization of national life from native elements.”
Aren’t Protestants lovely?
Yes, there is that side to prebyterianism, but give them their due they did have a theology of church and nation. They disliked the papists but they disliked the ‘piskies even more. The Irish church had the excuse of been a priest-ridden load of peasants whose services were in Latin and whose bibles were chained. The ‘English’ church had its bible and ought to have known better than to have a popish liturgy: ‘piskies were worse than papists. But, read the report: there is a point in understanding past denominational differences, but the point is to understand and move on.
They weren’t lovely but they are now: Mr Newman’s ‘development’.
‘Whose Bibles were chained’? Could you please clarify this statement. If we all look at your comments, your opinion on the Douay-Rheims Bible will most likely be damnable and erroneous. The Douay-Rheims Bible’s Psalms and New Testament was translated from the Latin to English in 1582 and the Old Testament was translated in 1609, both many years prior to the false and incomplete KJV. You claim that the KJV is a divinely inspired document, but it does not contain the deuterocanonical books, or apocrypha, such as 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit and Baruch. Maccabees contains key references to the existence of Purgatory, and of praying to atone for the souls of the dead. Your ‘bible’ omits this, hence why you don’t believe in Purgatory.
Which Church are you a member of?
Catholic Convert,
Our good friend Dowden is not a member of any Church. He isn’t Catholic so he is church-less.
He is a member of the weird and not so wonderful episcopal wannabe a church crowd. It’s a strange bunch of oddities, homosexuals and downright lunatics.
By the way, Dowden, the English “church” does not, and never has had, their bible. The Bible belongs to the Catholic Church. You may have a bastardised mistranslation, but you do not have the Bible.
So.. he’s an Anglican then??? Obviously, it’s not a Church, but a social club. Needless to say, you know what I’m driving at.
Gosh, we are settling down to a good old confessional ding-dong. Read the document and we need to understand and move on.
If you want to understand the confessional myth of the Ulster Protestants, and their iconography, they had a belief that medieval bilbles were chained. In some surviving libraries the most commonly used books were chained to desks to stop selfish readers claiming a monopoly – the fact (which is true) got misunderstood. But, back to the document, we understand each other better for understanding the misunderstandings. Then we accept the invitation in the preface to the document to move on in our common journey.
There is no common journey. Catholicism leads to Heaven; all other false religions lead to Hell.
You got there before me. I wish the ecumaniacs would have the decency to tell misguided Catholics and Protestants what the ecumadness movement is all about, because for the past 50 years, it clearly has no ultimate goal, such as unification with the Catholic Church. True ecumenism is what I’m doing a week tomorrow.
As you like, Petrus, but you are stating a personal view, which may be the teaching of the bishops of the Society of Pius X, consecrated in a schismatic act, but it does not represent the official view.
What the original text of the document under discussion says is ‘e ad accompagnarci in questo cammino verso una più profonda comunione di tutti i cristiani’.
Sounds like a journey to me but the perhaps some Scots think they are “a’ oot o’ step bar oor Marcel”.
Dr John Dowden,
Petrus is not stating a personal opinion and I’ll ignore your sideswipe at the SSPX except to say that if any group within the Church represents the truly “official [Catholic] view” on dogma, it is the SSPX.
Like the Modernists, you are delighted with what is offered right now by modern popes and prelates, and – despite the fact that none of the “official” positions which you push are even remotely authoritative, you stick with them.
Well, here’s the truly “official” – i.e. the ancient and unchangeable teaching of the Church on ecumenism, extract below taken from the encyclical Mortalium Animos, of Pope Pius XI, On Religious Unity… Oh and lest you accuse me of “cutting and pasting” (which I have done, of course) I include a link to the original source, with an exhortation to you to read it from beginning to end. Here goeth…
3. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.
4. Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be “one.”[1] And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another”?[2] All Christians, they add, should be as “one”: for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.
5. Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those undertakings which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians…
10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: “The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”[20] The same holy Martyr with good reason marvelled exceedingly that anyone could believe that “this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills.”[21] For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.[24]
11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the Mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful”?[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.”[26]
12. Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is “the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,”[27] not with the intention and the hope that “the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth”[28] will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail… Source
Ed,
Dowden constantly waxes lyrical about what the present authorities and Magisterium teaches, but does he not realise that the present authorities cannot change the eternal Magisterium? Protestantism may change with the wind, because it is a man-made religion, but as Catholicism was ordained by God, it will last unto the consummation of the world.
Listen here, Dowden. Do not come on a Catholic blog, and start insulting holy and venerable Popes and Archbishops of blessed memory. Whatever the modernist ‘Roman’ authorities think of the late Archbishop Lefebvre of b.m, it still does not hide the fact that he did, whilst a Holy Ghost Father in Senegal, more for the Catholic religion than any of the post-conciliar Popes. End of. He converted thousands of heathens to the true faith, and Catholics in Senegal, Novus Ordo or otherwise, bless his name, for removing the spiritual blindness from over their ancestors eyes, and for showing them the light of the true faith. In France, there are many traditionalist Catholics of black west African ancestry, thanks to Abp. Lefebvre. He always had great love for his African sons and daughters- so he can’t be racist. He visited the Pontiff many times a year to inform him of their progress. It’s a blatant lie that he had extreme right wing views. He hated leftists and communists, but can you blame him, given what they did in Spain and France during the Spanish Republic and Third Republic? Gerragrip!!!
Catholic Convert,
Archbishop Lefebvre would not have “hated” anyone. He may have – as we have a duty to do – hated their errors, and I’m sure that’s what you really meant to say, but I wanted to clarify that. Nobody should ever “hate” anyone – we may hate what they do or believe, but we may not hate another person – ever. Take it from one who is well and truly hated!
Of course that’s what I meant- you’ve known me so long you even know what I’m thinking!!!
Catholic Convert,
It may not happen very often but this is time to agree with the editor: tackle the ball not the player.
