Bishop Schneider: Schism Looming…
Those who continue to insist: “crisis, what crisis?” and who think Archbishop Lefebvre acted without basis, read this Interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana, Kazakhstan – and say, humbly, “I was wrong” … source
Interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider (BAS)
“Only on the Internet can you spread your own ideas. Thanks be to God the Internet exists”
BAS: ‘To my knowledge and experience, the deepest wound in the actual crisis of the Church is the Eucharistic wound; the abuses of the Blessed Sacrament.
‘Many people are receiving Holy Communion in an objective state of mortal sin…This is spreading in the Church, especially in the western world. There people very rarely go to Holy Communion with a sufficient preparation.
‘Some people who go to Holy Communion live in irregular moral situations, which do not correspond to the Gospel. Without being married, they go to Holy Communion. They might be divorced and living in a new marriage, a civil marriage, and they go nevertheless to Holy Communion. I think this is a very, very grievous situation.
‘There is also the question of the objectively irreverent reception of Holy Communion. The so-called new, modern manner of receiving Holy Communion directly into the hand is very serious because it exposes Christ to an enormous banality.
‘There is the grievous fact of the loss of the Eucharistic fragments. No one can deny this. And the fragments of the consecrated host are crushed by feet. This is horrible! Our God, in our churches, is trampled by feet! No one can deny it.
‘And this is happening on a large scale. This has to be, for a person with faith and love for God, a very serious phenomenon.
‘We cannot continue as if Jesus as God does not exist, as though only the bread exists. This modern practice of Communion in the hand has nothing to do with the practice in the ancient Church. The modern practice of receiving Communion in hand contributes gradually to the loss of the Catholic faith in the real presence and in the transubstantiation.
‘A priest and a bishop cannot say this practice is ok. Here is at stake the most holy, the most divine and concrete on Earth.’
Q You are standing out on your own in this?
BAS: ‘I am very sad that I am feeling myself as one who is shouting in the desert. The Eucharistic crisis due to the modern use of Communion in hand is so evident. This is not an exaggeration. It is time that the bishops raise their voices for the Eucharistic Jesus who has no voice to defend himself. Here is an attack on the most Holy, an attack on the Eucharistic faith.
‘Of course there are people who receive Holy Communion in the hand with much devotion and faith, but they are in a minority. The vast mass, though, are losing the faith through this very banal manner of taking Holy Communion like common food, like a chip or a cake. Such a manner to receive the most Holy here on earth is not sacred, and it destroys by time the deep awareness and the Catholic faith in the real presence and in the transubstantiation.’
Q Is the Church going in the opposite direction from where you are going?
BAS: ‘It seems that the majority of the clergy and the bishops are content with this modern use of Communion in hand and don’t realize the real dangers connected with such a practice. For me this is incredible. How is this possible, when Jesus is present in the little hosts? A priest and a bishop should say: “I have to do something, at least to gradually reduce this. All that I can do, I have to do.” Unfortunately, though, there are members of the clergy who are making propaganda of the modern use of Communion in the hand and sometimes prohibiting receiving Communion on the tongue and kneeling. There are even priests who are discriminating those who kneel for Holy Communion. This is very, very sad.
‘There is also an increasing stealing of hosts, because of distributing Communion directly in the hand. There is a net, a business, of the stealing of Holy Hosts and this is much facilitated by Communion in the hand.
‘Why would I, as a priest and bishop, expose Our Lord to such a danger, to such a risk? When these bishops or priests [who approve of Communion in the hand] have some item of value, they would never expose this to great danger, to be lost or stolen. They protect their house, but they do not protect Jesus and allow him to be stolen very easily.’
Q In respect of the questionnaire on the issue of family – people are expecting big changes.
BAS: ‘There is on this issue a deal of propaganda, put about by the Mass media. We need to be very careful. There are the official anti-Christian mass media worldwide. In almost every country it is the same content of news, with the exception perhaps of the African and Asian countries or in the East of Europe.
‘Only on the Internet can you spread your own ideas. Thanks be to God the Internet exists.
‘The idea of changes in marriage and moral laws to be done at the upcoming synod of bishops in Rome, comes from mostly the anti-Christian media. And some clergy and Catholics are collaborating with them in spreading the expectations of the anti-Christian world to change the law of God concerning marriage and sexuality.
‘It is an attack by the anti-Christian world and it is very tragic and sad that some clergy are collaborating with them. To argue for a change the law of God, they use in a kind of sophism the concept of mercy. But in reality this is not mercy, this is cruel.
‘It is not mercy, for instance, if someone has a disease to leave him in his miserable condition. This is cruel.
‘I would not give, for instance, a diabetic sugar, this would be cruel of me. I would try to take someone out of this situation and give them another meal. Perhaps they won’t like it to begin with, but it will be better for them.
‘Those of the clergy who want admit the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion operate with a false concept of mercy. It is comparable with a doctor who gives a patient sugar, although he knows it will kill him. But the soul is more important than the body.
‘If the bishops admit the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion, then they are confirming them in their errors in the sight of God. They will even close down the voice of their conscience. They will push them more into the irregular situation only for the sake of this temporal life, forgetting that after this life, though, there is the judgment of God.
‘This topic will be discussed in the synod. This is on the agenda. But I hope the majority of the bishops still have so much Catholic spirit and faith that they will reject the above mentioned proposal and not accept this.
Q What is this crisis you mention?
BAS: ‘This is a broader crisis than the reception of the Blessed Sacrament. I think this issue of the reception of Holy Communion by the remarried will blow up and show the real crisis in the Church. The real crisis of the Church is anthropocentrism, forgetting the Christocentrism. Indeed, this is the deepest evil, when man or the clergy are putting themselves in the centre when they are celebrating liturgy and when they are changing the revealed truth of God, e.g. concerning the Sixth Commandment and human sexuality.
‘The crisis reveals itself also in the manner in which the Eucharistic Lord is treated. The Eucharist is at the heart of the Church. When the heart is weak, the whole body is weak. So when the practice around the Eucharist is weak, then the heart and the life of the Church is weak. And when people have no more supernatural vision of God in the Eucharist then they will start the worship of man, and then also doctrine will change to the desire of man.
‘This crisis is when we place ourselves, including the priests, at the centre and when God is put in the corner and this is happening also materially. The Blessed Sacrament is sometimes in a cupboard away from the centre and the chair of the priest is in the centre. We have already been in this situation for 40 or 50 years and there is the real danger that God and his Commandments and laws will be put on the side and the human natural desiring in the centre. There is causal connection between the Eucharistic and the doctrinal crisis.
‘Our first duty as human beings is to adore God, not us, but Him. Unfortunately, the liturgical practice of the last 40 years has been very anthropocentric.
‘Participating in liturgy is firstly not about doing things but praying and worshipping, to love God with all your soul. This is true participation, to be united with God in your soul. Exterior participation is not essential.
‘The crisis is really this: we have not put Christ or God at the centre. And Christ is God incarnated. Our problem today is that we put away the incarnation. We have eclipsed it. If God remains in my mind only as an idea, this is Gnostic. In other religions e.g. Jews, Muslims, God is not incarnated. For them, God is in the book, but He is not concrete. Only in Christianity, and really in the Catholic Church, is the incarnation fully realised and this has to be stressed therefore also in every point of the liturgy. God is here and really present. So every detail has meaning.
‘We are living in an un-Christian society, in a new paganism. The temptation today for the clergy is to adapt to the new world to the new paganism, to be collaborationists. We are in a similar situation to the first centuries, when the majority of the society was pagan, and Christianity was discriminated against.’
Q Do you think you can see this because of your experiences in the Soviet Union?
BAS: ‘Yes, [I know what it is] to be persecuted, to give testimony that you are Christian.
‘We are a minority. We are surrounded by a very cruel pagan world. The temptation and challenge of today can be compared with the first centuries. Christians were asked to accept the pagan world and to show this by putting one grain of incense into a fire in front of the statue of the Emperor or of a pagan idol. But this was idolatry and no good Christian put any grain of incense there. They preferred to give their lives, even children, lay people, who were persecuted, gave their lives. Unfortunately there were in the first century members of the clergy and even bishops who put grains of incense in front of the statue of the Emperor or of a pagan idol or who delivered the books of the Holy Scripture to be burned. Such collaborationist Christians and clerics were called in those times “thurificati” or “traditores”.
‘Now, in our days the persecution is more sophisticated. Catholics or clergy are not asking to put some incense in front of an idol. It would be only material. Now, they neo-pagan world wants us to take over its ideas, such as the dissolution of the Sixth Commandment of God, on the pretext of mercy. If some clergy and bishops start to collaborate with the pagan world today in this dissolution of the Sixth Commandment and in the revision of the way God created man and woman, then they are traitors of the Faith, they are participating ultimately in pagan sacrifice.’
Q Can you see a split coming in the Church?
BAS: ‘Unfortunately, for some decades some clergy have accepted these ideas of the world. Now however they are following them publicly. When these things continue, I think, there will be an interior split in the Church of those who are faithful to the faith of their baptism and of the integrity of the Catholic faith. There will be a split with those who are assuming the spirit of this world and there will be a clear split, I think. One can imagine that Catholics, who remain faithful to the unchangeable Catholic truth may, for a time, be persecuted or discriminated even on behalf of those who has power in the exterior structures of the Church? But the gates of the hell, i.e. of the heresy, will not prevail against the Church and the Supreme Magisterium will surely issue an unequivocal doctrinal statement, rejecting any collaboration with the neo-pagan ideas of changing e.g. the Sixth Commandment of God, the meaning of sexuality and of family. Then some ‘liberals’, and many collaborators with the spirit of this world, many modern “thurificati et traditores” will leave the Church. Because the Divine truth will unresistingly bring the clarification, will set us free, and will separate in the midst of the Church the sons of the Divine light and the sons of the of the pseudo-light of this pagan and anti-Christian world. I can presume that such a separation will affect each level of the Catholics: lay people and even not excluding the high clergy. Those clergy who accept today the spirit of the pagan world on morality and family declare themselves Catholics and even faithful to the Pope. They even declare extremists those who are faithful to the Catholic faith or those who are promoting the glory of Christ in the liturgy.’
Q Do you feel you have been declared an extremist?
BAS: ‘I have not been declared as such formally. I would say such clergy are not in the majority but they have acquired a lot of influence in the Church. They managed to occupy some key positions in some Church offices. Yet this is not power in the eyes of God. Truly powerful are the little ones in the Church, who conserve the faith.
‘These little ones in the Church have been let down and neglected. They have kept the purity of their faith and they represent the true power of the church in the eyes of God and not those who are in administration. Thanks be to God, the numbers of these little ones are growing.
‘I spoke for instance with young students in Oxford [picture left – at source] and I was so much impressed by these students, I was so glad to see their purity of faith and their convictions, and the clear Catholic mind. Such examples and groups are growing in the Church and this is the work of the Holy Spirit. This will renew the Church. So I am confident and hopeful also in respect of this crisis in the Church. The Holy Ghost will win this crisis with this little army.
‘I am not worried about the future. The Church is Christ’s Church and He is the real Head of the Church, the Pope is only the Vicar of Christ. The soul of the Church is the Holy Spirit and He is powerful. However we are now experiencing a deep crisis in the Church as it happened several times in two thousand years.
Q Will it get worse before it gets better?
BAS: ‘I have the impression that it will be worse. Sometime the things have to go to the depths and then you will see the collapse of this anthropocentric, clerical system, which is abusing Church administration power, abusing the liturgy, abusing the concepts of God, abusing the faith and the piety of the little ones in the Church.
‘Then we will see the rising of a renewed Church. This is already preparing. Then this liberal clerical edifice will crash down because they have roots and no fruits.’
Q Some people would say you are worrying about unimportant things, what about the poor?
BAS: ‘This is erroneous. The first commandment which Christ gave us was to adore God alone. Liturgy is not a meeting of friends. It is our first task to adore and glorify God in the liturgy and also in our manner of life. From a true adoration and love of God grows love for the poor and our neighbour. It is a consequence. The saints in two thousand years of the Church, all those saints who were so prayerful and pious, they were all extremely merciful for the poor and to care for the poor.
‘In these two commandments are all the others. But the first commandment is to love and adore God and that is realised in a supreme manner in the sacred liturgy. When you are neglecting the first commandment, then you are not doing the will of God, you are pleasing yourself. Happiness is to fulfil the will of God, not to fulfil our will.’
Q How long will it be before the Church is renewed?
BAS: ‘I am not a prophet. We can only presume. But, if you look at the history of the Church, the deepest crisis was in the fourth century, that was Arianism. This was a tremendous crisis, all the episcopacy, almost all, collaborated with the heresy. Only some bishops remained faithful, you could count them on the fingers of one hand. This crisis lasted more or less 60 years.
‘Then the terrible crisis of the so-called Obscure century, the 10th century, when the papacy was occupied by some very wicked and immoral Roman families. They occupied the papal chair with their corrupt sons, and it was a terrible crisis.
‘The next period of harm was the so-called exile of Avignon and was very damaging to the Church, causing the great occidental schism. All these crisis lasted some 70-80 years and were very bad for the Church.
‘Now we are, I would say, in the fourth great crisis, in a tremendous confusion over doctrine and liturgy. We have already been in this for 50 years. Perhaps God will be merciful to us in 20 or 30 years? ‘Nevertheless we have all the beauty of the divine truths, of divine love and grace in the Church. No one can take this away, no synod, no bishop, not even a Pope can take away the treasure and beauty of the Catholic faith, of the Eucharistic Jesus, of the sacraments. The unchangeable doctrine, the unchangeable liturgical principles, the holiness of the life constitute the true power of the Church.’
Q Our time is seen as a much more liberal era in the Church.
BAS: ‘We have to pray that God will guide his Church from this crisis and give to his Church apostles who are courageous and holy. We need defenders of the truth and defenders of the Eucharistic Jesus. When a bishop is defending the flock and defending Jesus in the Eucharist, then this bishop is defending the little ones in the Church, not the powerful ones.’
Q So you don’t mind being unpopular?
BAS: ‘It is quite insignificant to be popular or unpopular. For every clergy the first interest is to be popular in the eyes of God and not in the eyes of today or of the powerful. Jesus said a warning: Woe of you when people speak good of you.
‘Popularity is false. Jesus and the apostles rejected popularity. Great saints of the Church, e.g. SS Thomas More and John Fisher, rejected popularity and they are the great heroes. And those who today are worried with the popularity of the mass media and public opinion, they will not be remembered in the history. They will be remembered as cowards and not as heroes of the Faith.’
Q The media has great expectations of Pope Francis.
BAS: ‘Thanks be to God, Pope Francis has not expressed himself in these ways that the mass media expect from him. He has spoken until now, in his official homilies, very beautiful Catholic doctrine. I hope he will continue to teach in very clear manner the Catholic doctrine.’
Q On sharing Holy Communion with Anglicans and others?
BAS: ‘This is not possible. There are different faiths. Holy Communion is not a means to achieve unity. It is the last step, not the first step. It would be a desecration of the Holy. Of course, we have to be one. Yet we have differences in belief, some substantial differences. The Eucharist is a sign of the deepest unity. It would be a lie, it would be contradictory to logic sharing Holy Communion with non-Catholics.
‘Ecumenism is necessary in order to be in contact with our separated brethren, to love them. In the midst of the challenge of the new paganism, we can and have to collaborate with serious non-Catholics to defend the revealed Divine truth and the natural law, created by God.’
‘It will be better not to have such a structure when the State is governing the life of the Church, such as for instance the appointments of the clergy or the bishops. Such a practice of a state church would damage the Church itself. In England e.g. the State is governing the Church of England. Such an influence of the State can corrupt spiritually and theologically the church, so it is better to be free from such an established state church.’
Q On women in the Church.
BAS: ‘Women are called the weaker sex, given they are physically weaker, however they are spiritually stronger and more courageous than men. It is courageous to give birth. Therefore God gave the woman a courage that a man doesn’t have.
‘Of course, there were many courageous men in the persecutions. Yet God loves to choose the weak ones to confuse the powerful. For instance the Eucharistic women, about which I spoke in my book Dominus Est worked in their families and desired to help the persecuted priests in a very exceptional way. They would never have dared to touch the holy hosts with their fingers. They would refuse to even read a reading during Mass. My mother, for example who is still living in Germany, aged 82, when she first went to the West, she was shocked, scandalised, to see women in the sanctuary during Holy Mass. The true power of the Christian and Catholic woman is the power to be the heart of the family, the domestic church, to have the privilege to be the first who gives nourishment to the body of his child and also to be the first who gives nourishment to the souls of the child, teaching it the first prayer and the first truths of the Catholic faith. The most prestigious and beautiful profession of a woman is to be mother, and especially to be a Catholic mother.’ Source
Comment
Catholic Truth has been saying for years now that there is already a de facto schism in the Church. Bishop Schneider seems to be trying to be a little more diplomatic, but he still warns of a schism to come, as a result of the current crisis in the Church. Is he correct? And what, in your view, is the most important thing about the Bishop’s interview? Is it something he said, or is it the fact that – at last – there is some leadership from a “mainstream” bishop who is clearly saying that “traditional” Catholics have been right, all along?
Comments (342)
The whole interview is uplifting in these dreadful times in which we are living. If I had to choose one extract it would be this:
BAS: ‘Unfortunately, for some decades some clergy have accepted these ideas of the world. Now however they are following them publicly. When these things continue, I think, there will be an interior split in the Church of those who are faithful to the faith of their baptism and of the integrity of the Catholic faith. There will be a split with those who are assuming the spirit of this world and there will be a clear split, I think. One can imagine that Catholics, who remain faithful to the unchangeable Catholic truth may, for a time, be persecuted or discriminated even on behalf of those who has power in the exterior structures of the Church? But the gates of the hell, i.e. of the heresy, will not prevail against the Church and the Supreme Magisterium will surely issue an unequivocal doctrinal statement, rejecting any collaboration with the neo-pagan ideas of changing e.g. the Sixth Commandment of God, the meaning of sexuality and of family. Then some ‘liberals’, and many collaborators with the spirit of this world, many modern “thurificati et traditores” will leave the Church. Because the Divine truth will unresistingly bring the clarification, will set us free, and will separate in the midst of the Church the sons of the Divine light and the sons of the of the pseudo-light of this pagan and anti-Christian world. I can presume that such a separation will affect each level of the Catholics: lay people and even not excluding the high clergy. Those clergy who accept today the spirit of the pagan world on morality and family declare themselves Catholics and even faithful to the Pope. They even declare extremists those who are faithful to the Catholic faith or those who are promoting the glory of Christ in the liturgy.’
Yes, this split will come and sad as it will be to see the public fragmentation of the Church of Christ, it will be a relief to suffering faithful Catholics everywhere. In fact, the Church IS already fragmented the the sooner the thaw comes the better. He mentions perhaps this will happen in 20 or 30 years but I pray it will be sooner than that!
Another thing: He mentions that this is the 4th great crisis in Church history and, whilst that is correct, this one is different in that it is taking place in a technological age where everything, good or bad, spreads like wildfire. For example, during the Avignon crisis I’m sure most of the world were completely unaware of what was going on and thus their Faith would not have been troubled. I mean Jeannie in the Highlands wouldn’t have had a clue!
The problem is The Bishop is giving one view, and is not exactly listening to The Bishop of Rome on practically any issue.
Not only that, Francis has reminded his fellow Bishops that they are not to be an “airport Bishop” attended meetings, conferences and giving lectures, outside the Diocese they have been appointed to serve. The Bishop must have a very good nose if he can smell his flock on this side of The Pond.
Can a good Traditional Catholic pick and choose what laws they observe? Canon Law restricts how much time a Bishop can spend outside his Diocese, and that time includes holidays.
Are you a priest?
We all share The Common Priesthood of Christ by virtue of our baptism.
FA, you’re playing games.
Crofterlady obviously asked if you are an ordained priest. How many (normal) people would make the answer you made to that question – are you a priest? It’s a bit like answering “on a street” if someone asks you where you live. Don’t worry, we don’t want to know that. It might entail hefty removal costs for some of us… 😯
My prayer is that the answer to Crofterlady’s question is “no” – resoundingly “no”! Else the crisis in the Church is a great deal worse than any of us ever dreamt.
No offence or anything. Not really… 😀
Crofterlady has no right, nor does anyone else, to pray into the personal lives of others.
My personal piety, actions, vocation, way of life are all irrelevant on this blog.
The issue is fidelity to Church Teaching and Church Law.
Now just when were YOU given permission to present this blog as a source of authentic Catholic Teaching? That question, and the answer, ask Michael Voris, and Deacon Nick!
fidelityalways
what makes you think we need permission to have this blog?
Canon Law says people posing as authoritative “Catholic” sources need the approval of their Ordinary. They cannot use “Catholic” in their title, and writings about Faith and Morals needs an Nihil Obstat, and an Imprimatur – that is, it has to be approved by a Diocesan Censor. That is why Michael Voris had to change his website, and Deacon Nick whoever no longer publishes. If you have ever read a Catholic book, if not Canon law, you would know it is true. Strangely this website doesn’t have the approval of the only person who can approve it: The Local Bishop.
The Tablet is read by priests, bishops and cardinals around the world and it doesn’t have an Nihil Obstat or any authority at all but the priests and hierarchy pay money to read it. That’s because it dissents from Catholic teaching all the time. Deacon Nick and Michael Voris were criticising the dissenters, and that’s why they got the heavy handed treatment. It’s a wonder this blog hasn’t been banned because it’s only faithful Catholics who are punished these days, not the unfaithful ones.
Canon Law doesn’t say anything about blogs as far as I know. I’d be amazed if it does. Yes, the bishops have to approve writings but they don’t ban dissenters from writing in the Tablet or the rest of the Catholic press. Recently we read on this blog about the letter from a priest in England who was praising the transgender winner of the Eurovision Song Contest. He said Cardinal Schonborn praised “her” too and said “she” was evidence of variety in God’s garden. He also attacked people in Russia for being “homophobes” all because they don’t want homosexual propaganda handed out to young people. Should his writings not have been banned by the bishop?
This blog is full of people who want to know the truths of the faith. If you were not so mixed up you would see that.
It is a publication and blogs didn’t exist when The Code was revised. This blog concerns itself with Faith and Morals and should be sanctioned by Ecclesial Authority. The Tablet is a newspaper, but has ecclesial approval, and does not set out to teach. I don’t read The tablet and so I can’t comment on its content.
The Tablet, which I do not read, is a newspaper, and attempts to deal with news. This blog deals with primarily faith and morals.
Canon Law clearly would mention the internet as it wasn’t an issue in the 1980’s, but as Deacon Nick and Michael Voris will point out. Canon Law impacts on such matters, and can be used effectively.
It is however odd for a group of dissident Trad’s to accuse everyone from The Bishop of Rome down, of ignoring Church law, and to not follow Church Law in the process.
The bishop is responsible for everything published and sold in his diocese so The Tablet falls under their authority. The Tablet writes about Catholic issues and is always dissident, pro-gay, pro-same-sex marriage, everything. It should be banned from being sold in parishes but it isn’t and the majority of priests pay to read it. It’s not cheap either.
The Tablet is a newspaper published with ecclesial authority, I think, but reports things and does not centre in on teaching on faith and moral. It may offer comment, but it does not claim to be an authoritative teaching document.
I have even seen a copy for years, never mind read it, and so I cannot comment on what it is doing now.
“The problem is the Bishop is giving only one view”..
Well yes, his! But under normal conditions they normally reflect those off the culture he speaks from.
Pope Francis is the last person I would take lessons from in media matters, God bless him. He has been a walking talking disaster, God bless him.
I pray that Francis does two things very soon.
#1 Wake up to train crash headed towards us if we continue to try and model the Church on modern cultural indecency.
#2 Retire Kasper.
I realise the Bishop does listen to some things, which need to be heard by The Editor and others:
‘Ecumenism is necessary in order to be in contact with our separated brethren, to love them. In the midst of the challenge of the new paganism, we can and have to collaborate with serious non-Catholics to defend the revealed Divine truth and the natural law, created by God.’
Fidelity Always
Ecumenism is not a desire to remain in contact with our separated brethren. It is a campaign to dilute the Catholic Faith and make the resultant corpse amenable to those other Christian denominations which are in fact heresies condemned by the One, True, Church. Ecumenism is the opposite of evangelisation, and is the Masonic path to a single New World Order church.
So The Editor of this blog is promoting a Modernist who denies Church Teaching?
Fidelity Always
The Bishop, unfortunately, is loath to criticise Pope Francis. He sits on the fence by ignoring the off the cuff idiocies voiced almost weekly by the Pontiff, and the latter’s actions regarding a supposed inability to judge known homosexuals.
However, the Editor is merely presenting for discussion the article’s main premise, whether the Church is heading for Schism. She is not signifying her agreement with, nor even commenting upon, every point raised by the Bishop.
Mikidiki,
Spot on. Had the interview not been so lengthy, my comment at the end would have drawn attention to his apparent unwillingness to comment on the Pope’s ridiculous and scandalous remarks whereas he chose instead, the Bishop, to praise his “official homilies” (possibly overseen by someone with a better grasp of theology and Catholic doctrine than the pontiff himself.) I think it is clear that there is an implicit criticism in the Bishop’s use of the word “official”. He remains silent about Papa Francis’ “unofficial” remarks, all of which to date, it seems to me, are manifest patent nonsense.
So, we await, either Bishop Schneider’s move forward to the next stage of his outspoken-ness OR another “mainstream” bishop with a tad more insight or courage or a combination of both – whatever it takes.
These remarks from Bishop Schneider would have been a great start ten or fifteen years ago. Right now, all they really do is (as I said at the outset of the blog introduction) prove magnificently wrong, all those who criticise Archbishop Lefebvre for acting without good cause, and who claim that there is no crisis in the Church. For that, we thank Bishop Schneider, with bells on. But he still has some way to go. Let’s pray that he makes it and soon.
I think he is contrasting interviews with journalists, the alleged content of phone calls, with what The Bishop of Rome preaches and teaches. He makes a point of saying Francis isn’t saying what The Media expects when he preachers.
The Bishop highlights ecumenism, and I suspect this blog doesn’t fit in with his understanding of the role of a woman in The Church. But some people cherry pick Church Teaching.
Which Bishop has granted you the right to pose as an Official Source of Church Teaching, and granted this website a Nihil Obstat, and an Imprimatur?
Athanasius
Congratulations! If that does not educate FA nothing will.
If this were a boxing match, those posts were a KO
You really don’t read very carefully, FA, do you? “Editor” is not promoting any Modernists. Editor noted that Bishop Schneider is showing “some leadership.” That is all. End of. Pay attention.
Mikidiki is correct. All the ecumenical activities being promoted today are designed to whittle down the Catholic Faith. When was the last time you heard of an ecumenical prayer meeting where the rosary was recited.
Get it, now, FA?
It would not be Ecumenical if The Liturgy reflected one of the Traditions present. Ecumenical Prayer by its nature has to be inclusive.
The Bishop is speaking the same truths as every other Bishop, be he has a thing about certain Liturgical matters, which are acceptable, but out of step with The Bishop of Rome and his colleagues. That is the thing highly with personal, very subjective, opinions, they do not bind The Church.
fidelityalways
What do you say binds the Church? I am very confused by your comments because you seem to say that the Holy Spirit is always guiding the pope and so we must obey everything the popes says even if it is new like ecumenism, and that the Holy Spirit will sometimes say one thing is right and then another thing is right. The pope who wrote that ecumenical assemblies were banned to Catholics could not have been guided by the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit is now telling the pope that they are a good thing.
I can’t follow your logic, I apologise.
I said personal opinion and highly subjective preferences cannot bind The Church.
Papal Infallibility is very specific, and some Occupants of The See of Rome have over reached themselves in claiming it for some of their actions, and teaching.
The Second Vatican Council, which was a teaching Council, teaches us Ecumenism is a work of The Holy Spirit, and that other faiths express some truths. Dominum Jesus published by the CDF spoke of some ecclesial groups not being a Church, and said other religions had serious defects.
Bishop Schneider explains above why Ecumenism is central to the work of The Church.
His views on Liturgy are that: HIS VIEWS, and a subjective opinion.
Fidelity Always
“Papal Infallibility is very specific, and some Occupants of The See of Rome have over reached themselves in claiming it for some of their actions, and teaching.”
That is some statement from you. Can you point to an infallible teaching that you believe is wrong, which is obviously what you must believe if some popes “have over-reached themselves in claiming it for some of their teachings.”
Can you give some examples?
I an using a broad brush, and thinking more along the lines that not every word has the authority dissident Trad’s attach to them.
I think it people like you he worries about. He said:
‘Thanks be to God, Pope Francis has not expressed himself in these ways that the mass media expect from him. He has spoken until now, in his official homilies, very beautiful Catholic doctrine. I hope he will continue to teach in very clear manner the Catholic doctrine.’
All ecumenical events today are to try to meet people with they are at.
Did not Elijah invite those who believe in false God’s to pray to “them” before he showed the presence and power of the one true God. Elijah was a Prophet of God, and he appeared on a Mountain with Jesus.
Did St Paul not use the altar of “The Unknown God” to lead people to faith?
In 1949 The holy office sanctioned Ecumenical Gatherings.
The precedents, in Holy Scripture, and Church documents, and actions, are many.
Read Bishop Schneider about and Dominum lesus from 2000.
And for World Mission Day 2014 The Successor to Peter says this:
oday vast numbers of people still do not know Jesus Christ. For this reason, the mission ad gentes continues to be most urgent. All the members of the Church are called to participate in this mission, for the Church is missionary by her very nature: she was born “to go forth”. World Mission Day is a privileged moment when the faithful of various continents engage in prayer and concrete gestures of solidarity in support of the young Churches in mission lands. It is a celebration of grace and joy. A celebration of grace, because the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father, offers wisdom and strength to those who are obedient to his action. A celebration of joy, because Jesus Christ, the Father’s Son, sent to evangelize the world, supports and accompanies our missionary efforts. This joy of Jesus and missionary disciples leads me to propose a biblical icon, which we find in the Gospel of Luke (cf. 10:21-23) .
Ecumenism is a work of The Holy Spirit to bring about what Jesus prayed for: That they may be one, as you and are one.
fidelityalways
Jesus made the Church united from the start so the mission is now to bring back those who left it and to help to convert outsiders, without force, of course.
As self proclaimed Trad’s on this blog show, divisions exist within The Church, and some who claim to be in the Church are merely renting rooms, and The E.F. was an attempt to reconcile dissident trouble makers. (As stated by Francis, Bishop of Rome, and reigning gloriously as Christ wills.)
FIDELITYALWAYS,
“Francis, Bishop of Rome” is by far a subordinate title to Pope Francis, Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the Universal Church. This should tell you something about mindset.
Nevertheless, if His Holiness insists on “Bishop of Rome,” then perhaps as per his own advice, repeated earlier by you in reference to Bishop Schneider, the Bishop of Rome should stay within his own diocese instead of traveling the globe. Lead by example, that’s what I say!
Titles are not what decides the matter. The Conclave elects The Bishop of Rome, That is why the Cardinals have titular Churches, to emphasise that point. You should study what The Church says about such matters.
fidelityalways,
On the contrary, the conclave elects first the Vicar of Christ who becomes by default the Bishop of Rome, the primary See in the Church held by the successors of St. Peter. It has been a favoured trick of Protestants and revolutionaries since the XVI century to attempt to undermine the office of the Pope by referring to him merely as “Bishop of Rome,” as though he has no authority or jurisdiction outside of that small diocese.
Sad to say, it seems Pope Francis is a proponent of the error of Collegiality, that is to say he sees himself as little more than the primary bishop in the Church sharing power with his brother bishops. This is a false understanding of the Petrine authority and that’s why no other Pope in history has consistently insisted on the subordinate title of Bishop of Rome.
There may also be another reason for Francis’ insistence on Bishop of Rome. Read this interesting piece: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/05/two-popes-has-papacy-become-diarchy.html
Quite definitely they elect The Bishop of Rome.
As one might expect you are wrong.
Titles of The Bishop of Rome:
Papal Titles:
– His Holiness The Pope;
– Bishop Of Rome And Vicar Of Jesus Christ;
– Successor Of St. Peter, Prince Of The Apostles;
– Supreme Pontiff Of The Universal Church;
– Patriarch Of The West;
– Servant Of The Servants Of God;
– Primate Of Italy;
– Archbishop And Metropolitan Of The Roman Province;
– Sovereign Of Vatican City State;
To quote Francis, Bishop of Rome:
“As you know, the duty of the conclave was to appoint a bishop of Rome. It seems to me that my brother cardinals have chosen one who is from faraway. …Here I am. I would like to thank you for your embrace.”
These are all titles of the Successor of Peter. They are not titles of the Bishop of Rome, because ‘bishop of Rome’ is itself a title.
You quote Pope Francis as if his words are the verbatim Word of God. Just because he says “the conclave was to appoint a bishop of Rome” doesn’t change Church teaching.
The Pope is not a deity, he is not the leader of some cult as the Protestants make us out to be. I have read some of your comments and it is clear you are a papolotrist.
FA,
Did it ever occur to you – given that the Pope is an admirer of Hans Kung, the heretical priest who has written books denying papal infallibility – that maybe Pope Francis shares Kung’s heresy? Just asking.
Because… very recently, Kung sent Pope Francis a copy of his latest book and the Pope replied, sending a handwritten note of gratitude, saying he was looking forward to reading it.
Could it be that he prefers to use his secondary title Bishop of Rome because he doesn’t actually believe in the whole papal thingy? As I say, just asking.
That would cause an incredible existential crisis for neo-Catholic papolotrists. What if the pope were to deny papal infallibility? They would go insane, they wouldn’t know what to believe any more.
Hans Kung is a Catholic, and a human being, and so is Francis. Hans sent Francis a gift, and he in return thanked him for it. Benedict was wrong about the E.F, and The ordinariate, that doesn’t mean every other act was wrong.
Fr Gruner has no faculties to minister in The Church, and yet he is the source of teaching for many here. Just which Bishop gives this website a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur.
The title of bishop of Rome is to emphasise he is a collegiate member of the College of Bishops, the successors to The Apostles, However, he is well aware of his Petrine Ministry, as Head of that College, at his Inauguration Mass he pleaded ” Pray for me , he said, that the Holy Spirit may may accompany my Petrine ministry.” He frequently referencing his role as the Successor of Peter.
I am sorry. This just not true. The Church chooses a Supreme Pontiff, who then inherits the titular See of Rome by virtue of the fact the Supreme Pontiff is a bishop. He doesn’t inherit the office of Supreme Pontiff by virtue of him being bishop of Rome! Where did you learn this?
The papacy was established before Our Lord or Peter had ever stepped foot in Rome!
The cardinals have titular Churches to emphasis the link with The Rome Diocese, and who it is they elect.
Conceivably, The Holy See could move again, and the Primacy with it.
The titles matter not one jot.
You’re right, they don’t.
Another reason why the Cardinal electors have these titles to represent their connection with Rome is because cardinals never used to elect a pope. I believe it was the high ranking clergy in Rome itself who did this, I think they were canons of the See of Rome or something. Cardinal elections are quite new.
I don’t think the Pope will leave Rome voluntarily, because Rome is the Traditional home of the Pope. It’s tradition. The papacy has ‘sanctified’ Rome, and Rome is now the eternal city.
I think ‘Bishop of Rome’ is an important title, just not the pre-eminent title.
FIDELITYALWAYS,
You’re quite wrong, the title matters very much to the enemies of Catholicism. Bishop of Rome for them is much more acceptable than Pope or Vicar of Christ. It confirms their argument that the Pope is little more than a local bishop with, at best, a tad more per-eminence than all other bishops. In other words, titles can be used to undermine the unique authority established by Our Lord Himself in the Petrine Office.
Francis using The Title to emphasise he is a Bishop, and his Diocese is Rome, but even at his inauguration, and many times since, he has spoken of his Petrine role. He began by pleading ” Pray for me , he said, that the Holy Spirit may may accompany my Petrine ministry.” Titles, and the use of them, are not what gives him authority. It is Christ, and he has accepted that burden for the good of the Church.
Follow Peter, and not your own questionable scholarship.
Couldn’t agree more.
What is this neo-Catholic obsession with the cult of Rome?
Peter was a Gallilean, not a Roman! Our Lord established the Papacy, not the bishopric of Rome!
If divine providence had led Peter to Constantinople, or Antioch, the Supreme Pontiff would have adopted a different title.
Peter wasn’t bishop of Rome, until, erm, well, until he got to Rome, sometime after Matthew 16:18.
The Bishop of Rome is a title, created by the Church, which is the possession of the office of the papacy, not the other way round, you are most correct Athanasius.
All this Bishop of Rome nonsense is very contrived.
Upon thee, the bishop of Rome, I will build my rock… It doesn’t say that in the Bible.
Our Lord probably didn’t tell Peter to establish his See in Rome, ever. Peter ended up in Rome by providence, because it was the political and cultural centre of the Roman (hint) Empire, under which Our Lord and Peter lived.
I mean, if the Popes decided to live in Sheffield for the end of time, they would still be Popes, because their authority comes from Christ, and not a man-made title.
Bishop of Rome actually is not the most important of the Pope’s titles. He has a few: Vicar of Christ, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church.
The reason the post-conciliar Church has put so much emphasis on ‘Bishop of Rome’ is to push collegiality on us all.
Have you actually read a word of Summorum Pontificum?
Pope Benedict’s reasons for promulgating SP are clearly outlined in it.
Pope Benedict never said anything of the sort in the document itself, even if he did write it in response to requests from the SSPX. That does not per se make it bad, this is a logical fallacy.
If you think the current Pope’s sentiments abrogate absolutely the sentiments of his predecessor, then you have a very twisted understanding of the papacy. Is the pope some kind of dictator now?
God would not be so fickle and indecisive as to change his mind every few years. Unless you think Benedict wasn’t “gloriously” doing Christ’s work? In which case, you’re a hypocrite, because he was as much the Pope as any pope.
The neo-Catholic concept of the papacy is totalitarian. And very modern. It was only after the reformation Catholics began to regard the Pope as this supreme emperor whose every word and command is sacred, ‘ultramontanism’ is the proper name I believe. Papal regalism I call it. He is a monarch, yes, but not a Stuart King. The Stuarts could not bear to accept that their power was limited. As it is with the Pope.
The Traditional understanding of the papacy is not so self-assured, not so absolutist. It is moderate, and takes into account how the papacy was regarded to 19 centuries before now. I mean, in the middle ages, most people didn’t know who the reigning pope was, I shouldn’t think. The pope didn’t play much of a role in their spiritual lives. Ascribing more power to Pope than is given him by divine revelation is false piety, it verges on man worship.