If you have been exploring French History you will know that the patron of the ultimate in Dead Pope’s Societies, the ne plus whatsit, made an absolute dog’s dinner of his diplomacy. It happens when a badly-qualified CEO comes to office. Pius X landed the French church in an utterly dire situation but it would be unfair to hate him for it: he was just inept, poor chap.
Equally the Petain-Lefebre wing of the French tradition has struggled to come to terms with 1789. As so often with the French, one cannot be angry with them – one has to feel sorry for the poor dears.
For some reason, Dr Dowden’s comment did not have a reply button. Nobody should EVER come to terms with 1789, not least Catholics. Over the ensuing decade, during the de-Christianisation of France, thousands of Priests and religious, also lay faithful were murdered, Church etc were pillaged and the Mass was banned, by the Atheistic and Masonic authorities.
Petain and Lefebvre despised the values of the 3rd Republic, with it’s decadence, secularism and bourgeois values. A nation cannot be moral without the ethics and morals of Catholicism. This is the reason why secular nations allow sodomite marriages and abortions etc. The CofE and it’s demonic cohorts have done nothing to stop it. As a history student and a Catholic, I look at history through the same lense as the late Fr. Denis Fahey CSSp. History must be understood as the “account for the acceptance or rejection of Our Lord’s programme for order”. Hence the revolution of 1789, the Russian revolution of 1917 and the Protestant reformation are Satanic in their origins. Of course you will disagree with me, but the evidence is irrefutable. When Catholicism is removed from its rightful place, chaos and iniquity follows. Just read the Blessed Virgin’s prophesies at Quito 1610, Fatima and La Salette. Not to mention St Elena Aiello.
This is a reply to Dr Dowden’s post at 2.18pm of today’s date.
Your insulting words attacking Pope Saint Pius X – one of the greatest of the Church’s canonised saints – are the ultimate in ignorance and Protestant hatred.
I was tempted not to dignify your latest very nasty attack on one of our truly holy popes with a reply, but decided merely to mark the ignorance you have shown, yet again, with this brief reminder to you that this is a Catholic blog and if you find yourself tempted to similarly insult any of our saints again, be prepared to have your comment deleted.
Which is why it would help if other bloggers refrained from bothering to answer this latest rudeness, equating the great Pope Saint Pius X with “a badly qualified CEO”.
Outrageous. No more hate speech please, least of all aimed at one of the Church’s greatest Pope Saints ever.
Editor,
.
One theme here is that there is a difference between attacking people and attacking their ideas.
It may be Luther was a bit of a rotter but that does not speak to Lutheranism. Equally the question of Pius X’s personal religion (which, broadly, was why he was elected) does not mean that his policy towards the French problem was anything other than a disaster, and one which created immense difficulties: that is hardly hatred – it is all rather old had since Chadwick’s book came out. That was a sober assessment based on the Vatican archives.
Good people do unwise things – in Luther’s case he managed to build a world-wide tradition, translated a bible and wrote some good hymns while being a thoroughly unpleasant piece of work.
The Pope had a duty to teach that the French Republic was in a state of moral error. He would have been badly qualified if he did anything but denounce the Republic. I wonder what Francis would have done?
Editor,
I’m seriously tempted to re-write the lyrics to “Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer” in honor of the present Pope, but if you think that is too disrespectful I will mortify my satirical tendencies….
Great Pretender,
As I think we’ve all agreed in a previous life, to take such obvious advantage of the shenanigans of “Holy Father Francis” would only distract from our work of education. Anything which smacks of “disrespect” is seized upon by those who are not, it would seem, playing with a full deck in matters theological and / or ecclesiastical – let alone papal 😉
In sort, forget about rewriting the lyrics. Pray to St Jude instead….
Thanks Editor, I will re-shuffle my deck and start over…
Try asking a sample of Mass going Catholics if they accept the dogma that outside the Church there is no salvation and it is a moral certainty that there will be some very strange responses- ignorance, contempt and accusations of being a “fundamentalist” bigot are likely to feature.
In similar fashion the Church’s traditional teaching on the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ has been effectively buried. And guess what: every heretical nut in the forest claims Vatican II as justification for rejecting these teachings.
How many Catholics are aware that the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation has been infallibly defined at least three times; by Pope Innocent III, Pope Boniface VIII and Pope Eugene IV. It has also been taught as part of the ordinary and universal magisterium from Apostolic times.
So why is there such ignorance and confusion amongst Catholics? Would it not be fair to say that this is part of the bitter fruits of Vatican II.
In November 2012, Pope Benedict spoke in his sermon at the Mass to open the Year of Faith about the need to read the documents.
“This is why I have often insisted on the need to return, as it were, to the “letter” of the Council – that is to its texts – also to draw from them its authentic spirit, and why I have repeated that the true legacy of Vatican II is to be found in them.”
Well, what about two following sections of Council texts?
“It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects already mentioned, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” – Unitatis Redintegratio (no. 3)
And how is this statement preserved from possible heretical interpretation by Catholics? How are false religions used by God as a means of salvation? What precisely is the “letter” saying here? What exactly are faithful Catholics required to accept here? We’ve been through the true and required attitude of Catholics towards novelties countless times on this blog.
And how about the following, taken from Lumen Gentium, which includes perhaps the most dangerous word in the entire Council:
“The Church, constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in union with that successor, although many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside her visible structure” – Lumen Gentium (no. 8)
The same questions apply here. Are we being told that the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are two entities, even if these entities come together? Are we being told that the founded by Christ is bigger than the Catholic Church? How is this in “continuity” with the ordinary and universal magisterium? How exactly are ordinary Catholics protected from a heretical interpretation of these words? Are we honestly expected to believe that these words have not been enthusiastically used by the propagators of the incalculably disastrous false ecumenism of the post Conciliar era?
And here’s another question about the “authentic spirit” of Vatican II. Why exactly did the Lumen Gentium not restate the words of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis when he identified “the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ” with “this true Church of Jesus Christ- which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church.”
Well, after five decades there doesn’t appear to be a suggestion of a remote resemblance of a hint of infallible magisterial clarification of the “authentic spirit” of these words being proclaimed to all Catholics. And that’s not for want of requests.
We really are back to the same old time bomb issue.
No doubt to raise such questions is to invite being labelled rigid and frozen in the past. No offence should be taken there. The above questions are far from being of merely academic interest. The salvation of souls is at stake. Don’t take my word for it. Ask around. Ask if there is salvation outside the Catholic Church.
Leo,
To cut a very long story short, I was alerted by a friend in England recently to a man who submitted an article (doubling as an attack) on Bishop Fellay on the Protect the Pope blog, claiming the Bishop was in “doctrinal error” on the subject of “outside the Church, no salvation”.
This man is called Lionel Andrades and I had to stop asking him to send him his regular email bulletins – well and truly over the top and highly anti-SSPX. Anyway, what HE is promoting is the real heresy (Feeneyism) and here’s a very interesting article correcting it.
The above is the first of several articles on the subject, so if anyone is interested, I’ll post them here. Just say “Please Editor…” 😀
R E M I N D E R . . .
The blog will close to comments tomorrow night (Saturday) at midnight, as we always do to mark Holy Week. We will reopen on Easter Sunday…
“Whoever carefully considers and studies the situation of the various religious communities, divided amongst themselves and separated from the Catholic Church…will be easily convinced that none of these associations-whether considered individually or taken as a whole- can in any way be seen as that One Catholic Church that Christ the Lord built and willed to exist. Neither can they in any way be considered members or part of this same Church, as long as they remain visibly separated from Catholic unity. It follows that such communities, lacking the living authority established by God to teach men- especially in Morals and matters of Faith and customs, directing and governing them in all that concerns eternal salvation- thus mutate in their doctrines and are constantly changing and unstable…For this reason, let all those who do not possess “the communion and truth of the Catholic Church” take advantage of this Council, in which she…offers a further demonstration of her profound unity and impregnable vital force; and responding to the demands of their hearts, let them strive to leave this state that does not guarantee for them the security of salvation.”
– Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Iam vos omnes, 13 September 1868
“The union of Christians can only be furthered by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it”.
– Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 1928, p 13
Here is an excellent article by John Vennari of Catholic Family News on the subject of this thread.
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/5ae7de14f0fb304f7bb78d6243389368-91.html
I wonder when we are going to hear of any planned commemoration in 2017 of Our Lady’s appearing to the three children of Fatima.
That Luther was a mentally unbalanced reprobate purveyor of heresy on a catastrophic scale, an apostate who hated the Papacy, the Mass and the Priesthood is beyond debate.
Compared to the following unspeakable blasphemies, his sins of pride, sensuousness, and immorality appear almost insignificant. Remember this is the revolutionary who completely rejected the authority and teaching of Christ’s Church, whom Popes John Paul II and Benedict saw fit to praise.
The following words are those of one of the best known French historians of the 20th century, Funck-Brentano, a member of the French Institute, taken from his book: Luther (Paris: Grasset, 1943). Unspeakable blasphemy is no exaggeration, so please be warned, everyone.
“Christ committed adultery for the first time with the woman at the fountain, of whom John speaks. Didn’t people murmur: ‘What did He do with her?’ Then, with Magdalene, and next, with the adulterous woman whom He so flippantly absolved. Therefore Christ, so pious, also had to fornicate before he died” (Propos de table [Table Talk], n. 1472, Weimar edition, 2.107, apud ibid., p. 235).
“Certainly God is grand and powerful, good and merciful … but he is also stupid – God is most stupid [Deus est stultissimus] (Ibid., n. 963, Weimar edition, I. 487). God is a tyrant. Moses acted, moved by His will, as His delegate, an executioner [of God] whom no one has surpassed or even equalled in frightening, terrifying and martyrizing the poor world” (ibid., p. 230).
This is consistent with another blasphemy that makes God the one truly responsible for the betrayal of Judas. Funck-Brentano comments:
“Luther goes so far as to declare that when Judas betrayed Christ he acted by an imperative decision of the Almighty. His will [Judas’] was directed by God: God moved him through His omnipotence. In the earthly paradise Adam was also forced to act as he did. He was placed by God in such a situation that it was impossible for him not to fall” (ibid., p. 246).
I wonder if Pope John Paul and Benedict ever read the repulsive statements contained in a pamphlet by Luther titled Against the Roman Pontificate Founded by the Devil, of March 1545. In it, instead of calling the Pope Most Holy [Santissimo], as customary, he called him “Most Infernal” (Infernalissimo), and added that the Papacy was always bloodthirsty (ibid., pp. 337-338).
Luther maintained this hatred to the end of his life. Indeed, Brentano affirms:
“His last public sermon in Wittenberg was on January 17, 1546. It was his final cry of malediction against the Papacy, the sacrifice of the Mass and the cult of the Virgin” (ibid, p. 340).
The Vatican might like to consider the company they join if they see fit to commemorate Luther’s memory. Funck-Brentano notes:
“In Germany Hitler proclaimed October 31, 1517 a national feast to commemorate the day when the revolted Augustinian friar hung his famous 95 thesis against the supremacy of the Pope and pontifical doctrines on the doors of the church of Wittenberg Castle” (ibid., p. 272).
Leo,
Your final paragraph reminded me of a book I’ve not yet read, though it is somewhere on my list: “Martin Luther: Hitler’s Spiritual Ancestor.”
http://www.amazon.com/Martin-Luther-Hitlers-Spiritual-Ancestor/dp/1578849543
Have you read it?
Great Pretender,
How did you get that image on the page? Leprechaun has been trying to work it out so if you can share your secret, he (and I, of course) will be grateful. Please and thank you…
Editor,
Unfortunately it was not an esoteric process: I just copied and pasted the URL and there it was. Maybe WordPress has changed something without bothering to inform you? Also I notice Burt has posted a video below – another new development….
Great Pretender,
WordPress frequently change things without telling me but not the videos – they have always shown as videos in my comments and those of others, although occasionally I see a link only. When I do, I go in to work my magic (more in a sec) which is what I did with Burt’s video.