If the Pope sneezes during Mass, it does not become a rubric.
I have read S.P. many times, and Francis, Bishop of Rome has, himself, summarised it many times: it was a pastoral attempt Catholic dissidents who had difficult with change.
If you think Pope Benedict didn’t let his emotions over rule his judgement at times, please explain The Ordinariate. Everything he said about that contradicts how you interpret Piux Xl on ecumenism. And yet you say he interpreted the issue of abrogation correctly! if he was one of nine Cardinals chosen to advice Saint John Paul on abrogation, then please explain why: 1. He doesn’t refer to that Commission. 2. Its advice wasn’t acted upon by J.P.. 3. The book The Spirit of The Liturgy written at the same time as the book by Stickler doesn’t hint at restoration?
Tradition is interpreted, and applied, by The Magisterium, and not Catholics rushing into schism,
“Tradition is interpreted, and applied, by The Magisterium, and not Catholics rushing into schism”
You see, this is precisely why are wrong. Your entire underlying philosophy is modernist. The current papal magisterium cannot change, adapt or reinterpret Tradition, otherwise it wouldn’t be Tradition. Tradition is Tradition.
The past is not viewed through the lens of the present. The present is viewed through the lens of the past…
Applying the this principle, we therefore interpret the council and the current papal magisterial through past teaching. Not the other way around.
They are not reinterpreting anything, they are applying Tradition in the light of new knowledge and changing circumstances.
For example, to have a greater appreciation, and knowledge, of sound ecumenism.
The Magisterium, the successors to The Apostles, are there to do what they do as Jesus wills it., You have no such mandate to second guess them.
You seem to think that the Pope and bishops are some kind of magical oracle through whom God manifests his will.
That’s really weird.
No, I believe they are the living, authentic guardians, of Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture, and they must apply that deposit of faith to each new age, int he light of our growth in understanding of the affairs of humanity.
This thread is headed by an interview with a Bishop Trad’s think is sound because of his views on Liturgy, but that same man says: ‘Ecumenism is necessary in order to be in contact with our separated brethren, to love them. In the midst of the challenge of the new paganism, we can and have to collaborate with serious non-Catholics to defend the revealed Divine truth and the natural law, created by God.’
I never said I thought BAS was a ‘Trad’. Has anyone here said that? Has this been implied by anyone?
He needn’t be a Trad for us to agree with him on this point or that point. We needn’t agree with him on everything.
On the contrary, as The Editor makes clear the interview is deemed to be good, and he a sound Bishop,
To quote The Editor: “These remarks from Bishop Schneider would have been a great start ten or fifteen years ago. Right now, all they really do is (as I said at the outset of the blog introduction) prove magnificently wrong, all those who criticise Archbishop Lefebvre for acting without good cause, and who claim that there is no crisis in the Church. For that, we thank Bishop Schneider, with bells on.”
And the first to comment, Crofterlady “The whole interview is uplifting in these dreadful times in which we are living. ”
Please don’t deny that is why Trad blogs are awash with praise for this man, but they only disown the interview when loyal people, faithful to the Church, point up that his soundest teaching is when he isn’t talking about liturgy. He says Francis preaches the truth, and that ecumenism is central to our mission, for example.
He deserves praise. Editor and Crofter Lady are correct.
I really don’t understand what the problem is.
People are wrong about all sorts of things. Doesn’t mean they are wrong about everything. If Adolf Hitler said the sky was blue, would you not believe him?
I think perhaps you might be more rational than the sycophants who see The Editor as the bulwark against Satan.
Who is a sycophant of the Editor? Athanasius? You be surprised by the reality!
No really. This blog is hardly a place for surprises, Most commentators can’t grasp history, or recent events. With such a grasp on reality they can hardly unveil surprises.
Fidelityalways,
I have long been an admirer of Bishop Athanasius, but he is wrong when it comes to ecumenism. The brand of ecumenism extant does nothing more than keep protestants and others heretics steady in their errors. It waters down the revealed Truth of the Catholic Faith, and makes it ‘acceptable’ to protestants and their cohorts. This was the justification for the New Mass on the part of Mgr Bugnini, where he said all ‘stumbling blocks must be removed’. The fact is15,000 protestants a year converted up until the mid-1960s, nowadays, its only around 3,200. Current ecumenism is false ecumenism. It does not present Church teachings on dogmas such as the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and other dogmas that protestants ‘don’t get’, such as the Mass or Marian dogmas.
Bishop Schneider is one Bishop, and in so far as he is in Communion with The Bishop of Rome, and The College of Bishops, the teaching has to be adhered to. They all say Ecumenism is central to our work and mission. If you don’t accept the teaching of The Magisterium is isn’t clear what you converted to.
FIDELITYALWAYS,
It is incumbent upon the Pope and bishops of the Church to exercise the ordinary Magisterium in fidelity to the extraordinary Magisterium before they insist on obedience from the faithful. Consequently, the Popes and bishops of Vatican II cannot insist on obedience from the faithful to doctrines such as ecumenism when such doctrines are condemned by the pre-Council Magisterium. Do you grasp what I’m saying? Obedience to God takes precedence to obedience to men when the latter contradict what has previously been taught. The Pope and the bishops are not empowered by God to introduce new and dangerous doctrines to the faith but merely to pass on without alteration what has been handed down. That’s why you’ll find that ecumenism has never been imposed formally on the faithful by the Magisterium since Vatican II.
I grasp what you are saying, but The Magisterium, who have the duty to teach these truths, would point out you, not they, are wrong.
Then you have not spotted the obvious contradictions between the pre and post-Council magisterium that even senior prelates have questioned. Perhaps you are under the mistaken belief that the magisterial teaching of the Church is whatever a particular Pope and his bishops say it is. That would be a great error. Every Pope and bishop is bound to protect and hand down to successive generations what has been entrusted to them by Tradition. Now I’m sure that not even you would argue that the Catholic Faith of today is the same, certainly at parish level, as that held and practiced by all previous generations.
However, what has been handed down to them has to be interpreted by them, and applied to each new age. Either we believe the promises Jesus made to Peter, and The Church, or we don’t, and it is The Magisterium that hands on Tradition, and interprets it, and not dissident Catholics wedded to a Church, and a time, that never existed. Francis has warned such people they are excluding themselves from The kingdom even whilst they rent rooms in The Church. Listen, to Peter.
The Pope doesn’t own Tradition. It is not his property to play with. He is the servant of Tradition and he is restricting by Traditional.
The Pope is not Tradition, Tradition is Tradition.
Would you be surprised, I wonder, to know that Pope Pius IX (a very pre-Vat II Pope) said of himself: I am tradition?
I know he did. That’s where I got the idea from when I wrote that. He is wrong of course. And it was a distorted legacy he inherited. The council has forced us to reconsider the authentic teaching of the Church on the papacy, and challenge this post-Reformation super ultramontanism that inclined pontiffs to say “I am Tradition” … if he could come back to the present, he would realise the tragedy, comedy and absurdity of his comment (which is probably out of context anyway), for indeed, the papacy is an institution in crisis. This is precisely what Bishop Williamson meant by ‘1950ism’, that the pre-conciliar generation were so self-assured, so self-confident, they thought they had it right, that Catholicism had reached a state of perfection, and somehow, it all came crashing down.
The Pope, and The Magisterium safeguard Tradition, and as Pope Paul Vl prophesied The Devil will use people like you to undermine the fruits of The Council. “We thought that after the Council there would be a day of sunshine for the history of the Church, and instead we found storms. – which comes to suffocate the fruits of the ecumenical Council. ………there is confrontation.”
Good grief, the Devil is using me to undermine the Catholics faith. Well there you go.
Not the first time a neo-Catholic has intimated I am under diabolic influence. He was quite subtle about it, and quite serious. Needless to say, I am no longer friends with that person, I found him quite obnoxious.
Neo-Catholcism, or papolatry, is a fundamentalism. What else would cause people to say things like this: the pope prophesied that the Devil would use you, and he’s using you. It’s a nasty thing to say, it’s also weird, it’s the sort of thing a religious nut would say.
I am using the term prophesy loosely, as in the sense he foresaw the problems ahead, and in 1976 he went further:
With regards Paul Vl, The SSPX, and The Council we read this from 1976 (two years after his speech in which he lamented the attacks on The Council):
“Finally, about ten years later, in an allocution (also in Italian) to the secret consistory of cardinals on May 24, 1976, Pope Paul VI specifically addressed the distortions and disobedience of Archbishops Lefebvre and his followers with respect to the Second Vatican Council. This too is non-magisterial, but it is proper to round out the thought he expressed non-magisterially in the general audience so commonly cited:
There are those who, under the pretext of a greater fidelity to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically refuse the teaching of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that stem from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under Our authority, willed by Christ.
He even exclaimed in utter frustration:
It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would be in danger also because of the post-conciliar reforms and guidelines, which there is a duty to disobey to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Does it belong to this group, and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not an Ecumenical Council, to establish which of the countless traditions must be regarded as the norm of faith!”
RE: last paragraph –
Well he said it! He died in 1978. It is 2014 and we are proved right. If only Paul VI could have lived to see the fruits. He did to a certain extent, and died a broken man.
He is to be beatified in October.
His life attests to the fact The Church is constantly being renewed, and that renewal will continue, and even internal, disloyal, dissent cannot overcome The Church.
Each successive Papacy has been faithful to Tradition, and has carried forward the work he began.
Beatification. I had forced that fact out of my mind, until now.
According to the precedent set by the canonisation of John Paul II, he would be canonised roughly three years later, 2017.
Also, how do you honestly know who the Devil is or is not using? What authority are you? It’s a profoundly proud, arrogant and self-righteous thing to say. You wouldn’t say it to anybody else but a Traditional Catholic. That’s a blindness. It’s a hypocrisy. Am I not your neighbour? Someone joked here that you might be Pope Francis. You certainly think a lot of yourself, and speak with the majestic tone of a pontiff.
Francis regularly speaks of the Devil, and people who seek to impose things, like liturgy on others, as renting a room in the Church. Paul VI was clearly talking about dissenters promoting confrontation, and attacking The Council as a work of The devil.
FIDELITYALWAYS,
No, the Magisterium of every age has not the power to interpret the deposit of faith. It has the duty solely to pass on what has been handed down without alteration. What you are suggesting, and certainly what we have seen since Vatican II, is this notion of evolution of doctrine to fit the times, what you call “interpreting.” Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. His doctrine does not alter nor find re-interpretation to suit the fashions of different ages. Besides that, we have the proof that no interpretation of doctrine took place for nearly two thousand years up to Vatican II. Open your eyes!
Blessed John Cardinal Newman predated The Council by some distance, and he spoke of the development of doctrine. The Church must constantly grow in understanding of truths.
I repeat again the problem is you read documents literally and removed from their historical, and cultural, context and impose a prejudiced view on them. That is exactly why The Church has been gifted with The Magisterium.
For example, to misread Pius Xl on Ecumenism devoid of the problem he was actually addressing means you miss his point entirely. Dominum Jesus, in 2000, more accurately reflects he, and The Church, say.
Likewise, Pope Benedict never once referenced the alleged meeting Cardinal Stickler was at on the abrogation of the Old Rite, whereas he listed every Indult relating to it, and yet you prefer to base your opinions on recycled falsehoods from dissident Trad’s or are the enemy within.
FIDELITYALWAYS,
For your correction re the falsehood of ecumenism:
In his 1928 Encyclical Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XI declares: “When there is question of fostering unity among Christians, it is easy for many to be misled by the apparent excellence of the object to be achieved. Is it not right, they ask, is it not the obvious duty of all who invoke the name of Christ to refrain from mutual reproaches and at last to be united in charity? Dare anyone say that he loves Christ and yet not strive with all his might to accomplish the desire of Him who asked His Father that His disciples might be ‘one’? (Jn. 17:21)….If only all Christians were ‘one,’ it is contended, then they might do so much more to drive out the plague of irreligion which, with its insidious and far-reaching advance, is threatening to sap the strength of the Gospel. In reality, however, these fair and alluring words cloak a most grave error, subversive of the foundations of the Catholic religion…”
in the Encyclical Quanta Cura of 1864, Pope Pius IX writes: “They do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, viz., that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed in every rightly constituted society’…But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching liberty of perdition.…”
And now the teaching of Gregory XVI, who wrote in Mirari Vos: “With the admonition of the Apostle that there is ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself who said ‘He that is not with me, is against me’ (Luke 11:23), and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and entire…’ ”
You were also wrong earlier when you wrote of the common priesthood of the people. The common priesthood of the people, as the Church has long explained, is not remotely to be considered as in any way equal to the ordained priesthood. That means no lay person is permitted to indulge in those liturgical functions proper to the ordained priest, such as celebrating Mass and administering the Sacraments. As a publicly-commenting Catholic, you are obliged to educate yourself in such matters.
You presume too much. I made no claims as to what the baptised faithful, as members of The Common Priesthood, can or cannot do. I merely stated all the baptised share in it, and that do. The Church teaches the ordained priesthood differs in essence from the priesthood of all the faithful.
As recently as 2000 in Dominum Jesus The Church wrote authoritatively about the status of other Christian Traditions, and Faiths.
The Church is hierarchical, and The Magisterium, not me, would challenge your interpretation, and application, of earlier papal documents. You are out of step with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and falsely, and dangerously, cling to your interpretation, and application, of truths entrusted to The Church, under Peter, by Christ himself.
Don’t presuppose what knowledge other people bring to the table you arrogant….
FIDELITYALWAYS,
You introduced the common priesthood theme without making distinctions. I made the distinction for you so that no one could be led astray by the ambiguity of your words.
As to those “other Christian Traditions and Faiths” you mention, there are none. The infallible dogma, remember it is an infallible dogma, says: “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” outside the Church no salvation. There is no mention of other Christian traditions and faiths in any Church document pre-Vatican II. That’s the teaching I go by since it is doctrinal and binding. Vatican II was a pastoral Council, not a doctrinal one. By the words of Pope John XXIII himself, Vatican II was to remain on a modest level, not treating of doctrine. I’ll take the Pope’s word on that and abide by his rule, which is in line with Traditional teaching. You may feel free to accept what others made of the Council’s ambiguous texts once the event was over.
By the way, no authority in the Church today could take issue with what I say because I quote the Church’s formal authorities. That’s why every Traditional Catholic who has ever written to Rome to ask for justification for ecumenism in the Church’s pre-Council teaching has been met with silence. The fact is there is a breach between pre and post-Council teaching in respect to ecumenism, as is evident from my earlier Papal quotes.
I replied to a question about priesthood, and gave a suitable answer. As you introduce ambiguity in everything you say, and teach error with every word you write, please concern yourself with acquiring personal knowledge, and give up your claim to be The Vicar of Christ.
FIDELITYALWAYS,
Please try to maintain charity and patience in this exchange. Anger and insult are not conducive to the good of souls, which is what this debate is supposed to achieve. If you have teaching evidence from the Church’s centuries old teaching that shows modern ecumenism to be in line with Catholic doctrine, then please provide it in refutation of the Traditional Papal quotes I have made. Surely that’s how Catholics should debate?
It is you that presupposes to lecture individuals. I have made general comments, and then replied to those offering an alternative view. It is the tone of your replies you need to correct.
There is a difference between Papal quotes from deceased Popes who were usually addressing a different issue to the one you propose, with your unhistorical literal interpretation of them, and the Tradition taught, and upheld, by the successors to The Apostles living, and in Office, and the true guardians of that Tradition. That is, they are in Office. You are not.
Follow peter, and not some unhistorical, heretical, wish list.
FIDELITYALWAYS,
My challenge to you on the back of your comments above is to delineate for me the particular issues those “deceased Popes” were addressing at the time of the Encyclicals I quoted that in any way invalidate their words today. And please explain what you mean by “unhistorical, heretical wish list.” You’ve lost me completely on that one.
FIDELITYALWAYS.
Will you for goodness sake stop writing ‘Dominum Jesus’. You’ve done it at the very least three times in your most recent effusions, and it’s really irritating me.
FIDELITYALWAYS,
I should have pointed out that the Mass you call the E.F., that is, the Traditional Latin Mass, is the Mass of the saints and martyrs, the Mass that goes all the way back in its essentials to St. Peter himself. Surely then, it is the new vernacular Mass of 1969, the Mass that was constructed to disguise the sacrifice of Our Lord to please Protestants, the Mass that Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci declared represents “in whole and in its individual parts a grave departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass…”, that should rightly be called EXTRAORDINARY!
Athanasius,
Thank you for those two excellent responses. I’m glad you’re back on the blog. However, I would be interested to know if Cardinal Ottaviani and Bacci ever celebrated the New Mass?
catholicconvert1,
Thank you for your kind words. I felt it my duty to correct FA. Too many uneducated Catholics are getting off with making the nonsense statements that FA has made. This is a very serious business, the business of immortal souls, and yet they make the most uninformed declarations and accusations without having made any attempt first to check the facts by consulting the authority of Traditional Church teaching.
As regards your question: I can’t say for sure about Cardinal Bacci but I did hear that Cardinal Ottaviani grudgingly celebrated the New Mass, doubtless out of fear and confusion and his advanced age at the time. Many elderly prelates were left in a state of confusion and crisis of conscience over the New Mass. It was not easy for them, or indeed any Catholic, to reject it when the Pope himself was promoting it. Again, it all comes down to a proper understanding of what constitutes true and false obedience to superiors. I am reminded here of the words of Archbishop Lefebvre: “The devil’s masterstroke has been to sow disobedience through obedience.”
Athanasius,
Thanks for your very good attempts to correct FA but I fear that your words – like those of the rest of us – will fall on deaf ears.
Over several threads, the others have tried to help FA see the light. Leo, for example, has written extensively, correcting FA’s every imaginable error quoting source after irrefutable source, but FA is not moved one bit. Just sticks to the FA party line.
Thus, I’m torn between thinking that this is someone who is having a laugh, keeping us busy, either that or someone who is simply extremely badly formed in the Faith. Either way, it’s hard work, so thanks for helping out – much appreciated! Maybe your magic touch will do the trick!
Editor,
I kind of gathered from FA’s responses to my posts that this is a person who is not really interested in what is true or false in matters touching the faith. What a waste of energy, as I’m sure many here have sighed before me. Oh well, maybe the exchange will have helped the hidden viewer to see things a little clearer.
Editor
Would it be possible to incorporate an IGNORE facility, and then in order to maintain an interest in a particular thread, one could ignore the distractions of posters such as FidelityAlways? Just asking ….
It is simple really, you stop posting anti-Catholic heretical views, and I would have nothing to respond to.
Follow Peter!
FIDELITYALWAYS,
Follow Peter is generally good advice for any Catholic but there are limits, as all the great saint/theologians have taught. We are not obliged to follow Peter, for example, when he declares, either by word or example, “I know not the man.”
Here’s is a little more education for you:
St. Paul in Galatians 2: 11-13, recounts how he “withstood Peter to his face because he was to be blamed.”
Commenting on this Scripture passage,
St. Thomas Aquinas writes: “There being an imminent danger to the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith…” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 33, a. 4).
St. Robert Bellarmine concurs with St. Thomas in this matter and distinguishes for us between legitimate resistance and forbidden judgment. He writes: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the soul or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior” (De Romano Pontifice, lib. 2, chap. 29, in Opera Omnia [Paris: Pedone Lauriel, 1871], vol. I, p. 418).