In fact, in Burt’s original post there was only the link but I went into to delete it since he’d forgotten to put in the video link and it was several posts down. So, as I always do when I spot such typos, I went in and copied the link then pasted it into Burt’s original comment. However – and this may be the trick – I pressed “enter” to miss a line and then pasted the link and voila – video appears.
I may be wrong, of course, it is bound to happen some day, but I’m guessing that if we skip a line before posting video links, the video itself will appear not the link.
Catholic Truth at your service…
Great Pretender
Thank you for that link. I haven’t heard of the book before, but it certainly looks interesting.
It is a much ignored fact that in the areas of Germany where Catholicism was strong, the Nazis received significantly less votes than elsewhere.
Leo,
Not quite the full story. The electoral statistics are that the NSDAP did best where there was no alternative ideology – they got significantly less votes where the Centre Party (run by a monsignor) was strong but also, so they deserve credit, in areas where the Communists had a hold – big concentrations of urban workers. So let’s not ignore the facts. The better we know them them better we understand each other and the more ecumenical we shall be.
Luther was a notorious and rabid anti-semite, unlike many of the thousands of Catholic Poles, Germans, Dutch, Belgians and French who hid Jews in monasteries, convents, priories and even in attics and barns. Even Pius XII hid thousands in Rome contrary to popular belief.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/piusjews.htm
https://www.ewtn.com/library/issues/pius12gs.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/factsp12.htm
Catholic Convert,
The document we are all discussing (and which some have read) is explicit in its condemnation of Luther’s rabid anti-semitism (229).
But it also clear that, in working to a common understanding, one has to move on from a confessional understanding. So one has to say that the work of some Gentiles included Christians of many confessions. Even the Anglicans in HM diplomatic chaplaincies Central and Eastern Europe ran a little industry manufacturing fake baptismal papers
In this they were aided and abetted by an obscure young diplomat, one Dr Angelo Roncalli who operated one of the most efficient escape routes the got himself moved to France because he was, clearly, neither a fascist nor a collaborator.
With a red hat from the President of the Republic and the votes of the Francophone electors, the rest is history. It will all be discussed again fairly soon. Wonderful thing this commemoration business.
The message of the document on the 2017 commemoration is to understand the past, not selected snippets, and use this to move on to a common understanding. Vt vnum sint.
Dr John Dowden,
The one “snippet” we can never forget is that Luther split Christendom down the middle and led many souls astray – and continues to do so in our times. That the Vatican sees any cause for anything except public correction and condemnation of Luther’s errors, is lamentable. You are a Protestant and so you will never agree with this. Let’s not waste our precious cyberspace any longer batting back and forth. You are wrong, sadly, but will never admit it. We (Catholics) are correct and will never deny it. Is it, therefore, worth neglecting dear Mrs Dowden in order to (dis)engage with us? Go figure, as Great Pretender and Jobstears might say 😀
Ed,
Dowden won’t give me a straight answer, even if I asked, but how can we move away from a confessional understanding? We aren’t equal or the same. Our Church was founded by Christ, his wasn’t.
Quick answer is to look at the document under discussion. The two confessions set out their understandings, engage in dialogue and move on. On one side, we can see our Roman brothers and sisters have a load of old baggage to unload, but at the same time we have neglected a lot of their worthwhile understanding. Look at the text: it really is a rather good, up-to-date statement of the historical and theological dimensions. The document is sane, balanced and well worth a read – it shows the way forward: one church, one faith, one Lord.
Agreed. There IS only one Church, one Faith, one Lord. And you will find all three uniquely and solely in the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church founded by Christ on the rock of Peter. Not the Anglican, Methodist etc. founded on the errors of the Protestant Reformation.
My Dear Management is never neglected. It is just sometimes Her Outdoors gets on with the skilled work in the garden without being able to find enough heavy lifting and menial work to keep her charges busy.
The document actually suggests the dialogue is to set out the truth as we see it and engage – that way the Vatican sees us getting to a different and higher truth. Not so much as back and forth as higher and higher.
Anyway, Happy Easter to all and good wishes to Catholic Convert on his next step.
Regardless of our differences, I am truly grateful for your good wishes, and please accept my best wishes to you for a joyous Easter. You never know, it may be your turn next year 🙂
I’ve been following the exchanges with Dr John Dowden here and thinking the same thing myself!
I would recommend that he obtains a Green Scapular http://www.greenscapular.com/
to see if he undergoes any change in his thinking about the “one Church, Faith and Lord”.
It cannot do any harm and it may be something really big in his life.
I recommend it, Dr John – please read the link and send for a scapular. You don’t need to wear it, as you’ll see, and it’s a very powerful sacramental.
The President of France, oddly enough was an Atheist and a Freemason. I find it peculiar, to say the least that Angelo Roncalli as the Patriarch of Venice would accept the red hat from an individual such as M. le President de la Republique Francais, Vincent Auriol. What does it tell us about Msgr Roncalli.
Before you say, Auriol was claiming the right of French Kings in this regard, but why would a Republican and Atheist President do such a thing? It’s almost as daft as allowing the President to be the honorary Canon of St John Lateran.
What it tells you is that he was a diplomat being diplomatic. Some small gestures cost nothing and create a lot of good will (and Francophone votes). As it happens there is a Paisley monsignor doing his bit to help the UK with Vatican protocol. It costs nothing but the Queen’s recent and successful visit was built on these small gestures. Nothing sinister, just an ability to think outside the ecclesial community box. Which is what the report suggests.
No, it tells you that he was dodgy. Why would the Patriarch of Venice, a Catholic cleric, and a senior one at that, receive the red hat from a known Atheist and Freemason? Your argument of ‘diplomacy’ doesn’t cut the mustard here I’m afraid. Any man made a Cardinal must receive his biretta from the Pope himself.
Leo,
That’s all amazing stuff. WOW! That’s now in my “DNFT” file (Do not forget this!)