In his Encyclical Letter Pastor Aeternus, Pope Pius IX gives a certain rule by which the faithful may gauge the fidelity of popes to the primary duty of their sacred office. He writes: “The Holy Spirit has not been promised to the successors of Peter to permit them to proclaim new doctrine according to His revelations, but to keep strictly and to expound faithfully, with His help, the revelations transmitted by the Apostles, in other words the Deposit of Faith.”
The Pope, and The College of Bishops, would be faithful to every teaching you outline above, and they undertake the Mission Christ called them to.
There is one big difference between them, and dissidents like you, they are mandated to their role, and are part of the safeguards Christ set in place, whereas you are colluding with The Devil to promote schism, and have no mandate to teach.
FIDELITYALWAYS,
Speaking a few years ago, Canon Georg May, Professor of Canon Law at Gutenberg University in Maine, a well respected expert in Church/State relations and a priest of 40 years good standing, declared: “It is not the SSPX who refuse union with the bishops but rather the bishops who refuse union with the SSPX.”
This was a very telling statement since it summed up a general episcopal rebellion against sacred Tradition. We saw this more clearly when Pope Benedict XVI attempted to make provision for the old Mass and was keen to resolve the SSPX situation. His Holiness came under immense pressure from the progressive bishops for this, ultimately convincing him that he should resign his office. So please, if you’re looking for schism and schismatics, look no further than your own local ordinary and ask whether he favours or hates Tradition. Does he permit Communion in the hand and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, for example, which heretical practices were introduced without Papal permission and against the will of the Popes? Does he prefer the new vernacular Mass, similar to Luther’s meal service, than the ancient Latin Mass that sanctified the saints and martyrs of nineteen centuries? That’s the kind of study you need to do if you wish to know about real schism.
Rewrite history as much as you want. Pope Benedict resigned because of reasons of increasing infirmity, and he confirmed that in an interview earlier this year.
Bishop Fellay himself says they won’t sign the document they were generously offered as they reject the whole of the recent Council, and the revised liturgy.
Pope Benedict accepted both. See Summurum Pontificum, and his constant praise for the work of The Council.
Francis, Bishop of Rome, has summed it up well. To paraphrase him: Pope Benedict generously reached out to people, mistakenly, clinging to the Old Rite, and dissidents, and they slapped him in his face. They tell others how to think, believe, and pray but they are merely renting a room in the Church.
Your greatest duty would to be listen to The Magisterium who are there to safeguard you from the errors you have chosen to follow.
You are part of the legion’s at the command of the Devil.
FIDELITYALWAYS,
If you want to find the Devil at work today then you should listen to the words of Pope Paul VI, who lamented after Vatican II: “Through some fissure in the walls, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church and set her on a path of auto-destruction.” That path was Conciliar Modernism which has now almost completely wrecked the Holy Catholic Church and which continues apace under Pope Francis.
I see that if you attempt to trace the quote, the Editor of this blog says it may have been written by you, or others who stir the cauldron with her, and was in a letter published in some Scottish newspaper. Like the Stickler quotes on abrogation of the Old Rite, those promoting it are the onlt one’s saying it!
I apologise to you. I have now located the talk. It was on The Feast of S.S. Peter and Paul, and Pope Paul Vl was echoing the first Peter and warning about the devil being on the prowl. He was essentially saying The Second Vatican Council confounded The Devil, and The Devil will seek to triumph over the renewed Church once more. he was not criticising The Council, but saying renewed as we are we must be more vigilant.
To quote him:
“We thought that after the Council there would be a day of sunshine for the history of the Church, and instead we found storms. How did this happen? We will confide this thought to you . . . There was an adverse power, the devil, whom the Gospel calls the mysterious enemy of man, something preternatural – which comes to suffocate the fruits of the ecumenical Council. ”
“One could say that from some fissure – the smoke of Satan entered into the temple of God. There is doubt, there is uncertainty, there is the problematical, disquiet, dissatisfaction….there is confrontation.”
We will not go into schism in the next few months or years, nor in the next 30, 40 or 50 years. In fact, the Church experienced an ‘unofficial’ schism of sorts in the year 1962, when the Modernists unleashed their wickedness on the faithful, forcing many people to form ‘separate communities’ and place themselves under the protection of traditionalist Bishops such as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio De Castro Mayer, in order to be taught the True Faith and receive the traditional Sacraments and the Mass, instead of Modernist impositions. The Modernists went into schism by separating themselves from the True doctrines of the faith. They are the true schismatics, whereas we are the ones in full Communion with the Faith of our Fathers. Yet we are called schismatics.
catholicconvert1,
Yes, indeed! It never ceases to amaze me that those who have changed nothing of the ancient faith, those who are loyal to the Church’s eternal doctrinal and moral teaching, faithful to the Mass of their forefathers, are called schismatic, while those who receive Holy Communion in objective mortal sin, as Bishop Schneider pointed out, not to mention those who pursue this destructive ecumenism which has resulted in a crisis in the priesthood and religious life, which has destroyed the Catholic missions and resulted in the closure of countless seminaries and churches, are declared to be “in good standing.” Truly a mystery of iniquity!
From a strict legal perspective, they are indeed in good standing. Whereas the SSPX are not.
But it must be remembered CC and Athanasius, that neo-Catholics are profoundly legalistic!
Another word for neo-Catholics therefore is ‘legal positivists’. (i.e. pharisees)
Lefebvre understood the spirit of Church law: the salvation of souls.
Bishop Schneider , promotes, praises and furthers th work of ecumenism and inter-faith dialogue. Listen to him: ‘Ecumenism is necessary in order to be in contact with our separated brethren, to love them. In the midst of the challenge of the new paganism, we can and have to collaborate with serious non-Catholics to defend the revealed Divine truth and the natural law, created by God.’
Arguing with neo-Catholics is often futile.
Our two religions are founded on two different conceptual differences. Two different philosophical frameworks upon which our two different faiths rest.
The neo-Catholic views all of Catholic teaching through the lens of the council. Whereas we view the council though of the lens of prior Catholic teaching.
See the difference? This is hard to knock out of them. I don’t know where they got it from. They try to be orthodox Catholics as much as possible, but their philosophy is modernist (even though they deny they are modernists)…
Bad philosophy leads to bad Theology.
Even Pius Xl permitted dialogue with Anglicans. What he opposed was false ecumenism which didn’t recognise differences existing. His position would be true to Dominum Jesus published by the CDF in 2000. You are wrong on every count.
Follow Peter!
On every account? Oh come on now, you don’t even know me.
We follow the successor of Peter with common sense, in the light of Tradition. Not like a pod of cetaceans, with blind and unquestioning loyalty to the leader whale, unto our deaths, beached and stranded.
No posts here by other commentators suggests they follow Peter. In effect they suggest The See of Rome is vacant, and has been for years.
The point I was making is that if commentators misrepresent, and misquote, Pius Xl who they seem to idolise, then a Pope they disagree with will never be heard as he should be.
Follow Peter, trusting in the promises Jesus made to his Church.
FIDELITYALWAYS,
That is an appalling reading of this blog and the Catholics who contribute here. There is absolutely nothing in any of the comments made by contributors that even hints at sedevacantism on this blog. Every single contributor acknowledges and prays for Pope Francis, the legitimate successor of St. Peter. You have crossed the line with your false accusation, completely unjustifiable and contemptible.
Not at all to dismiss every Pope as a modernist, and to claim the recent Canonisations of two Popes were not valid, is definitely suggesting the Church has no leadership if it is not put in terms of the See being unoccupied. However, for a loyal Catholic to write off every Pope is bordering on sinister.
Then to misquote Pope’s and twist what they say! Paul Vl spoke of the fruits of The Council being under attack by the Devil fermenting dissidents to cause confrontation,. Now who could he mean?
FIDELITYALWAYS,
No, Pope Paul VI lamented the Council fruits as bitter in comparison to what had been expected. His comment about the smoke of Satan was quite clearly an indictment of Conciliar reform as it had unfolded. There was nothing in his words to suggest that he even remotely intended to take a swipe at Traditional Catholics, absolutely not a word. So I think it is rather you who twists the Pope’s words to suit your purpose, not the other way around. Pope Paul VI was perfectly clear in what he said.
Now, as regards the recent canonisations of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II, let me first state that it is the first time in the history of Catholicism that canonisations have caused division, even consternation, amongst the faithful. Traditionally, canonisations have been a source of great joy to all Catholics, so why is it different this time?
Well, if kissing the Koran, receiving the mark of a Hindu deity on your forehead, convoking a syncretist gathering of the world’s religions at Assisi, where Buddhists worshiped their idol atop a tabernacle while pagans ritually slaughtered chickens on a Catholic altar, is pleasing to Our Lord unto canonisation, then the entire Catholic religion up to Vatican II has been false, not least the infallible dogma ‘outside the Church no salvation, and the martyrs were mugs who died for nothing.
Add to this the speed of the new and weakened process, just nine years for John Paul II, with miracles that have hardly stood the test of time, as per the Church’s traditional caution and wisdom, and one begins to understand why Catholics who know their faith have the greatest difficulty in accepting these canonisations, the more so because other venerable Popes such as Blessed Pius IX, whose cause is much older and more sound, have been ignored as if the Conciliar Popes are all especially blessed by God above their predecessors. That’s why many saw in these canonisations a ruse to breathe new life into dying and decaying Conciliar reform.
Now, you should know that the infallibility of canonisations is not a defined dogma of faith. On the other hand, the greater majority of the Church’s theologians are agreed that a Papal declaration of canonisation is infallible, hence the alternative argument of “theological certainty.”
But then there is the person of John Paul II as opposed to John Paul the Pope. We speak of the scandals of his Pontificate, which are true and verifiable in light of Church teaching, but none of us can say what was in his soul when he left this world.
Archbishop Lefebvre once referred to John Paul as a personally pious man, but alas a liberal. In his favour, he did take a strong stand in defence of the Church’s moral teaching and he refused to “resign” the Papacy when prompted due to the extreme pain and incapacity associated with his last illness. “Christ did not come down from the Cross,” he responded to those who were keen to undermine the Papacy with the innovation of the first ever Papal “resignation.” So these things stand in his favour.
For myself, I remain indifferent at this canonisation, waiting for healthier days in the Church to have the matter once and for all officially defined. What I will say is that it is hard to believe that the Almighty would permit such a destructive Papacy as that of John Paul II to be held up for imitation even if the man himself is in heaven.
These are very confusing times in the Church, times bereft of sound leadership in which the faithful everywhere are split into opposing camps as a result of the Popes and bishops speaking to them these past fifty years in parables of Modernism.
Just read any Encyclical Letter of any Pope up to Vatican II and compare the authority and clarity of those documents with the ambiguous double-speak that emanates from the Vatican today, and you will understand why unity in the Church is seriously fractured and the faithful are at each others throats. The shepherd has been struck (with Modernism) and the sheep are scattered. No wonder there’s confusion!
The actual quotes show he was lamenting the attacks of The Devil on the fruits of The Council.
With regards Paul Vl, The SSPX, and The Council we read this from 1976 (two years after his speech in which he lamented the attacks on The Council):
“Finally, about ten years later, in an allocution (also in Italian) to the secret consistory of cardinals on May 24, 1976, Pope Paul VI specifically addressed the distortions and disobedience of Archbishops Lefebvre and his followers with respect to the Second Vatican Council. This too is non-magisterial, but it is proper to round out the thought he expressed non-magisterially in the general audience so commonly cited:
There are those who, under the pretext of a greater fidelity to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically refuse the teaching of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that stem from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under Our authority, willed by Christ.
He even exclaimed in utter frustration:
It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would be in danger also because of the post-conciliar reforms and guidelines, which there is a duty to disobey to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Does it belong to this group, and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not an Ecumenical Council, to establish which of the countless traditions must be regarded as the norm of faith!”
Amongst the faithful, as opposed to the dissenters who post here, the canonisations were welcomed, and the canonisation of Jose Maria Escriva caused worldwide condemnation. Not something, I subscribed to.
Do you believe in Medjugorje?
There is no reason why I should, or for that matter Fatima. I accept, however, Fatima is approved by the Church.
Just to be clear, nobody here believes in Medjugorje, absolutely not me. I suspected you might, not based on what you have said, but because your attitude is very similar to a Medjugorje person I know, so I was just curious.
My attitude is simple: seek to b faithful to Holy Scripture and Tradition, and give due assent to the guidance of The Magisterium.
You don’t work for Catholic Answers by any chance?
Are you American? You have that air of extremism about you. I love America, but it is a land of extremes.
Biographical details are not pertinent here.
I knew it!!
You’re Jimmy Akin aren’t you?
I had to google the name, I must confess.
I assume I would recognise my own name!
Miles,
This is the result of the discarding of Tradition. A way of saying we keep Tradition is where you said, “we view the council through the lens of prior Catholic teaching.”
To be Catholic one must be baptized, adhere to all Catholic dogmas and doctrines, and acknowledge the legitimate authority in the Church.
The problem with so many who go to the Novus Ordo parishes is that Tradition is not passed down at all, or is only passed down entirely. So for example, they’ll teach them about the seven Sacraments, but not about the dogma Outside the Church, no salvation.
Without Tradition, how can there be Faith? How can anyone profess to believe if what they believe is the wrong thing? It’s quite sad how many souls may be lost because of this.
You write “To be Catholic one must be baptized, adhere to all Catholic dogmas and doctrines, and acknowledge the legitimate authority in the Church. ”
The legitimate is The Pope and The College of Bishops, as successors to The Apostles, and The wider Magisterium.
The editor, and her groupies, don’t seem able to do that.
She won’t say by whose authority, and mandate, she publishes this website claiming it to be “Catholic”, and no evidence of a Nihil obstat or Imprimatur.
Above there is an interview from a Bishop whose views on Liturgy she endorses, and then she rejects, as do others, the teaching on ecumenism.
To repeat we can agree that, to be Catholic one must be baptized, adhere to all Catholic dogmas and doctrines, and acknowledge the legitimate authority in the Church.
One must follow faithfully the teachings of the tradition handed down by the Church Fathers.
On Ecumenism the best understanding I have gleaned is from Christopher Ferrara…
“…a virus is not in itself a living thing, but rather a mere particle of RNA or DNA. This particle cannot reproduce unless it finds a living cell whose machinery it can employ to make copies of itself. A virus contains just enough information to reproduce itself by finding cells to infect and turn to its purpose. In fact, the only purpose of a virus it self-replication.
“By analogy, then, we maintain that certain verbal ‘viruses’ have infected the Mystical Body of Christ. These viruses are pseudo-concepts, which, like actual viruses, have minimal informational content. Just as a virus hovers between life and non-life, these pseudo-concepts hover between meaning and non-meaning. They seem to mean something, but upon close examination, we find no real meaning… These viral pseudo-concepts in the Mystical Body of Christ, like actual viruses, exist only to reproduce themselves, which they do by infecting the understanding of genuine concepts with precise meanings — namely, the perennial teachings of the Magisterium.
“We contend that by introducing ‘ecumenism,’ ‘dialogue’ and various other ‘viral’ pseudo-concepts into the Mystical Body, Satan has found a means to confuse, divide and wreak havoc upon the human element of the Church, without the Church ever having taught an actual error of doctrine, which is impossible. Quite the contrary: the pseudo-concepts in question cannot be called doctrinal errors as such, because they are not reducible to a proposition whose words would signify the formal contradiction of an existing Catholic doctrine. Indeed, the terms ‘ecumenism’ and ‘dialogue’ contain nothing in themselves that contradict prior Church teaching; like actual viruses, these terms remain inert until they come into contact with something they can infect. That is why when neo-Catholics say that traditionalists ‘dissent from ecumenism,’ for example, they are unable to articulate precisely what it is about this notion that requires our assent. That is because this notion does not involve any intelligible Catholic doctrine.
It is worrying you choose not to listen to The Pope, and The College of Bishops, and The Magisterium but those who seek to do the work of The Devil by rejection sound teaching from the lawful authority in the Church.
I am more worried about telephone calls to Argentinian women, off the cuff media circuses and ‘Who am I to judge comments’.
No, its worse. I forgot about his nominated Theologian.
The transcripts of the telephone calls are never released, but usually the recollections of a family member not party to the calls.
On more than one issue the reply has been quite succinct “I am a Catholic!”.
You look at him through the lens of those who deny the legitimacy of his Office. Why not see him as The Conclave, who know him, who proclaimed to the world “we have a Pope”.
I pray for our legitimate Pope to start acting like a legitimate Pope. That means stick to the Catholic doctrine, understand that the media are vermin and finally you will never have any success in a policy of popularity: eventually the backlash will come when you have to say no to something.
You are using the WWW to attack The Church, and The Successor Prince of The Apostles, and you worry about off the cuff remarks from an experienced theologian, priest, Bishop, and teacher, who was elected by a lawful Conclave by those who know him?
That is exactly what is the Church: laity who won’t listen to The Hierarchy and mouth off in the media.
Show some humility, and follow Peter.
Correction:
You are using the WWW to attack The Church, and The Successor to The Prince of The Apostles, and you worry about off the cuff remarks from an experienced theologian, priest, Bishop, and teacher, who was elected by a lawful Conclave by those who know him?
That is exactly what is wrong with the Church: laity who won’t listen to The Hierarchy and mouth off in the media.
Show some humility, and follow Peter
FIDELITYALWAYS,
Perhaps you just find the laxity in the modern Church more comfortable for your conscience? It is, after all, a much easier religion to the Catholicism of the past in that it places little or no emphasis today on duty, reverence, adoration, the Commandments and the judgment to come. Everyone just does his own thing and lets it all hang out, so to speak.
The old Church, on the other hand, placed much emphasis of the true worship of God and the salvation of one’s soul. This is best summed up in the motto of the Redemptorists: “You have one life to live and one soul to save. Death with come soon, then heaven or hell for all eternity.” Now that’s what I call a missionary statement!
I don’t recognise The Church of today as being like the one you describe.
The Church is proclaiming The Gospel and is working in every corner of the earth to make God better known, and countless dedicated people are making a difference in the lives of other.
In case you missed it: when is it Pope Benedict to support the claims of Cardinal Stickler, who I was privileged to meet decades ago, when he was The Vatican Librarian, and why is it made up quote from Paul Vl only sourced on dissident, heretical blogs?
Why does the entire Church, from The Pope down, for successive generations, reject the bizarre, blinkered, interpretation, you, and your fellow dissidents, place on Official Church Teaching. The simple answer is, we follow Peter, The Rock!
FIDELITYALWAYS,
That quote of Pope Paul VI is a recognised, uncontested quote that even Pope Benedict XVI spoke of. You will find it on every Traditional Catholic website because it is so astounding and condemning of the Conciliar reform. For the same reason you will not find it anywhere on a Modernist Catholic website.
Now, if you think the Church is doing great at the moment, wonderful missionary work, as you suggest, then you really do have your eyes closed.
The facts are that millions of Catholics, particularly younger ones, have abandoned the Faith completely while millions more, as Bishop Schneider indicated, remain in-house but live irregular moral lives. Literally thousands of seminaries and religious houses have closed down since Vatican II, as have tens of thousands of parish churches, the priesthood is decimated, irreverence towards the Blessed Sacrament is widespread, many not even believing in the Real Presence any more, Catechetical formation of the young is non-existent and almost every Catholic upholds the utterly false belief that other religions, called “faith traditions,” can save souls apart from the Catholic Church. In other words, they implicitly deny the infallible dogma: ‘outside the Church no salvation,’ which means they remain Catholic in name only. So much for the healthy Church you speak of.