Petrus,
You are entitled to you view, but the rest of us are entitled to think the official document being discussed here is a more accurate statement of the official poisition. So once again, the Italian text (presumably definitive) says ‘che coloro che sono stati battezzati e credono in Cristo, ma non fanno parte della Chiesa cattolica romana, sono stati “giustificati nel battesimo dalla fede, sono incorporati a Cristo e perciò sono a ragione insigniti del nome di cristiani, e dai figli della Chiesa cattolica sono giustamente riconosciuti quali fratelli nel Signore”‘. So like it or not (and perhaps you do not) we are not divided, all one body we, one in faith and doctrine, one in charity. So do try to sing up there at the back.
By another way, the English Church has translations going back before 1066! There are both English and Scots translations before the 1530s. And the Bishops’ Bible – so AV was building on much earlier stuff – the psalms and the liturgical pericope were all done by 1549.
Dr John Dowden,
I do my level best not to put people down (believe it or not) but since you are so openly keen to make sure that we all know how “educated” you are, I have to remind you that it is a feature of the truly educated person to NEVER use foreign words, phrases (or paragraphs) without translating them, or even to use vocabulary not in common useage, just to make sure that all readers understand. Therefore, we were taught to always translate, albeit in parenthesis, at least the first time we use such “foreign” (at whatever level) language. Indeed, one tongue-in-cheek lecturer from my own student days actually hinted that, otherwise, the suspicion might arise that we didn’t actually know the meaning ourselves – can you believe that?
So, just in case anyone is puzzled by “che coloro che sono stati battezzati e credono in Cristo, ma non fanno parte della Chiesa cattolica romana, sono stati “giustificati nel battesimo dalla fede, sono incorporati a Cristo e perciò sono a ragione insigniti del nome di cristiani, e dai figli della Chiesa cattolica sono giustamente riconosciuti quali fratelli nel Signore”‘, allow me to loosely translate it (and hope I get it right!) as follows: “those who have been baptized and believe in Christ, but [are] not part of the Catholic Church, [are]” justified by faith in Baptism, are incorporated into Christ and therefore are rightly honoured with the name of Christians, and the children of the Church Catholic are rightly recognized as brothers in the Lord. “‘
Now, Dowden, compare that with the following, from the lips, not of a pre-Vatican II pope, but from the lips of “the Pope of the Council” himself – John XXIII: “Before everything else, fidelity to the Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Jesus did not found several churches, but one single Church.”
Dowden, why not give up the ghost and join us? You know it makes sense 😀
PS the “official position” on the dogma “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation” cannot be changed by anyone, including Pope Francis.
The English Church prior to 1066 was the Catholic Church headed by the Pope in Rome. You are by far the most historically ignorant person I have ever come across. The CofE is NOT THE SUCCESSOR of the Catholic Church in this country. It is led by heretics and schismatics, presided over by the Archlayman of Canterbury, an imposter. The Church of England does not have the Apostolic line, and it severed it’s link with the true Church of Christ. Any Bible written by Protestants, is as Petrus put it ‘bastardised’, as it omits the Apocrypha, or the Deuterocanonical books, thus leading Protestants into ignorance concerning several doctrines central to the Christian faith, such as Purgatory.
We are not one in faith or doctrine as your ‘church’ allows contraception, homosexuality and the toleration of abortion. We are not one in faith, and you are possessed by something unholy.
The bad news is that the text rather suggests we both joined a while back – common baptism.
Yes the Italian translation is getting there but you make one obvious mistake (I cannot imagine why). ‘Chiesa’ is church, ‘cattolica’ is catholic but you miss ‘romana’. Given the natural order of English adjectives, that comes out as “Roman Catholic Church”. And you scramble the last bit which should be ‘are rightly recognized by the children … as …’. The original must be Italian since they have not got it in Latin or German.
No contradiction – Dr Roncalli was a distinguished church historian and knew his stuff. There is one church, one faith, one Lord, one baptism, one God and Father of us all. To subsist within this does not mean to comprise it. Hence the children’s brothers are also the children. We are getting there
and John XXIII richly deserves much of the credit.
Mr Newman squared the circle with the development of doctrine. Wait long enough and the rest of the world will catch up with Oxford.
Dowden – nonsense. All nonsense. Your failure to even begin to understand the meaning of “development of doctrine” is astonishing. I mean, have you ever READ Newman?
Oh and I think you know that I NEVER use “Roman Catholic” – often badly translated, usually from “Catholic and Roman…” 😀 Hence I will NEVER include it in a translation.
Anyway, I’ve posted the authentic teaching of the Church on unity for you above. Take a look and then sign up.
Had a look but I just knew before I got there it was going to be a long dead pope. More recent judgments over-write the older so the rest of us should look to them to understand present teaching.
Basic principle of translation is to be faithful to the original. You dont like the word but the Curia use it, so you cannot edit a word out or insert an ‘and’ and still claim any sort of intellectual integrity for CTS.
Anyway it is gone 2:00 CET so time to dig out Newman being philosophical – beats counting sheep.
Dr John Dowden,
You are completely wrong about “more recent judgment over-writing the older” – absolutely wrong. In Catholicism, anything which CONTRADICTS “the older” (traditional teaching) cannot be imposed on the faithful. That’s elementary my dear Dowden.
And if somebody (say in the Scottish Government) translates a document to read “Queen Elizabeth II of England and Scotland,” I should translate the original without indicating the error? Really? I can see that that would be the case if I were translating for a living and the purchaser of my services merely wished an exact translation. That is not our purpose here, my dear Dowden. Not remotely. My purpose was to give the general drift of the quote you supplied. In any event, since most official documents might use the term “Catholic, Apostolic and Roman” Church, that would be the correct exact translation, unless we impose the erroneous “RC” of Reformation invention. Note, however, that this Protestant name for the Church is often used in ignorance by Catholics, some of them at higher levels in the Church and I’m willing to concede (as one Scots priest said to me was his own conclusion) that it’s not worth the hassle involved in continually correcting it – he gave up long ago. Doesn’t change the FACT Dowden, and since you’re so fond of facts (those that suit your agenda) I’m going to leave it there. I have no respect for those, like yourself, who insist on using this Protestant name for the Church after having had the truth/facts pointed out to him so – as I say – I’m happy to leave it there. The more you flaunt your alleged academic qualifications juxtaposed with your insistence on refusing to use the correct name for the Church, the less “academic” you appear. 😀
The Spirit of Assisi is obviously still very much wafting around inside Church.