Right. But the legitimate authority can be wrong, on any number of topics actually. We don’t follow their errors!
So for example, quite recently Pope Francis prayed with a Muslim immam and a Jewish rabbi. The Muslim prayed a very anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, horrifying prayer. He prayed that they (the Muslims) would defeat their enemies. The number one enemy of Islam is the Catholic Church. And also the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Sick sick sick.
The truth is, Pope Francis was wrong (and I mean deadly wrong) to pray with non-Catholics. This is a scandal, and a sin objectively speaking.
I was under the impression that the blog’s title is Catholic Truth – meaning Truth that is Catholic – Truth that is universal, like the truth that everyone must be in the Church or they shall perish eternally in Hell.
He didn’t pray with them. He prayed in their presence. Every Holy Mass, for example, is offered for the whole of humanity, because it is the perfect representation of Calvary. When exactly did God change his mind?
FIDELITYALWAYS,
Yes, a Vatican spokesman, keen to subdue the genuine concerns of the Catholic faithful over these Papal syncretist gatherings, came away with this tongue twister: “They are not praying together, rather they have come together to pray.” How deceitful is that little line??
There is absolutely no distinction to be made between praying together and coming together to pray, it amounts to the same syncretism, which is a recognition of the veracity of the prayers of non-Christians and non-Catholics before God. Divine truth is sacrificed in either case. Well did a senior prelate once observe as follows: “The martyrs sacrificed their lives for the truth. Now they sacrifice the truth.”
It strikes me that a certain nation had a newspaper called “Truth”.
And you reinforce my point that this website shouldn’t publish as “Catholic” without permission from The Local Ordinary, and a Nihil obstat, and an Imprimatur has ben granted.
Thank You for flagging that up. This website has no official status in Canon Law, and it should not pose as a Catholic publication.
That’s sounds absolutely criminal. How dare they! Perhaps you should stop posting on their website…
Better still accept what Benedict said and acknowledge his teaching or stop attending celebrations of The E.F..
I’d rather think that I was rightfully materialising some concerns and so defending the Church. Nonetheless we shall not agree on much other than disagreement. I suspect you are an attention seeking Troll, thereby reducing your WWW comment to an irony.
Cheerio
The Vatican has released Pope Francis’ message for World Mission Day, which focuses on the continuing need for all Christians to proclaim the Gospel with joy to the many who have not heard of Christ’s saving work.
“Humanity greatly needs to lay hold of the salvation brought by Christ. His disciples are those who allow themselves to be seized ever more by the love of Jesus and marked by the first of passion for the Kingdom of God and the proclamation of the joy of the Gospel,” wrote Pope Francis in his message for the 88th World Mission Day, which will take place on October 19.
“All the Lord’s disciples are called to nurture the joy of evangelization,” he stressed in the text, which was released on June 14.
Although the bishops as pastors are “primarily responsible for this proclamation,” there is “a growing awareness of the identity and mission of the lay faithful in the Church, as well as a recognition that they are called to take an increasingly important role in the spread of the Gospel,” he said.
Christ, salvation, evangelisation. The Bishop of Rome is so modern and yet steeped in Tradition.
Pew Catholic,
No, even Pope Francis is not that ignorant of the truths of the Faith.
FIDELITYALWAYS,
It’s such a pity that Pope Francis does not practice this himself. When in the company of Jewish and Muslim audiences, His Holiness, like his immediate predecessors, says nothing of Our Lord Jesus Christ but rather speaks of them and us being the collective children of Abraham. But did not Our Lord Himself say: “Abraham saw my day and was glad?” And did He not say: “He who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me?” And again: “No one comes to the Father but by me?” Shouldn’t Pope Francis be preaching this to his Jewish and Islamic interlocutors as a true missionary and Vicar of Christ on earth?
It is a shame you reject the Church that welcomes you if your renounce your false claims, and false teaching, and return to the Fold of The One, Holy, Catholic Apostolic Church.
FIDELITYALWAYS,
Precisely the words the Holy Father and the bishops once addressed to non-Catholics and non-Christians, but now reserved exclusively for those who refuse to alter the Traditional Faith of our Fathers. Truly mysterious and tragic!
Follow Peter, rather that she who must be obeyed. Be brave, I have conquered the world, says Jesus.
I think FidelityAlways is Pope Francis.
Pew
No, I do not think so. Papa Francesco is far too busy promoting New World ideas to have the time to comment on Catholic Truth, especially since it is unclear whether he actually comprehends the meaning of either of those words!
I imagine Fidelity Always to be a sincere, dedicated, staunch advocate of the New Traditionalism which is, unfortunately, furthering the decline of the very Church which such an innovative appraisal is attempting to strengthen.
However, when we all simply ignore him, he will go away and resume playing with his toys or Tarot cards.
I find recourse to The Sacraments, Prayer, living as an active member of The Church, listening to The Magisterium, is the model any sensible Catholic would follow.
Sadly, some reject those things, and as Francis, Bishop of Rome rightly says, they seek to dictate to the Church, chase falsehoods, and merely put on an outward show of fidelity, whilst “renting a room” in The Church.
Follow Peter!
FIDELITYALWAYS,
I quoted from several Encyclicals of the Magisterium of the Popes earlier and you dismissed them out of hand in favour of what St. Pius X warned against, that which is today called “living Tradition,” a clever play on words that equates to evolutionary Catholicism, in other words a claim to fidelity only to the present Magisterium without consideration of what has been taught by the Magisterium of the past.
You should remember that Traditional Catholics are not the ones who have altered the Faith. It is not we who have changed anything of the Tradition handed down for two thousand years. Consequently, it is they who have altered things who should be looking at themselves and asking questions about fidelity and orthodoxy. Remember, “I was only obeying orders” didn’t wash at Nuremberg. It will wash even less with Our Lord.
The Magisterium of the Church is much, much more than just the last few Papacies. By all means obey the Pope and the bishops when they declare or order something that is not dangerous to Faith. In fact, you are obliged to obey them on such occasions. But do not think for a second that you are obliged to go along with destructive ecumenism, inter-faith initiatives, Communion in the hand, the new Mass, or any of those other extremely dangerous, oft-condemned policies of the modern hierarchy of the Church. Pray for the Popes and the bishops who have fallen into these errors, but do not follow them if you value your salvation. Read what the Popes of old have said about dangerous innovations and then show your fidelity to God and the truth.
If I dismissed anything I dismissed your interpretation of the documents, as your use of them is not true to the way The Magisterium receive and teach them, and I also queried fabricated quotes from Paul Vl that are only quoted ny dissident Trad’s on their websites, and a quote from Cardinal Stickler which Pope Benedict appears not to agree with. Apart from that you are clearly wanting to come back to the One Truth Faith.
Tradition and Holy Scripture are living as they are The Word of God, and both can only be received, heard, and understood in the household of faith.
None of the abuses, or excesses, you speak of, and none can be condemned by The Church because they are signs of the Holy Spirit at work in The Church and The World. There is no such thing as New Mass, as there is only ONE Holy Mass, but there can be a New Rite, and has been at different times in the life of The Church.
How sad it is that you broadcast your own apostasy.
The quote from Paul VI is most certainly not fabricated – you can see it here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/homilies/1972/documents/hf_p-vi_hom_19720629_it.html
“il Santo Padre afferma …’da qualche fessura sia entrato il fumo di Satana nel tempio di Dio.'” (start of para 13).
It is a partial quote in which he speaks of he fruits of The Council being under attack from The Devil. The Devil seeks to undo the Council by fermenting confrontation. The Council is good, and the work of The Devil bad. Not exactly a surprising conclusion.
Thank you, Confitebor Domino!
FIDELITYALWAYS,
Ok, give examples of those new rites of Mass at different times in the life of the Church. And explain how the Church receives and interprets the Faith handed down and how that can somehow include ecumenism that was previously condemned by the infallible ordinary Magisterium. Time you went into a little detail instead of making these general nonsense declarations. I await names, dates, times and places. Otherwise, don’t bother responding.
As for the New Mass, it’s chief author, Mgr. Annibale Bugnini, in L’Osservatore Romano, 19th March, 1965, declared as follows:
“We must remove from our Catholic liturgy and prayers anything that can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants.”
What we got was a Mass that mirrored the Protestant meal service. Add to that the adoption of the Protestant practice of Communion in the hand distributed by lay people, the removal of altar rails to prevent kneeling before God, the priest turning his back on God at the high altar to face the people over a meal table, replacement in many cases of the tabernacle with a “Presider’s” chair as the Sanctuary centre piece, etc., etc., and I think we can very safely declare that it is not, in fact, anything like the old Mass of the Church.
That’s why those two senior Roman Cardinals, Ottaviani and Bacci declared that the New Mass represents in whole and in its individual parts a grave departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as codified in perpetuity by the Council of Trent.
Besides that, at no time in the history of the Catholic religion has any Pope removed a single prayer from the Mass. Prayers were added but none was ever removed. The New Mass removed many of the most ancient prayers of the Mass, particularly those which made clear the Sacrificial nature of the Mass which Protestants took issue with. You really do have to study these matters in more depth before commenting.
I recommend you begin with the words of Pope Benedict XVI in regard to the New Mass, who called it “A banal, on-the-spot fabrication.” That is the most honest and accurate description of the New Mass I have heard any Conciliarist prelate make.
Now, as I have pointed out before, Pope Benedict XVI made reference to those words of Paul VI about the smoke of Satan. It is a well established and proven declaration from Pope Paul that many Churchmen have recounted, nothing misleading or invented about it. I believe 1973 was the year His Holiness spoke those words, but I could be wrong on that date.
Paul VI was, in that talk, saying the fruits of The Second Vatican Council were under attack from the Devil, who was promoting confrontation. He was not criticising The Council. You gave a partial quot and twisted his meaning and intent. He was praising The Council and warning The Devil would attack a Church doing The Will of God. He said “There was an adverse power, the devil, whom the Gospel calls the mysterious enemy of man, something preternatural – which comes to suffocate the fruits of the ecumenical Council.” He was defending and promoting The Council, and attacking The Devil.
Mgr Bugnini was expressing an opinion, and not giving a teaching. Cardinal Kasper, as you know, frequently expresses opinion, and they are not Church Teaching either. Clerics do that! Why then would Cardinals, Ottaviani and Bacci opinion hold more weight that that of Pope Benedict?
You need to explain why Pope Benedict says the New Rite, which he calls The Ordinary Form is the norm for the Universal Church, and speaks of it as being part of the one great Liturgical Tradition. He also said anyone who denies that should be denied what he calls The .E.F. (See S.P. and the accompanying letter.)
BENEDICT XVI: APOSTOLIC LETTER PORTA FIDEI
FOR THE INDICTION OF THE YEAR OF FAITH: “5. I believe that timing the launch of the Year of Faith to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council will provide a good opportunity to help people understand that the texts bequeathed by the Council Fathers, “have lost nothing of their value or brilliance. They need to be read correctly, to be widely known and taken to heart as important and normative texts of the Magisterium, within the Church’s Tradition. I feel in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century: there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning.”
With regards Ecumenism: DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF
PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM
“9. The ecumenical movement seeks to be a response to the gift of God’s grace which calls all Christians to faith in the mystery of the Church according to the design of God who wishes to bring humanity to salvation and unity in Christ through the Holy Spirit. This movement calls them to the hope that the prayer of Jesus ‘that they all may be one’ will be fully realized.9 It calls them to that charity which is the new commandment of Christ and the gift by which the Holy Spirit unites all believers. The Second Vatican Council clearly asked Catholics to reach out in love to all other Christians with a charity that desires and works actively to overcome in truth whatever divides them from one another. For the Council, Catholics are to act in hope and in prayer to promote Christian unity. They will be prompted and instructed by their faith in the mystery of the Church, and their ecumenical activity will be inspired and guided by a true understanding of the Church’ as a sacrament or instrumental sign of intimate union with God, and of unity of the whole human race.’ “
On March 25th, 1993, His Holiness Pope John Paul II approved this Directory, confirmed it by his authority and ordered that it be published. Anything to the contrary notwithstanding.
You can misquote, and misrepresent Church teaching , but you have been by Pope Benedict if you reject what he calls The Ordinary Form you should be denied the so called E.F..
“He was defending and promoting The Council, and attacking The Devil.”
It’s not clear to what point in time the past particple ‘venuto’ refers, whether during or after the council. So the Pope could just as easily have meant that ‘the Devil came along, infiltrated himself into the council and ensured that it produced only rotten fruit.’
This interpretation seems much more likely, given that pretty much all we see is indeed rotten fruit.
With regards Paul Vl, The SSPX, and The Council we read this from 1976 (two years after his speech in which he lamented the attacks on The Council):
“Finally, about ten years later, in an allocution (also in Italian) to the secret consistory of cardinals on May 24, 1976, Pope Paul VI specifically addressed the distortions and disobedience of Archbishops Lefebvre and his followers with respect to the Second Vatican Council. This too is non-magisterial, but it is proper to round out the thought he expressed non-magisterially in the general audience so commonly cited:
There are those who, under the pretext of a greater fidelity to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically refuse the teaching of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that stem from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under Our authority, willed by Christ.
He even exclaimed in utter frustration:
It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would be in danger also because of the post-conciliar reforms and guidelines, which there is a duty to disobey to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Does it belong to this group, and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not an Ecumenical Council, to establish which of the countless traditions must be regarded as the norm of faith!”
Fidelityalways,
If you are going to cut and paste you might have the common courtesy to credit the author (Dr Jeff Mirus http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=886 – not a site I’d recommend by the way).
‘countless traditions’ there most certainly are and no-one here is arguing about those. However,there is only one Tradition and it is incapable of accommodating mutually exclusive propositions.
Have you ever actually read anything written before 1962?
I think any site that fully quotes The Magisterium, as compared to a partial quote from Paul Vl on this one, can’t harm anyone.
I have read countless things from many centuries past, and in particular Church documents, The world didn’t begin or end in 1962.
Madam Editor,
Can you please explain the logic of your contributors pandering the the game by which “fidelityalways” seeks to misuse this forum. Surely, there must be a more rewarding activity for them in which to indulge.
Sixupman,
I have been out all day and just this minute returned from lunching with Crofterlady and her lovely husband, so I’m not going to have caught up with everything for a while yet, this being a flying visit because – believe it or not – I have other things to which I must attend….
However, while I fully understand why you are fed up with FA (so is one..!) he is serving the key purpose of helping us to educate those who read this blog but don’t contribute to it – and there are many such readers. And, happily, our bloggers are of a sufficiently Catholic and apostolic disposition to use the opportunity to educate others, even if FA is determined to remain in his ignorance. Given Our Lord’s injunctions to both “love our enemies” and “spread the faith” seems logical to me. But then, (you guessed it) I’m a simple gal 😀
Someone – I think it was Mikidiki – asked yesterday if I could add an “ignore” facility to certain bloggers like FA, who may be merely time-wasters, but it’s not possible, I’m afraid – there is no such facility.
I suggest, therefore, that those who are fed up with FA, just insert your own imaginary “ignore” button and… well…. ignore his comments. Add your own comment without responding to FA. Hopefully, there will be a fresh topic soon, later tonight or tomorrow, that will not interest dear old FA. One lives in hope.
There will come a point anyway, in due course, when all the bloggers in Christendom will be unable to help FA. When that time comes, I trust each of them will announce that here on the blog and I will then have to give thought as to how best to deal with our friend. We don’t moderate posts unless absolutely necessary – for one thing, it’s more work for moi and if there is one thing that moi doesn’t like it’s more work – but if that is the only way to highlight, by editorial footnote, repetitious errors, then that is what shall be done. In the meantime…
Peace! Patience!
SIXUPMAN,
I understand your frustration. You’re right, this person is not on the blog for serious reasons, although I also understand the logic behind Editor’s comments. For my own part, I think I have really gone as far as I can with FA and so I will not be responding to further comments by this person. There has to come a time when the line is drawn. Apologies for hogging the blogging, so to speak. And now to those rewarding activities you mentioned. I’ll start with a cream cake!
On the contrary you misquote Paul VI, ignore what Benedict himself said about what he call The Ordinary Form, and completely misrepresent every document you quote.
You duck ,and dive, and don’t provide any rational reason for a loyal, traditional Catholic to ignore the authentic teaching of The Magisterium.
Do you not get it? We don’t consider it to be authentic. Correction, the infallible and immemorial position of the Church herself has deemed it not authentic. You’re asking us to square a circle in the name of obedience.
Well, you have no Holy Mass you can attend then. The Pope banned you. I guess being a loyal, traditional, Catholic, to the core, you will ignore that Papal writ, as you do all others.
So…
A Catholic Pope has banned Catholic persons from attending a Catholic Mass, for them believing Catholicism.
Well I wouldn’t be surprised.
Athanasius seems pretty confident that it would be impossible to give dates or indicate changes over time in the western rites. The point that people seem utterly unwilling to grasp is that 1570 was, very much, a New Order, stamping on traditional forms. It may not be unreasonable in a blog allegedly concerned with Scottish Catholic Truth, to try some Scottish catholic history.
Liturgical evidence for the Scottish Church for the generation between 1340 and 1380 is that it was normal for the people to receive communion in both kinds, that a ‘peace’ was given the by the whole congregation kissing an icon or gospel book one after another and the masses ended, on the principal feasts at least, by distributing what the early church knew as the eulogium. The normal service was high mass, served by a permanent deacon, the parish clerk reading the epistle. There was a rood but no altar rails. There was no tabernacle – the custom was to reserve the sacrament for the sick in a box or ‘pyx’. The vestments were classified by quality, not colour and Innocent III’s proposed system of colours was not adopted in the Scottish Church.
Pick over that lot and it is obvious that, as compared to the Sarum Rite described, the New Order introduced, for the first time, by Pius V, scrapped a whole load of traditions and introduced a whole set of new features which over the years became “customs”. The key error (and is was a real mistake) was to imagine (Pius V was personally ignorant of liturgical history and his advisors made serious blunders) that ‘low mass’ was the normative rite and the pontifical rite an elaboration.
The fundamental fact is that the average TradCath is bone ignorant of liturgical history and of any rite beyond the New Order of the Roman Rite promulgated in 1570. It is true that the Congregation of Rites did its best to turn this rite into some sort of fossil preserved in aspic and tried to do so as far as 1970. These 400 increasingly sterile years were the exception rather than the rule in the history of the Roman Rite, to say nothing of Sarum, Milan, Toledo or the eastern Rites.
The key error is to think that what was current 1904-1964 (the good old days for the TradCaths) was in any sense ‘traditional’. That fact, and the lunacy of operating in a dead language not understood by the people (and a fair few clerics), resulted in reform – achieved by a return to traditions much older than 1570. The fact that the western reformers had been there and done that in the sixteenth century explains why the reformed Anglicans and the reformed Romans have ended up with a greater degree of similarity, in both independently rediscovering more ancient rites and customs – for traddies (who are, some of them, clearly deranged) this is a dark masonic plot hatched by some wicked monsignor.
Anyone who knows liturgical history would have to agree with the old lady who announced she had the same brush for 70 years and it and only had four new shafts and nine new heads. Semper eadem.
Thank You for your intervention Dr John Dowden
I assume Trad’s here are wilfully ignorant and have no problem in imperilling their own souls, and trying to drag others down too.
I might add that can’t remember the last Papacy and the very clear, and distinct, teaching on The Mass in Summorum Pontificum and the accompanying letter.
In theory, they should be denied the E.F.!