Two months after the first Assisi scandal in 1986, in a speech to the Curia, the late Pope said: “The day of Assisi, showing the Catholic Church holding hands with our brothers of other religions, was a visible express of [the] statements of the Second Vatican Council.”
“The event of Assisi” he said, “can thus be considered as a visible illustration, an exegesis of events, a catechesis intelligible to all, of what is presupposed and signified by the commitments to ecumenism and to the inter-religious dialogue which was recommended and promoted by the Second Vatican Council.”
Pope John Paul also urged his Cardinals to “keep always alive the spirit of Assisi as a motive of hope for the future.”
Fostering the “spirit of Assisi” can be seen as one of the ways in which Pope John Paul II fulfilled his 1978 pledge to “favour the development of Conciliar attitudes” and to make what was “implicit” in Vatican II’s documents “explicit”.
The rampant false ecumenism of the post Conciliar era is without doubt in synch with a bigger programme characterised by a blurring of the distinction between natural and the supernatural, the negation of the impulse to evangelise and convert souls to the one, true religion, and the apparent propagation of belief in universal salvation. The necessary understanding of the requirement of Divine Grace for salvation and the one, true Church, founded by Christ on the rock of Peter as the sole mediator of that Grace has become very, very hazy with all this Spirit of Vatican II in the air. The civilisation of luv, luv, luv rules OK. Take it away John and Yoko.
If all men are inseparably united to Christ, and Hell is empty, what does it matter what religion one adheres to. That’s the natural conclusion. Sanctifying grace through the sacraments of the Church are now effectively seen as an optional extra, given this Modernist mind rot. Do people not see how incredibly dangerous this is. Talk of the barque of Peter and the salvation of souls appears to be the reserve of the “triumphalist”, “restorationist”. “self-absorbed neo-Pelagian” Rosary counters who desire “doctrinal security”.
Whichever particular false religion is the “dialogue partner” at any particular moment really is irrelevant, if conversion is not the goal. Lutherans, Jews, Mohommedans, Hindus, Buddhists, snake worshippers, peace pipe smokers, or Voodoo men, or whoever, it’s all the same. If conversion, or movement in that direction at least, is off the agenda, all that remains to discuss is some worldly humanistic utopia, and man-made masonic “peace”, far removed from Catholic tranquillity of order, the one peace of any real worth, the peace obtained through the passion, death, and resurrection of the Head of His one, true Church, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
False ecumenism cannot be objectively seen as anything other than a monumental offence against God, and also a grave offense against charity by conveying to those outside the Church a completely unfounded sense of supernatural security.
While we pray for the restoration of order and for the shepherds to recover a grasp of the Church’s Divine mission, the following words should be ever before us:
“And if some new contagion should seek to poison, not only a little part of the Church, but the whole Church at once then his (the Catholic’s) greatest care should once again be to adhere to antiquity, which obviously cannot be seduced by any deceitful novelty. “ Saint Vincent Lerins, Commonitorium, Chapter 3, section 7.
As I head for the pubs and clubs, Leo, your latest post has lifted my spirits – well, the quote from Saint Vincent Lerins has lifted my spirits to be precise. The rest? If only I could remember what bus it is goes to the Erskine Bridge…
R E M I N D E R . . .
The blog will be closed to comments at midnight tonight, to mark Holy Week and will re-open on Easter Sunday.
Please remember to pray for Catholic Convert this week, as he prepares to be received into the Church in his parish at the Easter Vigil, a week today.
Wow – Happy Easter Catholic Convert, I’m praying for you.
For my contribution to the topic I would like to share this video of a very gifted Catholic apologist, Robert Sungenis, putting a Protestant right on a few things, ! hope others enjoy it too.
http://youtu.be/ZsYaHmjdDa8
Catholic Convert 1,
When I was received into the Catholic Church in 1958 I entered a period of ecstasy where I seemed to be out of this world. It lasted for well over a week and remains quite unforgettable.
I offer you my congratulations on the steps you have taken to safeguard your soul and I hope that you too will enjoy a period of ecstasy afterwards.
God bless you.
Leprechaun,
Thank you so much for your prayers and good wishes. 1958- you are lucky that you were received prior to the errors of modernism took hold. This blog has helped me in that regard.
I’m not sure about ecstasy- we don’t do that in Yorkshire- all I know is that I will feel an overwhelming sense of happiness and peace. It’s been a long journey of 5 years. I can only think of St Hilary of Poitiers, about Christ being on a boat, calling his people on the shore- He called and I swam out.
Rome sweet Rome!!!
Rome, sweet Rome? So you are a ROMAN Catholic after all!! Benvenuto e Buona Pasqua!
Extra Omnes,
Nope. Catholic Convert is an English Catholic. All the Roman Catholics were born in …er… Rome 😀
I say that with a little humor, dear editor, because I am a Roman Catholic…(nato e cresciuto a Roma), but child of the only Church as you say always. God will bless you and keep you ever in his love. Welcome to the new Catholic, may it bring you much joy. Ciao e Buona Pasqua a tutti!!!
Wonderful, Extra Omnes! I think you may be the first Roman Catholic we’ve welcomed to this blog!
And welcome you are – very much so!
I’m Roman and Catholic, too. We never used “Roman Catholic”.
Burt,
Buona Pasqua to you too!!! It’s all the Italiano I know. Thank you for praying for me.
God bless you.
Catholic Convert,
What wonderful news! I will be praying for you.
Thank you very much Jobstears. I’ll keep you in my prayers also.
Congratulations Catholic Convert!!! I’ll pray for you! 🙂
Catholic Convert 1,
Your reception into the Catholic Church is certainly the end of your journey along the wrong road, but now that you will be able to avail yourself of the Sacraments and the graces of the One, True, Holy and Apostolic Church, you will also be setting out on a new journey.
I should like to recommend a good guide book to you. It is one I have read myself and it is full of good advice, and it is definitely worth having close by:
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Devout-Life-Tan-Classics/dp/0895552280/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1397318775&sr=1-3&keywords=introduction+to+the+devout+life#reader_0895552280
Madame Editor,
Look – a miracle! Well, actually it is an illusion with smoke and mirrors, and one performed with the honest assistance of the GreatPretender51, but it has provided a new clue.
Leprechaun wishes a good Holy Week to all the bloggers including Dr. you-know-who and M/s you-know-who and looks forward to the return of the blog at Easter.
Editor: brilliant Leprechaun! All your hard work has paid off. I’m delighted.
Dowden
I’m very glad to read you say that we should “not ignore the facts” (April 12, 12.51am). The simple fact, which you appear not to dispute, is that electoral support for the Nazis was in marked inverse proportion to the Catholic population in different regions of Germany. By way of example I might mention that “in the July 1932 election, six months before coming to power, when the Nazis doubled their vote (18.3% to 37.4%), in the Rhineland and lower Bavaria when Catholic predominated, they obtained the lowest segment of support (19.9%)” (The Cross and the Third Reich, by John Frain, p.44).
As you correctly point out the Centre Party, formed two generations previously in response to Bismarck’s short-lived but aggressive effort to exclude Catholics from public life did constitute a significant electoral opponent to the Nazis. By the time of the rise of the Nazis, the Catholic vote was well spread amongst the non-Nazi parties. “Whereas almost 63 per cent of Catholics voted for the Centre in 1919, by 1930 this had fallen to 47 per cent” (Sacred Causes, by Michael Burleigh, p. 36). So, Catholic voters, while willing to change political allegiance, did not support the Nazis to anything like the same extent as non-Catholics.
I think it does stretch, if not ignore, facts to imply that Protestant Prussia and elsewhere had no “alternative ideology” to support. What about the Social Democrats, for example, or the German Reformation Party? To quote Burleigh again, “the political homelessness of Protestant Germany would be resolved after 1930 when its citizens gave their votes in increasing numbers to a party that promised authority, order and respect for religion: the Nazis successfully presented themselves as the sword of an awakening semi-religious German spirit” (p. 36). That’s quite a concise expression of the secular consequences of separation from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
German Catholics’ lack of support for the Nazis in their ascent to power is rather straightforward to explain. In contrast to present day shepherds, at that time Catholic Bishops were willing to speak out against manifest evil. Of 44 public speeches made by Nuncio Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, in Germany between 1917 and 1929 at least 40 contained attacks on National Socialism on Hitler’s doctrines (E Tolansky and H Scott, Pius XII, 2003, p.23, cited by Frain, p. 40). Throughout the 1920’s the German Bishops followed his lead. There is ample evidence. In the aftermath of the 1923 Munich putsch, nuncio Pacelli reported to Rome that Nationalism “is perhaps the most dangerous heresy of our times” (Burleigh, p. 169).
Shortly after the Nazis seized power in 1933, the “bishops in the provinces of Cologne, Upper Rhine, and Paderborn cautioned clergy against becoming involved with the Nazis and as proof of their resolve threatened any leader of a party hostile to Christianity with denial of the sacraments” (Burleigh, p. 170-171).
Around the same time, the so-called German Christians, adherents to the “spirit of Luther” who longed for a new German religion under a new Reich “Bishop”, were demanding that the overall administration of the Evangelical community be put into the hands of the government. They got their “bishop” a few months later: one Ludwig Mueller, Hitler’s friend and adviser on Protestant affairs. (Frain, p. 58).
Burleigh notes on page 176 of Sacred Causes that “there was no Catholic equivalent of the Nazi-Protestant German Christian movement, which had nearly six hundred thousand members, and in whose creed anti-Semitism played a crucial part”.
On page 62 of his book, Frain cites Klaus Scholder, a Protestant historian who produced a two volume history on The Churches and the Third Reich. “In volume two he” (Scholder) “suggests that Hitler’s support for the German Christians, in the summer of 1933, as well as a uniform Protestant Reich, was to provide a counterbalance to the Catholicism ‘which he feared’.”
“In his first volume, Scholder also points out that between 1930 and 1933 the opposition to Hitler by Catholics faithful to the Church ranked, not least for Hitler himself, as one of the most constant factors in German domestic politics” (Frain p. 63).
“An analysis of Robert A Kreig’s work on Catholic Theologians in Nazi Germany provides numerous examples of opponents of the regime and few supporters whereas Robert P Ericksen’s study Theologians under Hitler discloses the support for Nazism among those of the Lutheran confession.” (Frain, p.63).
Separation from the Church and fragmentation amongst German Protestantism had inevitable consequences later on. I’m not aware of any Protestant declaration comparable to the blistering 1937 exposition and condemnation of Nazism by Pope Pius XI in encyclical, Mit Brennender Sorge.
“In addition to its vehement protest against the, by now, clear persecution of the Church, and its affirmation of Christian teaching, the encyclical skilfully destroyed the spurious claims of Nazi ideology. It also set out, in the clearest fashion, the Church’s philosophy of law and of the State. In this regard, because its philosophy was consistent, the Catholic Church had a very great advantage over the Protestant confessions in its opposition to the creed of National Socialists. It is reported, for example, that (Alfred) Rosenberg (the Nazi party’s designated philosopher and educational adviser to Hitler) regarded the Dominicans, who are Thomists par excellence, as his most dangerous enemies” (Frain, p. 90 with supporting citation).
This exemplary papal confrontation of Nazism undoubtedly gave the lead for the future Catholic Action in the War. Rabbi David Dalin in his 2005 book, The Myth of Hitler’s Pope- How Pope Pius XII rescued Jews from the Nazis quoted Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide who, from his researches, concluded that “the Catholic Church, under the pontificate of Pius XII, was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands, and adds that these figures “exceed by far those saved by all other churches, religious institutions and rescue organisations combined”.
I think the historical facts evident in the 20th century Germany of the Lutheran revolt point very strongly to the tragedy of heresy and separation from the Church in purely secular terms, apart altogether from the loss of countless souls.