S. Pius V allowed well-established (200 years plus) rites to continue unchanged.
Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to you that the reason the Sarum rite disappeared was because the English and Scottish hierarchies had been hunted to effective extinction by a mob of insane malcontents!
The Rites have changed numerous times, and are not all Universal even today!
Simply, the diversity within rites and of rites, whether it be the Dominican use, or the Mosarabic Rite, or whatever, is fully Catholic, all of them. The Novus Ordo is not a fully Catholic rite, it’s also Protestant, desacralised, anthropocentric, devirilised. Also, the reforms of Pius V were organic. Whereas the reforms of Paul VI were a “banal, on the spot fabrication” or whatever it was Pope Benedict said. They were not organic, they were not a reform, they were a destruction, they constitute a discontinuity.
I used to fall for this kind of specious argument. Until I started attending the Traditional Mass for real, rather than just reading about it.
Pope Benedict, and The Magisterium, would beg to differ, and, in good conscience, you should not attend an E.F. celebrations if you do, because The Pope said you should be denied them.
Are you all there?
Confitebor Domino
I have to confess to you that it certainly was in my mind – that is why I specified Scottish customs older than 1370.
Your potted history of the reform of the Scottish and English churches is, to put it mildly, tendentious – it is amazing how ignorant of history alleged ‘traditionalists’ can be. If memory serves, the Sarum Rite was simply translated into English by an archbishop appointed by Rome and it was a half-Spanish queen and a half-foreign cardinal who hunted the poor man to the stake.
The Sarum Rite has hardly become extinct – the Walsingham Ordinariate has re-introduced with papal approval (and I imagine Cranmer smiled down at that one). Even out here in the wild east we had another quick run through the Sarum translation this morning – in a rather nice baroque chapel kindly supplied by our ecumenically-minded Roman neighbours. Baroque organs really suit the musical style of the English Church so Sarum shone in its firmament – as did the medieval Church of Salisbury
Funny old thing liturgical history once you begin to know some actual history.
I was under the impression that the Sarum rite being an old use, was not covered under the reforms of Pius V which had a limit of 200 years. So the Sarum use was safe until the Reformation wiped out Catholicism in England, so seminarians studied on the continent and visiting priests were foreign. I though this was the reason for the extinction of the Sarum rite?
Then again I’m just another trad thicko.
Not only that, English seminarians had to train abroad, Douay for example. Extinction was inevitable. You are correct, of course, there was a 200 year limit of the Pius V reforms. If the English Reformation had never happened, then the Sarum use would have been in place up until Vatican II.
Don’t let these psuedo-intellectuals get you down.
“Jean Guitton, an intimate friend of Paul VI, related what Paul VI said at the final session of Vatican II: “It was the final session of the Council,” Guitton wrote, “the most essential, in which Paul VI was to bestow on all humanity the teachings of the Council. He announced this to me on that day with these words, ‘I am about to blow the seven trumpets of the Apocalypse.’”
Miles Immaculatae
Not extinct – just translated into a tongue understanded of the people and a Use still very much still in use. The little band of Walsingham renegades has their version. And there are fairly frequent “authentic” performances – Dr Conti tried it at Aberdeen and Merton does it in Oxford. And both the English and the Scottish Churches were reformed before Pius V took it upon himself to try Tridentine totalitarianism. Yes, the small and diminishing band of recusants had so little grasp of their own traditions that they fell in with foreign customs and when the hierarchy was restored the Roman-Catholic population was overwhelmingly Irish – not exactly fans of restoring English and Scottish custom. But just because foreign clergy dislike it, does mean it has disappeared. As I say, we had it in translation and in a modern version this morning. Variety is the spice of liturgical life.
And our mouths shall shew forth ….
You seriously can’t be referring to the Book of Common Prayer? You treat the lot of us like a load of simpletons, and then you come out with such superficial comparison as this?
Although the Cranmer BCP (and the King James Bible) are a venerable part of English literary heritage, they cannot be compared to the Sarum use of the Roman Rite.
A Catholic Rite is more than words: it has apostolicity, the use of valid sacramental matter and form, legitimate ministers etc.. The Anglican liturgy has none of these.
You can hardly blame English Recusancy for “falling in with foreign customs”. They had to send their sons to the continent, Douay, in secret lest they be put to death.
I heard +Conti had offered the Sarum Use (illicitly) and also the Traditional Roman Rite many times in the past. It’s a mystery why he became so vehemently against it.
There have always been English Catholics. During the time of emancipation, and then when the hierarchy was restored, you give the impression the Catholic Church in England have always been tatty munchers. A snobbish, English prejudice of the ruling classes that regarded the Catholic Church as the “Italian mission to the Irish”. (I am English and from an Anglican family by the way). Have you ever heard of the Dukes of Norfolk. Of course you have, more English than the Windsors, very much extant, and Recusants.
I find the idea of the Sacred Liturgy as a ‘performance’, the toy of a few antiquarian ponces in Oxford, absolutely revolting. Why not join a medieval reenactment society instead? I have never understood Anglo-Catholicism, for me it just historical reenactment, their is nothing spiritual about it, it is theatrical. Then there is that posh, homo, ‘gin-and-lace’ side to it that normal people find completely nauseating.
Miles,
Nothing quite like Catholic Truth to pass the time on a long jolting sleeper trip.
Dr Cranmer took Sarum as the starting point of his translation and if the Ordinariate get to use it, the Roman experts must see something in its matter and form which you don’t. I wouldn’t get too worked up about Douay’s influence – Sarum died out among recusants mainly because their numbers were too small to make printing new editions viable for the book trade. I don’t know, however, that Sarum is the preserve of antiquarian ponces in Oxford – last I heard the recent Scottish Sarum CD was researched by a lady who used to do her bit to educate the natives up in Glasgow.
But if you are worried about folk poncing about in lace – have a look at the LMS source given at the head of this thread. There is Dr Schneider in full kit, photographed with attendant clergy, also well-laced (and in white socks!). In fact the traddy hero is quite a snazzy dresser: Schneider by name and by nature. I am not quite sure how he finances such an extensive wardrobe on a assistant bishop’s stipend in the Italian mission to the Orthodox but he is one of the few modern Romans who likes to swish about the place with 10-foot trains trailing down the aisle. Scotland’s own dear Cardinal was another fan of the train-and-lace outfit. If the Anglican equivalents lace their post liturgical gatherings with gin, no harm in that. Some people behave themselves at drinks’ parties.
I am not sure you understand Oxford, or indeed England’s Other University, but having regard to their founders and benefactors down the centuries college chapels – and the cathedral – do best to reflect in their litugries the different periods of the English Church. Brompton and Wesminster Cathedral try likewise to do their bit for the somewhat more operatic Italian mission although Pugin once complained that, in his Sarum chasubles, immigrant priests didn’t look like priests and what was worse his chasubles didn’t look like chasubles. Still, best not to be rude about Oxford: lots of good liturgy and lots of good music – the theological principle is that we are obliged to do out best.
It’s different when Bishop Athanasius does it, I can’t explain why, you either get it or you don’t.
Fidelity Always has put a rather interesting spin on the well-known and extraordinary “smoke of satan” remarks made by Pope Paul VI on 29 June 1972: “the fruits” of the Council being attacked by the Devil. Well, it’s a point of view.
I’d like to see the papolatrist, neo Catholic spin on the following:
“We refer to the immense dangers on account of the present age’s cast of mind alienated from religion. They are so full of snares, so that in the very bosom of the Church there appear works by several teachers and writers who while trying to express Catholic doctrine in new ways and forms, often desire rather to accommodate the dogma of faith to the secular modes of thought and expression than be guided by the norms of the teaching authority of the Church”.- Pope Paul VI, opening speech to the 1967 Synod of Bishops
“Today the Church is going through a moment of disquiet. Some practice self-criticism, one would even say auto-demolition. It is like an inner, acute and complex disturbance such as no one could have expected after the Council”. – Pope Paul VI, Allocution to the students of the Lombard Seminary, December 7, 1968
“At the root of this loss of hope is an attempt to promote a vision of man apart from God and apart from Christ….European culture gives the impression of “silent apostasy” on the part of people who have all they need and who live as if God does not exist”.- Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia in Europa, #9
“Certainly the results (of Vatican II) seem cruelly opposed to the expectations of everyone, beginning with those of Pope John XIII and then of Pope Paul VI: expected was a new a Catholic unity and instead we have been exposed to dissension which , to use the words of Pope Paul VI, seems to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction. Expected was a new enthusiasm, and many wound up discouraged and bored. Expected was a great step forward, instead we find ourselves faced with a progressive process of decadence which has developed for the most part under the sign of a calling back to the Council, and has therefore contributed to discrediting it for many. The net result therefore seems negative. I am repeating here what I said ten years after the conclusion of the work: it is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavourable for the Church”. Cardinal Ratzinger, L’Osservatore Romano, 24 December 1984.
“Should we not also think how much Christ suffers in His own Church?…What little faith is present behind so many theories, so many empty words! How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to Him! How much pride, how much self-complacency!…Lord, Your Church often seems like a boat about to sink, a boat taking in water on every side. In your field we see more weeds than wheat…”- Cardinal Ratzinger, Meditation on the Third Fall of Our Lord, Good Friday 2005
Please, can we have no more of this New Pentecost, New Advent, New Springtime talk. I’m certainly not judging anyone’s minds or motives, but to call what has happened in the Church over the last five decades the work of the Holy Ghost, is to me, objectively speaking, blasphemy.
Here’s one more rather apt quote, courtesy of Michael Davies:
“When they create a wilderness they call it renewal”- Tacitus, Agricola, 30
Throughout history people have dissented, but as was made clear by Pope Paul in 1976 he was talking about people like Archbishop who went from criticising The Church, that is, self criticism, to outright dissent, and confrontation.
It may have slipped your notice but we have just had a Year of Faith, promulgated by Benedict, to mark the beginning of the Council, and almost daily he parised the fruits of The Council (as did Paul Vl specifically on June 29th 1972.)
Pope Benedict repeatedly spoke of the fruits, and blessing of the Council, and in a talk to the Curia, in 2005, he compared the difficulties that followed The Council of Nicea to the difficulties that followed the more recent Council A theological, and historical, perspective helps, and Benedict was one of our greatest scholars.
He also compared the real Council to the one of the media, and enemies of, and fantasists, within The Church. (We can surely include self-professed Trad’s who, “rent a room in The Church”)
MEETING WITH THE PARISH PRIESTS AND THE CLERGY OF ROME ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI Paul VI Audience Hall Thursday, 14 February 2013
“We know that this Council of the media was accessible to everyone. Therefore, this was the dominant one, the more effective one, and it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy … and the real Council had difficulty establishing itself and taking shape; the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. But the real force of the Council was present and, slowly but surely, established itself more and more and became the true force which is also the true reform, the true renewal of the Church. It seems to me that, 50 years after the Council, we see that this virtual Council is broken, is lost, and there now appears the true Council with all its spiritual force. And it is our task, especially in this Year of Faith, on the basis of this Year of Faith, to work so that the true Council, with its power of the Holy Spirit, be accomplished and the Church be truly renewed. Let us hope that that the Lord will assist us. I myself, secluded in prayer, will always be with you and together let us go forward with the Lord in the certainty that the Lord will conquer. Thank you!”
And his letter to mark the Year of Faith:
It seemed to me that timing the launch of the Year of Faith to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council would provide a good opportunity to help people understand that the texts bequeathed by the Council Fathers, in the words of Blessed John Paul II, “have lost nothing of their value or brilliance. They need to be read correctly, to be widely known and taken to heart as important and normative texts of the Magisterium, within the Church’s Tradition … I feel more than ever in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century: there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning.”[9] I would also like to emphasize strongly what I had occasion to say concerning the Council a few months after my election as Successor of Peter: “if we interpret and implement it guided by a right hermeneutic, it can be and can become increasingly powerful for the ever necessary renewal of the Church.”
And before you mention banal Liturgy, Benedict, in Summorum Pontificum:
“Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.”
Fidelity Always
Lest you think that criticism is not permitted to Catholics or that it indicates an heretical, schismatic or sedevacantist mentality, I would like to put forward the names of the Romano Amerio (a peritus at the Council), Enrico Maria Radaelli and Monsignor Brunero Gherardini. There intellectual and theological qualifications are absolutely beyond question.
The following is taken from the SSPX website dici.org.
Vaticanist Sandro Magister wrote on 12 July 2010 as follows:
“Precisely this (the dilemma of whether there has been continuity or rupture in the Magisterium of the Church before and after the Council), in the view of Amerio and Radaelli, is the cause of the crisis in the conciliar and postconciliar Church, a crisis that has brought it extremely close to its ‘impossible but nearly accomplished’ perdition: having tried to give up on a commanding Magisterium, on dogmatic definitions ‘unequivocal in language, certain in content, compulsory in form, as one would expect that at least the teachings of ac Council would be’.
“The result, according to Amerio and Radaelli, is that Vatican II is full of vague, equivocal assertions that can be interpreted in different ways, some of them even in definite contrast with the previous Magisterium of the Church. And this ambiguous language is said to have paved the way for a Church that today is ‘overrun by thousands of doctrines and a hundred thousand nefarious customs.” In her art, music and liturgy as well.
“If abandoning the principle of authority and a policy of endless discussion (‘discussionism’) are the sickness of the conciliar and postconciliar Church, getting over it- Radaelli writes- requires doing the opposite. The high ranking bishops of the Church must put an end to the discussion with a dogmatic, ex cathedra proclamation that is infallible and obligatory. It must anathemize those who do not obey, and bless those who obey.
“And what does Radaelli expect the supreme authority of the Church to decree? Like Amerio, he is convinced that in at least three cases there has been an “abysmal rupture in continuity” between Vatican II and the previous Magisterium: where the Council declares that the Church of Christ ‘subsists in’ the Catholic Church instead of saying that it ‘is’ the Catholic Church; where it asserts that ‘Christians worship the same God worshipped by the Jews and Muslims’; and in the declaration on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae.”
A similar appeal for clarification has been made by Thomist theologian Brunero Gherardini, canon of St. Peter’s, professor emeritus of the Pontifical Lateran University, and editor in chief of the journal Divinitas.
His book entitled The Ecumenical Vatican Council II: A Much Needed Discussion is very is instructive. Here are a few quotations:
“The purpose of Vatican II, in fact sets it apart from any other Council, especially Trent and Vatican I. Its scope was not to give definitions, nor was it dogmatic or linked to dogma; it was pastoral.” (55)
“Not a few pages of the conciliar documents reek of the writings and ideas of Modernism-this can be seen above all in Gaudium et Spes.” (92)
“This (the general guidance of the Holy Spirit at a Council) does not mean that the Holy Spirit may not encounter formal or material resistance from the free-willed men who give life to the conciliar event. It is from this possibility that it may even fail in some way. Someone has even gone further and asked if an Ecumenical Council can fall into error in Faith and Morals. The opinions are at variance…” (29)
“Anyone who, quoting it (VII), puts it on a par with Trent or Vatican I, and accredits to it a normative and binding force which it does not possess in itself, commits a crime and, in the final analysis does not respect the Council itself.” (30)
“None of its (VII) doctrines, unless ascribable to previous conciliar definitions, are infallible or unchangeable, nor are they even binding: he who denies them cannot, for this reason, be called a formal heretic.” (58)
“It is licit, therefore, to recognize a dogmatic nature in Vatican II only where it re-proposes dogmas defined in previous Councils as the true Faith.” (59)
“(After Vatican II a) missionary conception of the Church now freed from any form of or temptation to proselytism…this type of ecumenism, unfortunately, found a license to legitimacy from the spirit of Assisi, thanks to the ‘multi-religious’ meeting celebrated there…” (86-87)
“A reform is not necessarily a development; it could also be its opposite.” (102)
“How many times the very men, into whose hands Jesus had entrusted the sacred deposit of the Faith, solemnly and pompously said ‘no’ to this or that doctrine, like the Marian Coredemption, because otherwise it will prejudice ecumenical dialogue. It was as if to say, ‘There is no other truth or value besides ecumenical dialogue…” (122)
“And if someone passed through that door to introduce into the Church a Liturgy subversive to the very nature and primary end of the Sacred Liturgy…the responsibility for this, in the final analysis, is none other than the conciliar text itself.” (171-172)
“The content of DH (Dignitatis Humanae) and the contents of the previous Magisterium are different. So there is neither continuity nor development of the previous Magisterium in DH.” (217)
In his book, Monsignor Gherardini made a very humble and respectful appeal to Pope Benedict for a magisterial clarification of the mass of confusion caused by the Conciliar documents. That filial and faithful appeal has to this day received no effective response.
I assume you think being a senior cleric is the main qualification for having authority to teach. I trust you will embrace Cardinal Kasper to your bosom. Archbishop Lefebvre was also at The Council and rejected The One Holy Catholic Church, and founded a Cult.
However, a successor to Peter, holder of the Petrine Office, and called to confirm the faith of his brother was also at The Council.
Pope Benedict repeatedly spoke of the fruits, and blessing of the Council, and in a talk to the Curia, in 2005, he compared the difficulties that followed The Council of Nicea to the difficulties that followed the more recent Council A theological, and historical, perspective helps, and Benedict was one of our greatest scholars.
He also compared the real Council to the one of the media, and enemies of, and fantasists, within The Church. (We can surely include self-professed Trad’s who, “rent a room in The Church”)
MEETING WITH THE PARISH PRIESTS AND THE CLERGY OF ROME ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI Paul VI Audience Hall Thursday, 14 February 2013
“We know that this Council of the media was accessible to everyone. Therefore, this was the dominant one, the more effective one, and it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy … and the real Council had difficulty establishing itself and taking shape; the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. But the real force of the Council was present and, slowly but surely, established itself more and more and became the true force which is also the true reform, the true renewal of the Church. It seems to me that, 50 years after the Council, we see that this virtual Council is broken, is lost, and there now appears the true Council with all its spiritual force. And it is our task, especially in this Year of Faith, on the basis of this Year of Faith, to work so that the true Council, with its power of the Holy Spirit, be accomplished and the Church be truly renewed. Let us hope that that the Lord will assist us. I myself, secluded in prayer, will always be with you and together let us go forward with the Lord in the certainty that the Lord will conquer. Thank you!”
And his letter to mark the Year of Faith:
It seemed to me that timing the launch of the Year of Faith to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council would provide a good opportunity to help people understand that the texts bequeathed by the Council Fathers, in the words of Blessed John Paul II, “have lost nothing of their value or brilliance. They need to be read correctly, to be widely known and taken to heart as important and normative texts of the Magisterium, within the Church’s Tradition … I feel more than ever in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century: there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning.”[9] I would also like to emphasize strongly what I had occasion to say concerning the Council a few months after my election as Successor of Peter: “if we interpret and implement it guided by a right hermeneutic, it can be and can become increasingly powerful for the ever necessary renewal of the Church.”
And before you mention banal Liturgy, Benedict, in Summorum Pontificum:
“Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.”
Comment removed
3 Little Shepherds’ quote from Jean Guitton reminded me of the following:
“When I read the documents relative to the Modernism, as it was defined by Saint Pius X, and when I compare them to the documents of the II Vatican Council, I cannot help being bewildered. For what was condemned as heresy in 1906 was proclaimed as what is and should be from now on the doctrine and method of the Church. In other words, the modernists of 1906 were, somewhat, precursors to me. My masters were part of them. My parents taught me Modernism. How could Saint Pius X reject those that now seem to be my precursors?”