All the evidence suggests that a Catholic Germany, loyal to the One true Faith and Church would have proved resistant to the demonic virus of Hitler’s Nazism and the world would have been spared one of the greatest slaughters in history.
It must be said of course, that if only the request of Our Lady of Fatima for the Consecration of Russia had been carried out expeditiously, history would have been very different.
Leo,
You adopt a historical method of selecting facts and the line them up so as to become a “proof”, in any instant case, of the general proposition that ‘Us-Yins’ are right and ‘Them-Yins’ are wrong. So, in 1932, fewer ‘Us-Yins’ voted for Herr Hitler while the evil ‘Them-Yins’ are therefore to be reprobated.
You could actually line up a stronger case. When Hitler achieved power, the ceremony was in the Lutheran church in Potsdam, the heart of Lutheran Prussia, when the entire assembly burst in to a rousing chorus of one of the great hymns of the Lutheran tradition, Nun danket alle Gott, bring Lutheran tears to the aged Lutheran President’s Lutheran eyes. Gosh, what an evil brood Luther spawned! Q.E.D..
The slight flaw in the argument is that we know about the old man’s tears from Dr Goebbels, a ‘cradle catholic’ who stage-managed the whole show which, with the support of a Mgr Kass (an old pal of Pius XII, who for some reason eventually had him re-buried in St Peter’s) and a Westphalian Roman, Franz von Papen, brought another ‘cradle catholic’, Austria’s Herr Hitler, to power.
You say the south Germans blocked Hitler in 1932 but what your version fails to mention is that in 1933 it was, precisely, the Bavarian and Württemberg electorate which shifted to Hitler. It was a very marginal shift but (as fans of the swingometer know) that is how elections are won. Hitler had ceased to make any further headway with the Prussian-Lutheran vote, lost without Prussian leadership, leaving the Catholic Centre vote to bring Hitler to power with a tiny margin, 1.9%. Mgr Kaas then obligingly delivered the Centre Party deputies’ support, required to legislate for emergency rule.
The complaint in 1937 is not some heroic statement of resistance – the time for that was in 1933. It is a grumble that, having delivered Germany to Hitler in return for a Concordat, the Roman authorities were disappointed that the dictator had not kept his part of the bargain. It is by no means difficult to quote grovelling noises made by ardent Romans on Hitler’s anniversaries – all the way down to the ‘condolences’ on his demise – an all-time low for Irish diplomacy.
But while we can have an endless, selective, confessional knockabout the document we are discussing says a new approach is needed (8): it is ‘no longer adequate’ to present oppositional accounts of the past which not infrequently intensify ‘the conflict between the confessions and sometimes led to open hostility’. Thus a common ecumenical remembrance of the Lutheran Reformation in 2017 has to meet the difficulty that, even today, many associate the word “Reformation” first of all with the division of the church, while others associate the word chiefly with the rediscovery of the gospel, certainty of faith and freedom. The document maintains (9) that it will ‘be necessary to take both points of departure seriously in order to relate the two perspectives to each other and bring them into dialogue’. Ecumenism, according to the text (12) cannot base itself on forgetfulness of tradition, so the question becomes how can the traditions be passed on ‘in such a way that they do not dig new trenches between Christians of different confessions?’
As it happens, I have no dog in this particular fight and no sort of enthusiasm for Dr Luther but that is not the point. The Roman-Catholic and Lutheran confessions actually exist and something needs to be done to bring them together, with all the other Christian churches, into a visibly united Catholic Church.
The document seems an entirely sensible way forward although it leaves the issue of how the Roman-Catholic Church is to persuade the vocal minority which prefers the SSPX and its schismatic acts to following the official line. Cardinal Müller clearly finds it easier to contribute to a Roman-Catholic/Lutheran commission than to get the (alleged) ‘faithful’ to fall into line.
His predecessors had much the same problem with Dr Luther.
Dowden
You have commented that “from what I can see of this blog, only Pius IX to Pius XII are respected.”
You better expand that back a bit, in view of the subject of this thread.
“We now come to another and most fruitful cause of the evils which at present afflict the Church and which We so bitterly deplore; We mean Indifferentism or that wicked opinion which has grown up on all sides through the deceit of evil men. According to this opinion, the eternal salvation if the soul can be attained by any kind of profession of faith, as long as man’s morals are in line with the standard of justice and honesty.” Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Mirari vos arbitramur, 15 August 1832
“Against these repeaters of ancient errors, the people must be assured, Venerable Brethren, that the profession of the Catholic Faith is alone the true one, since the Apostle tells us that there is one Lord and one Baptism. As Jerome says, the man who eats the Lamb outside of this house is profane”- Pope Pius VIII, Encyclical, Traditi humilitati nostrae, 24 May 1829
You appear to have forgotten about three Popes who infallibly proclaimed the dogma that outside the Church there is no salvation, and who have been mentioned on this thread already: Pope Innocent III, Pope Boniface VIII and Pope Eugene IV.
They were only following the lead of the first Pope.
Leo,
Yes, you are right here. It is unfortunate, but when there are great lumps of cut and paste jobs (which seem to have posted also on other blogs) one does not perhaps read them with close attention. You do extend the citation of dead popes a little before Pius IX but, read Chadwick, and there is not that much of a difference between the popes of the reactionary period. Fact remains that there is not much respectful citation of anything much after Pius XII.
Leo,
Many thanks for rounding off – perfectly – our various exchanges with Dowden, by filling in several important gaps. I was just thinking how impossible it is to correct all of his errors when your latest gems appeared. Facts, facts, facts. Give Dr Dowden nothing but facts… (I hope he gets the literary connection there or there will be one Dickens (clue) of a lecture from me in due course!)
You’ve certainly given him plenty of facts (in both of your latest comments) to be going on with, so I can only say, Leo, that I hope the Easter Bunny brings you lots of Easter eggs next Sunday 😀
A very peaceful and prayerful Holy Week to one and all – I’ll close the blog now and we’ll meet again on Easter Sunday.
God bless
Comments are closed.