-(Jean Guitton, Portrait du Père Lagrange, Éditions Robert Laffont, Paris, 1992, pp. 55-56).
Leo,
Your capacity for historical misinterpretation and mistranslation of foreign languages never fails to amaze me. The longer I read this “Traditional Latin” blog, the more keen I become on the idea of the vernacular – understanded of the people as Dr Cranmer wanted.
Some of us were made to learn the stuff at school, so (from memory) the peroration Tacitus put into the mouth of the native Caledonian Chief runs “vbi solitudinem faciunt . pacem appellant”. And I dont think pax translates as “renewal”.
The exact same metrical pattern turns up in the Arbroath Letter sent to Rome in 1320 so perhaps the moral of the story is that Latin is fine so long as it is a living scholarly language but it is deadly in the hands of “traditionalists” who, on this inept showing, are apt to favour a liturgy they cannot actually construe,
.
Dowden,
Your expertise is second to none. You can twist, distort, take out of context just about anything and everything written by Leo. It’s masterful. Genius, even. Sadly, though, Dowden, your latest comment suggests that you are still smarting from Leo’s rebuttal of your attack on St Pius X on the General Discussion thread. Let it go, Dowden. Let it go…
Leo’s knowledge of the Faith and his ability to pinpoint key errors in the likes of FA clearly drives you crazy. But notice his utter good manners, his unfailing courtesy, including, by the way, in the face of your harsh words which come across as arrogant Dowden, although I’m sure that’s not a real or fair representation of your good self. We must meet for coffee some day so that I can tell for sure whether Mrs Dowden needs marriage guidance counselling. I can do the training.
But, Dowden, if you really despise this “traditional Latin” (that’s a new one!) blog so much, feel free to give us a miss – any time that suits you, suits us. Same goes for the coffee date.
You are not a Catholic, Dowden, and that means that your (naturally) biased view of the Church prevents you seeing the truths proclaimed here. Hence your frustration at our beloved Leo.
Don’t fight with Leo, Dowden. You can’t win. He’s gold-dust. Let it go 😀
I am tiring of your juvenile, bourgeois, old grammar school boy, pseudo-intellectual one-upmanship. To the ordinary folk who you seem to regard as ignoramuses, it is almost comical.
You’ll never be Chesterton. You are a mediocrity, despite your supposed learning. That’s not a criticism, we all here are mediocrities. There is no wisdom in the soul that has not humility.
Gosh, I do seem able to bring out the generous side in traddies. Two large helpings of personal abuse, oh, what a surprise, and only for telling a man he was wrong.
First we have a lady (whom I believe to be a spinster) offering coffee (fair enough) and marriage guidance for my Management (fair enough if celibate clergy get to tell the Roman faithful all there is to know about family planning, cohabitation and divorce).
Then some sassenach accuses me of attending a Grammar School! They exist in England but not north of the Agricolan limes – Scotland makes do with some traditional schools which do Latin and comprehensives which don’t. Since the peroration Leo misquotes is a fairly resounding denunciation of the evils of Rome and all its works, it may be that the Roman-Catholic schools in Scotland gave it a miss.
Still, if people who insist on Latin, don’t think mere linguistic accuracy matters, there is not much anyone can do to dispel the ignorance.
No need to take the moral high ground. You’ve done your fair share of condescending, Dr Dowden. My words were tempered with an appeal to humility, and witness to all of our mediocrity.
Who are you calling spinster? That’s rather very sexist of you.
I assumed you were English, and a grammar school boy, you have that air about you, not quite sure how to describe it. Perhaps it’s how you pretend Oxbridge are the only universities in England and shows signs of a classical education (most of us never had the opportunity to learn Latin)
I am thoroughly against the gruesome tripartite system. I have been told off for political broadcasting on the blog before, so I’ll keep it brief. We have it still in the metropolitan borough of Trafford, where my family are form. My mother failed the 11+ and I inherited her trauma growing up, namely how her life had been ruined (this sounds histrionic, but really, honestly I am not exaggerating). Loads of adults are traumatised and carry a lot of shame about this, for real. Yes, we all know comprehensives are rubbish, and we all know grammars are vastly superior, the Tories keep on telling us. It’s not a good enough a reason though. You can’t write off two thirds of the population at age 11. My mother never leaned mathematics, a foreign language, or even English literature, the basic components of a secondary education. Her education was appalling, abysmal, she was truly failed by her country. She managed to make it to university in her 50s though, mainly thanks to Labour’s widening participation policies. It is something I feel intensely angry about. A few times I thought about submitting a formal complaint to the Secretary of State for Education on her behalf, it happened in the 1970s but someone really should apologise. I definitely wouldn’t have passed it, not then, not based on my circumstances, even though I have gone on to study at a Russell group university. My uncle failed the 11+ and has PhD in Chemistry from Imperial College London, despite my grandmother being told he would be able to forge a reasonable career in woodwork, no joke.
So basically, the overall meaning of my rant above: intellectual snobbery really winds me up.
Miles,
I am not sure that passing one’s trauma on to the children is a good idea – Little (Russell Group) Dowden will not be helped in her attempts to pass the driving test with tales of parental trauma of mastering three pedals with two feet.
I can see you are annoyed about your mother’s local council but back in the good old days of the direct grant for independent schools, the grammar/modern school idea was efficiency – gather together homogeneous groups. Quick children learn quickly but convoys have to move at the speed of the slowest ship. Get too many alienated or dissident types together and they can disrupt work for every student. Richer parents can opt out but grammar schools might be the only effective way to ‘lift’ able and educable children from some backgrounds. Given the public funds available are limited, Trafford’s choices are rational so why blame them if a child fails to win in a fairly-run race?
Last figures I saw put the peasant element in the Scottish population in 1286 at 92%, so go far back enough and hardly any of our ancestors ‘got their chance’ academically – a very few women might learn to read and a few men would learn to read and write Latin. That is the way it is – education be it 1286 or 1976 has to fit people to the opportunities realistically available for them to fill. Why exactly therefore should anyone need an apology for being a hewer of wood or drawer of water?
Wonderful things tangents.
I won’t mention anything more about it, it’s a sticky topic, so I won’t reply to you after this, but back in the day, grammar schools were funded disproportionately favourably, whereas secondary moderns were given a fraction, a pittance. There is nothing fair about the system. Fact: middle class children do better, they have the confidence, the resources, the pushy parents, and tutors. Everybody of a certain social class in Trafford tutor their children rigorously before the 11 plus, I know, I’ve seen it.
Incredibly able people who were let down by the system simply gave up on education and aspiration from age 11 onwards. If I was in power, and had unlimited power, I would send in the air force on the remaining state funder selective schools in Buckinghamshire, Kent, Northern Ireland etc..
My mother wasn’t slow Dowden. She failed a verbal reasoning test when she was 11. How were children in the 60s and 70s able to perform well in these tests at the age of 11 when they came from families that couldn’t read.
Comprehensive schools have sets, not everybody is put in the same class, for example, I was in set one for everything, but at primary school I was regarded as retarded (well, not literally). I remember being be allocated a seat in the room where people’s SATS exams were dictated to them when we were 11. I was furious. I thought to myself, do these teachers not realise I can read? I was always in the slow reading group. I can’t imagine why, I currently study modern languages, and got an A star at GCSE English. If I had required a recomendation from my primary teacher to get into grammar school, I wouldn’t have got one. I would have been let down and ended up like my mother as well. I was labelled this way at school, probably because I did appear slow. It wasn’t a case of ability however, I came from a poor, and broken family. My mother had mental health problems, so growing up my social and communication skills were delayed.
My mother actually left the area completely before my brother began secondary school, so none of her children would have to suffer the anguish and catastrophe that she had suffered. We all went to a comprehensives in Cheshire. I eventually got into a competitive selective sixth form, but I could never have got there is I hadn’t been given an equal chance in the comprehensive system.
Just to clarify, when I would send the planes over, the children would not be in the schools.
Dowden,
You can’t get away with side-swipes which are more akin to full frontal attacks on Leo and expect to get away with it. And if being a spinster prevents a gal from giving marriage counselling where does that leave the many divorced and remarried umpteen times Agony Aunts publishing their pearls of wisdom about “relationships” in women’s magazines from Lands End to John O’Groats (I’m told – never read the rubbish). Anyway, one was only kidding, Dowden, as if you didn’t know.
As I’ve said to you before, Dowden, you don’t have the Catholic Faith and it means you just won’t understand the half of what you read here.
We do not mean to be unkind to you Dowden, but you mustn’t be unkind to Leo either. Miles was about to be deleted until I read that he said we are all mediocrities here at which point I thought the guillotine more appropriate than removing his comment. I’m still mulling it over, so will leave his post intact for now.
Lighten up, Dowden. You know we love you really! 😀
Sorry if you think I am deadly serious – if my employers knew I was clowning about with a crowd of tradcaths I’d probably get sacked.
Advising people is not easy, especially where one has little or no experience. I am old enough to remember the days of minimum grants and maximum scholarships so I really would struggle to advise a modern UK undergraduate on managing debt. Best thing may be just to listen sympathetically and stay quiet. Same holds of marriage – every couple is different and which of us knows how the future will turn out. Best just to listen to people. Mgr Newton might just manage to advise the Ordinariate with Mrs Mgr Newton to keep him right but the lunacy of unmarried ordinaries holding forth is beyond me.
As I say, like most people of Scottish descent, I am not Irish, Italian or what ever, so my mother was never able to indoctrinate me in a foreign religion (even had that wonderfully unlikely thought ever entered her head) so there is not that much point complaining that I cannot understand cradle catholics – I do at least try to engage. An uphill struggle.
There is a fair amount of arrogance and snobbery emanating from your posts. I have never considered trolling as a particularly fruitful pastime but you seem to be enjoying it. But please consider your spiritual health if not your physical. Cankerous argument derived from a will to disquiet conversation on these threads can only lead to malignancy of your person. For your own good, I would desist.
On the subject of when or where Latin is ‘fine’ or not, I can only say that I graduated from Macquarie in Sydney a couple of years ago, which is considered one of the best institutions offering Ancient Languages in Australia. My particular area was reading Classical Latin in the main but up to Bede, and Attic Greek though some Old and New Ionic thrown in.
Far from being an expert (I had touched Latin for 30 years since my Ecce Romani school-days) I know enough about the languages to know that your comment…
perhaps the moral of the story is that Latin is fine so long as it is a living scholarly language but it is deadly in the hands of “traditionalists”
…is particularly asinine. I think every Professor/Doctor who I have worked under have taught the subject with completely generosity in seeing the ancient languages as both living languages and ones used for the beauty of study alone. They would not look down their noses at someone struggling with their basic declensions.
On the other hand, you post here as some kind of authority with all the answers. That for me is the sign of someone who needs help (and friends).
Coming on here time and again to drive discontent will only cause yourself sickness.
God bless.
What do people think about referring to the current pope as ‘Peter’?
I think Fidelity Always means it in the symbolic poetic sense, but it seems a bit contrived and weird to me.
I mean, he is the ‘successor of Peter’, but Peter himself died in AD 64, and popes aren’t reincarnation of him.
Is it traditional to refer to the pope as ‘Peter’, or is that a neo-Catholic eccentricity?
He is fulfilling The Petrine Office, and therefore the call must always be follow Peter. If you don’t believe he, as it were, holds the keys you should join some sect where you can pick and choose what you believe. I think you have!
You think a traditionalist would know that!
Follow him where, on Twitter?
Yes, we follow Peter provided Peter doesn’t deny His Master. Here’s the criteria given by Pius IX for assessing when Peter is being faithful to his Petrine ministry: “The Holy Spirit has not been promised to the successors of Peter to permit them to proclaim new doctrine according to His revelations, but to keep strictly and to expound faithfully, with His help, the revelations transmitted by the Apostles, in other words the Deposit of Faith.”
If you labour under the misconception that all Popes are automatically faithful to their Petrine obligations then you really need to read about Honorius I and the Popes of the 10th century. The power of the keys of Peter relate principally to the Deposit of Faith, not to personal whims or deviations of individual Popes who are human beings and can err greatly. The Pope is not Our Lord, he is a fallible man, as you should know.
Miles,
When a cardinal critic of Humanae Vitae essentially ticked off Pope Paul VI for having failed to go along with the majority of the Commission (which he stupidly and pointlessly set up to examine the question of Birth Control) and added that he, Paul VI, had indicated before his election that he would change that teaching, Paul VI pointed out that it was Cardinal Montini who had said that but “I am Peter” meaning he holds the keys of Peter.
Other than that, we wouldn’t ordinarily speak about the Pope as “Peter” .I think FA is struggling to show that the modern popes have not broken with Tradition and he thinks that by referring to the Pope as “Peter” that somehow makes all the errors of recent times and scandalous utterances by this current pontiff, “traditional”.
Wrong…
What if one Peter disagrees with another Peter, which Peter is really Peter?
MI, as you have studied Traditional Catholicism, but sadly do not seem to accept its basic tenets, you will know loyal, educated, Traditional Catholics know there the circumstances, and conditions, in which “Peter” makes binding magisterial statements are clearly defined, and not every word has such authority, and later occupants of The See, and the wider Magisterium, will faithfully transmit that authentic teaching.
It was a rhetorical question I posted to Editor to affirm what she said.
But neither of you understand the way The Catholic Church understands The Papal Ministry.
The Successor fulfils The Petrine Ministry.
Francis, Bishop of Rome, preached The Homily at his Mass of Installation, 19th March 2013:
“Dear Brothers and Sisters, I thank the Lord that I can celebrate this Holy Mass for the inauguration of my Petrine ministry on the solemnity of Saint Joseph, the spouse of the Virgin Mary and the patron of the universal Church. It is a significant coincidence, and it is also the name-day of my venerable predecessor: we are close to him with our prayers, full of affection and gratitude………………
Today, together with the feast of Saint Joseph, we are celebrating the beginning of the ministry of the new Bishop of Rome, the Successor of Peter, which also involves a certain power. Certainly, Jesus Christ conferred power upon Peter, but what sort of power was it? Jesus’ three questions to Peter about love are followed by three commands: feed my lambs, feed my sheep. Let us never forget that authentic power is service, and that the Pope too, when exercising power, must enter ever more fully into that service which has its radiant culmination on the Cross. He must be inspired by the lowly, concrete and faithful service which marked Saint Joseph and, like him, he must open his arms to protect all of God’s people and embrace with tender affection the whole of humanity, especially the poorest, the weakest, the least important, those whom Matthew lists in the final judgment on love: the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick and those in prison (cf. Mt 25:31-46). Only those who serve with love are able to protect!”
Latin is fine so long as it is a living scholarly language but it is deadly in the hands of “traditionalists” who, on this inept showing, are apt to favour a liturgy they cannot actually construe
Surely, Dowden, even you cannot be as miserably ignorant ot the traditional rite of Holy Mass, and of what it meant/means to those who gave/would give their lives for it, as this nonsense would suggest. You think its language must be ‘construed’ as a schoolboy is required to ‘construe’ one of the Latin authors whose words you are so find of quoting! It does not occur to you that many “traditionalists” love the Mass because they have spent maybe a lifetime learning about it, because they have been taught to know and understand the four ends for which it is offered, because they are absorbed into the actions of what is happening upon the altar through the beauty, cadence and mystery of a sacred, because no longer living, language, which, however, has become so familiar that, as Catholics always did, they say all the more common prayers as easily in Latin as they do in their own language. Latin is ‘deadly in the hands of “traditionalists!’, what utter uncomprehending nonsense! Your amusing little description of your attendance at what you call the ‘Sarum rite’ (and your mistake there was well pointed out) shows what you expect of worship – namely a little entertainment, which is what large numbers of Catholics are provided with if they even trouble to attend a parochial Mass. There is a little more to worshipping God than ‘construing’ the words of a universal sacred language.
It might be hard for Anglicans to understand this, because Anglicanism is a religion of language, but Catholicism transcends language. The Traditional Latin Mass is more than the Latin.
Christina,
That is exactly right, that the Mass is about a lot more than Latin. Thank you for saying what I have been thinking, but much more clearly. That’s a wonderfully clear explanation of the truth.
In which case, Holy Mass in the Vernacular should be just the remedy for souls.
Fidelity Always,
If Mass in the Vernacular is the remedy for souls, why did we have so many martyrs to refused to attend the vernacular communion services in the past and went to their deaths to defend the Mass which was in Latin?
Also, why are so many today abandoning the Mass and saying you don’t need organised religion? This apostasy, as Pope John Paul II called it, has only come about since the new Mass came into being.
Unless I have misread history, with in exception of a very small number, those we honour as Martyrs died centuries before the Second Vatican Council which mandated liturgical reform, and brought about Holy Mass in the Verncular. It is, therefore, not possible that anyone officially recognised as a Martyr, who died before the Reform, died to defend anything other than The Faith in General, which may, or not, had the The Holy Mass, as an issue, but the language was not a source of debate.
As you must also know, as recently as 2007, The Occupant of The See of Rome affirmed that there is only one Holy Mass, and The Ordinary Form is the norm for The Universal Church. (You may have heard of Summorum Pontificum?)
One reason why people are becoming disillusion with the Church is, as Pope Paul Vl, said Satan is using confrontation in The Church, and he seems to have had The SSPX in mind, and Francis, Bishop of Rome when further, when he said those not in The SSPX, but of the same mind, are merely “renting a room in The Church”.
You are a champion at twisting meanings.
Pope Paul VI said “from somewhere, the smoke of Satan has entered the Temple of God”. If he’d meant the SSPX he’d have said so.
Unfortunately, Pope Benedict was too late in saying there was only one form of the Mass. Those who made up the new Mass said the opposite that “the Roman Rite as we knew it, no longer exists.”
Anybody attending both Masses, as I have done, can see right away that these are two different Masses. If you can’t see it, that’s your problem.
You selectively quote Pope Paul, and miss out this, from the same speech in 1972, where he speaks of the fruits of The Council being attacked by Satan: “There was an adverse power, the devil, whom the Gospel calls the mysterious enemy of man, something preternatural – which comes to suffocate the fruits of the ecumenical Council. ”
“A few years later, in an allocution (also in Italian) to the secret consistory of cardinals on May 24, 1976, Pope Paul VI specifically addressed the distortions and disobedience of Archbishops Lefebvre and his followers with respect to the Second Vatican Council. This too is non-magisterial, but it is proper to round out the thought he expressed non-magisterially in the general audience so commonly cited:
There are those who, under the pretext of a greater fidelity to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically refuse the teaching of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that stem from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under Our authority, willed by Christ.
He even exclaimed in utter frustration:
It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would be in danger also because of the post-conciliar reforms and guidelines, which there is a duty to disobey to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Does it belong to this group, and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not an Ecumenical Council, to establish which of the countless traditions must be regarded as the norm of faith! (J Maris).”
The SSPX posted a response on their website, and so they knew, for sure, who the target was.
FIDELITYALWAYS,
Pope Benedict XVI called the New Mass “A banal, on-the-spot fabrication.” How do you respond to that?
Pope Benedict, in Summorum Pontificum:
“Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.”
These are the double standards Catholics have to put up with from the Modernist mind, for the same Pope wrote of the New Mass “in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries and replaced it — as in a manufacturing process — with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”
Anyone with a modicum of intelligence comparing the two rites can see immediately that they are not remotely similar, either in respect to the Church’s Lex Orandi or Lex Credendi. That’s why the Synod of Bishops who gathered for the celebration of Mgr. Bugnini’s first ‘Missa Normative’ in Rome in 1967 overwhelmingly rejected it. Compare the two rites prayer by prayer, gesture by gesture and you’ll see the obvious. It’s not rocket science.
Joseph Joseph Ratzinger, Feast of Faith:
“Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me add that as far as its
content is concerned (apart from a few criticisms), I am very grateful
for the new Missal, for the way it has enriched the treasury of prayers
and prefaces, for the new eucharistic prayers and the increased
number of texts for use on weekdays, etc., quite apart from the
availability of the vernacular. But I do regard it as unfortunate that
we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather than
with that of continuity within a single liturgical history.”
Pope Benedict, in Summorum Pontificum:
“Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.”
You cannot on one hand cite Ratzinger/Benedict because he uses the owrd “banal” and then ignore his greater, magisterial teaching.
FIDELITYALWAYS,
My thanks for your posts quoting Benedict/Ratzinger on the New Mass. They have confirmed the double-standards of the Modernist mind, as St. Pius X clearly pointed out for us in Pascendi.
Exactly where is the double standard?
To have criticisms of The New Missal is not the same as rejecting it.
No wonder Pope Paul described The SSPX, and its supporters, as evil!
Comment removed
I don’t think even you would insist that a description of the New Mass as a “banal on-the-spot fabrication” amounts to little more than mere criticism of the New Mass. What Cardinal Ratzinger described during one of his more Traditional moments was about as in a nutshell as it gets and it ties in perfectly with Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci’s observation that the New Mass represents in whole and in part a grave departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass. It also fits perfectly with what its chief architect, Mgr. Bugnini, announced on March 19, 1965, who said: We must remove from our Catholic liturgy and prayers all that can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants. He was as good as his word. Cardinal Ratzinger recognised it and so too did Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci.
Yes, there has been great evil at work, but not on the part of the SSPX.
Archbishop Lefebvre own notes of a meeting with Pope Paul Vl 11th September 1976: “The Holy Father was lively enough at the beginning – one could almost call it somewhat violent in a way: one could feel that he was deeply wounded and rather provoked by what we are doing. He said to me:
‘……. It cannot be allowed, you are doing an evil work, you ought not to continue, you are causing scandal in the Church, etc…’with nervous irritability.
I kept quiet, you may be sure”
For a person with concerns to be able to offer a serious critique of The New Rite, and stay faithful to the Church, is surely the duty of any Loyal, Traditional, Catholic, whilst always assenting to teaching authority of The Magisterium.
To embrace schism, rather than the truth, says what is really in the heart of an individual who professes loyalty, whilst promoting dissension and division. That is contrary to what it means to approach Holy Communion, and say “Amen”.
FIDELITYALWAYS,
Some might say that it was Paul VI who was doing the evil work when he dismissed Quo Primum and embarked on the creation of a vernacular Mass that departed in theology from the ancient Mass of the Church against the advice of even his own Roman Cardinals. But, hey, let’s not get into that argument, let’s just judge the fruits of the New Mass by what we have seen in the Church since its inception – and they are very bitter indeed!
As regards the constant nasty references to schism, you should be aware that the Church in no way accuses the SSPX of schism. If the SSPX were truly a schismatic sect then all the ecumaniacs in the Church would be falling over themselves to share in “dialogue” and perhaps a wee bit of common worship as well.
If you insist that the SSPX is in schism for merely upholding the faith handed down through 2000 years, resisting the dangerous modern novelties of ecumenism, religious liberty, Collegiality, etc., then you are also condemning the Church of 2000 years as schismatic. Remember, we Traditional Catholics are not the ones who have altered the Faith of our Fathers!
I think when the SSPX bishops had sanctions lifted, it was said they were excommunicated and not in schism, but frankly they are interested in Divine Truth anyway, and so the technical differences don’t matter.
They want to be Princes in their own Cult.
That should say “they are NOT interested in Divine Truth”!
Dowden
I don’t intend to waste too much time replying to the following remark of yours.
“Your capacity for historical misinterpretation and mistranslation of foreign languages never fails to amaze me.” (June 15, 11.37pm)
Just to correct you: there was no translation good, bad, or indifferent on my part when I posted the words of Tacitus in my post of June 15, 11.16pm.
If you tell us “renewal” should be replaced by “peace”, that’s fine by me. Whatever. I don’t expect any Conciliar, Age of Aquarius, Modernist revolutionary in the Church would have particular difficulty in interchanging the two words. Really, I can scarcely contain my indifference.
If anyone is interested they can read the last sentence of paragraph number 30.
http://www.favonius.com/romans/texts/tacitustext.htm
“The wealth of an enemy excites their cupidity, his poverty their lust of power. East and West have failed to glut their maw. They are unique in being as violently tempted to attack the poor as the wealthy. Robbery, butchery, rapine, with false names they call Empire; and they make a wilderness and call it peace.”
Sounds pretty like a secular, natural version of the Invasion of the Modernists. Like I say: peace or renewal, it’s hardly front page news.
I will say too, Dowden, that I’m rather pleased with your post. You are reading the thread, and the use of the word “renewal” instead of “peace” appears to be the only word in the particular post that you are able to contradict. Maybe it’s important to you. Again, that’s fine by me. Some people might say it is a rather desperate example of reducing nit picking to new levels. Different opinions are allowed on this blog.
As for your other rather strange comment about “historical misinterpretation”, all I will say in reply is that it is best to heed the well- worn adage.
“Quit while you’re behind.”
If anyone out there is wondering what the reference to “historical misrepresentation” is about, and is prepared for a bit of reading, the best answer I can think of is to suggest they head over to the General Discussion thread to the beginning of our exchange from May 28, 5.19pm onwards.
Alas, I don’t suppose it is going to upset you, Dowden, if I reiterate the comments of others here that your posts, sad to say, reflect the fact that you have no grasp of the One, True Catholic Faith. You really do need to get on board the only seaworthy vessel there is. And to do that you have to get across the Tiber.
If you were saying the Rosary every day, you would be a changed man. Salvation of one’s souls is as serious as it gets, and infinitely more serious than a bit of quibbling over translation.
Read the Book of Proverbs, Dowden. There is much for any of us who claim good faith to remember.
“The way of a fool is right in his own eyes; but he that is wise hearkeneth unto counsels.” – 12:15
“He that is a scorner, heareth not when he is reproved.” – 13:1
It is obvious that some people who say the Rosary every day can be abusive and disrespectful, and deny the teaching of The Magisterium.
I believe Mr Dowden has the right to be called “Dr”, and has given his first name as John. He doesn’t claim the name of one of the great Saints of the Church to mask his rejection of that same Church.
FA
Dr John Dowden’s original username was Dowden. For some reason, he chose to add “Dr John” although I doubt that he is personally entitled to the title DR – I think he said as much some time ago. Stop clutching at straws.
None of the Catholic bloggers here is abusive or disrespectful and none of us denies any binding Catholic teaching.
You, on the other hand, cannot say the same. You idolise the current pontiff and reject infallibly binding teachings in order to support the revolution. You are in no position to lecture any of us, believe me.
I don’t idolise any Pontiff. I have reservations/questions about most of the one’s who have “reigned” in my lifetime, including this one, but I recognise their mandate to “confirm the faith of their brothers”, and I will always listen to, and hopefully assent to The Magisterium, rather than a disgruntled barmy army.
Editor
You forget the tribulations of the blog – every time it collapses WordPress wants a new user name. I was perfectly happy with Dowden and my old avatar. New blog, new name, John Dowden. Yet another new blog and we get Dr John Dowden. I did sort of think of Bishop Dowden but the chances are you would consider that absolutely null and utterly void.
As to real life titles it is just a matter of deciding on the basis of what you have seen whether the University of Oxford would be daft enough to award a DPhil on the likes of me, silly hat and all.
But the issue is not minor things like that – there is a problem here that does confuse outsiders no end. We see one load of “catholics” running down another load of “catholics”, pausing briefly only to abuse any passing ‘piskie as not being a “catholic” at all.
I doubt if many people here have the faintest idea of how deeply Dr Schnieder (and his old Polish boss) are loathed among the Orthodox and it is not difficult to see why he spends as much time as he does away from his theoretical assistant bishopric. The Russian blogs go incandescent at the very name of the man. But even if he has pretty well burned his boats in the east (and his promotion chances are nil) that really does not mean he should be taken at all seriously in the west. The real lunacy however is that whereas most first-world Catholics might consider his decidedly second-world views quaintly antediluvian it really is confusing for the likes of me to see the opinion here that he is not being extremist enough.
I am all for dialogue with our separated whatsit but is there any chance you could sort the internal squabble out among yourselves? You often come over as worse than Anglicans having an internal spat.
Dowden,
Firstly, you have problems with WordPress and usernames/avatars only if you have more than one email address. Avatars are always attached to the email you used to set up the avatar. If you wish to revert officially to Dowden, all you need to do is go into MY PROFILE on your dashboard, and scroll to “Publicly Display Name as” and type in Dowden. Then scroll to save the change. Then click on “change my avatar” and go through the gravatar process to restore that lovely wee dog to his rightful place.
As for the rest – behave yourself. You know perfectly well that this blog is dedicated to reporting the crisis in the Church and to making sure that authentic Catholic teaching (and true morals) is defended and promoted over the many errors and heresies floating around. The fact that Modernism is infecting the Church in our times means that many Catholics have gone along with what is really a revolution and many of them just can’t see it. Enter Catholic Truth. There’s no “dialogue” though – you got that wrong, dear Dowden. No, we correct errors we don’t talk ourselves to death for the purpose of reaching some kind of friendly agreement to disagree. We leave that to the Anglicans 😀
One thing, Dowden, that is odd to the point of being amazing. Try as I have been doing, I cannot find a photo anywhere online of your friend Mr Welby bestowing his “blessing” on Papa Francis. Seems very strange that it was there, before my eyes, on the 6 o’clock BBC UK wide news, but not the 9 or 10 o’clock news and nowhere on Google. I even visited the official website of lovely Mr Welby, but again, several photos of the day’s meeting, but none of that “blessing”.
Any ideas (or preferably a link to a photo!) will be welcome.
Puzzled, Glasgow.
Thank you. In that case it was moving to new e-mails which is the problem but the avatar adorns my desktop still – to live up to my reputation for noticing small errors, the lovely wee dog you remember was a she not a he, and she was a lovely wee wolf not a dog.
Cannot help with Vespers/Evensong. It is standard and these gatherings – Benedict XVI joined the Dean and Chapter of Westminster when he visited (he approves Dr Cranmer’s work and likes English music) and there have been three such services in Rome – they are hardly news so I doubt if anyone much will post images.
Any “blessing” is pretty unremarkable unless one is determined to take scandal at every opportunity.
The only novelty I could see was that peculiar stuff about Cardinal Pole’s fig tree. That and the fact that the pictures show Canon Goodall is putting on a lot of weight now that he has been elevated to the purple. This new Vatican boarding house is doing none of them much good by the looks of it.
From The Vatican today:
THE POPE RECEIVES THE PRIMATE OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH: GREAT SAINTS, TEACHERS AND COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATE OUR COMMON ROOTS
Vatican City, 16 June 2014 (VIS) – The awareness that the objective of unity may seem distant, but is always the aim of the path of ecumenism and common concern for the ills of humanity, especially human trafficking, were some of the key themes in the Holy Father’s encounter with His Grace Justin Welby, archbishop of Canterbury, in the Vatican this morning.
“The Lord’s question – ‘What were you arguing about on the way?’ – might also apply to us. When Jesus put this question to his disciples they were silent; they were ashamed, for they had been arguing about who was the greatest among them. We too feel ashamed when we ponder the distance between the Lord’s call and our meagre response. Beneath his merciful gaze, we cannot claim that our division is anything less than a scandal and an obstacle to our proclaiming the Gospel of salvation to the world. Our vision is often blurred by the cumulative burden of our divisions and our will is not always free of that human ambition which can accompany even our desire to preach the Gospel as the Lord commanded”.
Despite these difficulties, “The Holy Spirit gives us the strength not to grow disheartened and invites us to trust fully in the power of His works. As disciples who strive to follow the Lord, we realise that the faith has come to us through many witnesses. We are indebted to great saints, teachers and communities; they have handed down the faith over the ages and they bear witness to our common roots”.
The bishop of Rome went on to remark that yesterday, on the Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity, the archbishop of Canterbury celebrated Vespers in the Church of San Gregorio al Celio, “from which Pope Gregory the Great sent forth Augustine and his monastic companions to evangelise the peoples of England, thus inaugurating a history of faith and holiness which in turn enriched many other European peoples. This glorious history has profoundly shaped institutions and ecclesial traditions which we share and which serve as a solid basis for our fraternal relations”.
“On this basis, then, let us look with confidence to the future. The Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission and the International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission represent especially significant forums for examining, in a constructive spirit, older and newer challenges to our ecumenical engagement. He also emphasised their shared “horror in the face of the scourge of human trafficking and forms of modern-day slavery” and thanked Archbishop Welby “for the leadership you have shown in opposing these intolerable crimes against human dignity”.
“In attempting to respond to this urgent need, notable collaborative efforts have been initiated on the ecumenical level and in cooperation with civil authorities and international organisations. Many charitable initiatives have been undertaken by our communities, and they are operating with generosity and courage in various parts of the world. I think in particular of the action network against the trafficking in women set up by a number of women’s religious institutes”. He concluded, “Let us persevere in our commitment to combat new forms of enslavement, in the hope that we can help provide relief to victims and oppose this deplorable trade. I thank God that, as disciples sent to heal a wounded world, we stand together, with perseverance and determination, in opposing this grave evil”.
That will be the Anglican communion of homosexual and women priests and bishops? How very Catholic! How very faithful to Sacred Scripture! This is the hypocrisy of false ecumenism
Pius XI exposes the error thus: “When there is question of fostering unity among Christians, it is easy for many to be misled by the apparent excellence of the object to be achieved. Is it not right, they ask, is it not the obvious duty of all who invoke the name of Christ to refrain from mutual reproaches and at last to be united in charity? Dare anyone say that he loves Christ and yet not strive with all his might to accomplish the desire of Him who asked His Father that His disciples might be ‘one’? (Jn. 17:21)….If only all Christians were ‘one,’ it is contended, then they might do so much more to drive out the plague of irreligion which, with its insidious and far-reaching advance, is threatening to sap the strength of the Gospel. In reality, however, these fair and alluring words cloak a most grave error, subversive of the foundations of the Catholic religion…” 1928 Encyclical Mortalium Animos.
Neither let us forget Pope Leo XIII’s Bull Apostolicae Curae declaring Anglican orders null and void. That means Archbishop Welby is really just Mr. Welby in fancy dress, as are all others who claim clerical title in the CofE. It’s not me saying this, it is a Pope by full authoritative declaration.
I am not querying who was, or is, ordained. I accept that Catholics do not accept the validity of Orders outside The Church.
It was more the positive work being done to help so many people in dire circumstances by working with people of other Traditions.
Even, as a lay person Mr Welby could claim a greater grasp of religion, Theology, and history than a man who hides behind the name of a great saint to reject all that Saint taught.
And what about the truth and the salvation of immortal souls, or is it all just about worldly social work these days? The greatest act against charity is to deprive one’s neighbour of the essential truths of religion that they need to save their souls. Suppressing those in the name of common social work is known as human respect. It is gravely deceitful and sinful.
Athanasius,
We can let the homophobia and sex discrimination pass but do try to sort out order and jurisdiction.
Should Dr Welby decide to turn Roman, Rome would want to consecrate him over again or think about the Dutch Touch.
But the point here is that he might or might not be in valid orders but he is in lawful possession of the ancient see of Canterbury and one of our Lords Spiritual.
I know Romans are not always sound on the UK constitution but Vatican protocol accepts His Grace is the archbishop of of Canterbury, sworn of the Privy Council and a member of our Upper House. As a matter of English law he is a clerk in holy order.
Now if you want to disrespect our laws in pursuit of some outmoded stuff from a Dead Pope, so be it – the actual bishop of Rome thinks otherwise.
Now what diocese or title is it the Vatican says the SSPX bishops were consecrated to? See of Erehwon?
Dr. Dowden,
It is not homophobia and sex descrimination to uphold what the Catholic religion and Sacred Scripture have always taught, so you can dispense with that old trick. I was pointing out rebellion against divine revelation by people claiming to be faithful to Christ. There’s no way around that one, my friend, not even with the old chestnuts of “homophobia” and “sex descrimination.” You are not a Catholic so I do not expect you to possess the truths of the faith. Your objections are therefore understandable, if irrational.
The Vatican doesn’t have to have a view as to whether Dr Welby is in the H of L, or the Privy Council as Canon Law wouldn’t apply to him. Bishop Schneider, above, articulates Church Teaching when he says Church and State should be separate. “In England e.g. the State is governing the Church of England. Such an influence of the State can corrupt spiritually and theologically the church, so it is better to be free from such an established state church.”
Dr Welby has a Catholic Spiritual Director!
The Vatican can’t dictate protocols within a State, and would generally accept the credentials of that State, but wouldn’t necessarily accept a nominated Ambassador, as is its right.
Dr Welby is, I believe, married with children, and no one sensible has suggested he is homosexual.
Dr Welby, personally, was never in Communion with Rome, you, however, once were.
Dr Welby shows respect to The Holy See, and more especially the Successor of St Peter. You publicly ridicule it.
Whose soul is at greater peril, I wonder?
Traditional Catholic teaching condemns separation of Church and State in the most vehement terms, and it does so for obvious reasons. Separation of Church and State is equivalent to separation of body and soul – it results in death! In this case the death of Christian society, as we have all seen develop since the Protestant rebellion of the XVI century.
Somewhere in a post, you mention Dr Welby, House of Lords, and homosexuality and I can’t find it now. It may be The Editor has actually done some postive work, for once.
As Bishop Schneider notes above, separation of Church and State is what the Church believes is right. “In England e.g. the State is governing the Church of England. Such an influence of the State can corrupt spiritually and theologically the church, so it is better to be free from such an established state church.”
The Holy See would the reserve the right not to accept the credentials of someone nominated as Ambassador to The Holy See, but in every other respect accept the credentials of the person given by the nominating State, or organisation. Only recently they received The Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Elizabeth Queen.
The Church promotes democracy, and seeks to ensure that states recognize and upheld the rights and dignity of each person, but would not dictate who should be in the legislature of a State. Dr Welby can freely sit in the House of Lord’s as Canon Law applies to those in Communion with Rome (which neatly excludes you).
Dr Welby is, I believe, married with children. No-one has suggested he is homosexual.
Dr Welby has a Roman Catholic Spiritual Director.
Pope Benedict, one of the greatest leaders and theologians The Church has had, proposed that “a healthy secularism of the State, by virtue of which temporal realities are governed according to their own norms but which does not exclude those ethical references that are ultimately founded in religion.”
FIDELITYALWAYS,
“Pope Benedict, one of the greatest leaders and theologians The Church has had, proposed that “a healthy secularism of the State, by virtue of which temporal realities are governed according to their own norms but which does not exclude those ethical references that are ultimately founded in religion.”
The first part of your proposition above is a matter of opinion. Archbishop Lefebvre declared that he had had to correct Cardinal Ratzinger on a number of theological errors when they met in1988. Besides that, anyone who is a disciple of the once-Indexed heretic Henri de Lubac has to be suspect. It is from this unsound source that the great error of separation of Church and State emanates. Now we know why Pope Pius XII banned de Lubac’s writings and forbid him to teach publicly.
Concerning the second part of your proposition, we see how well it has worked out in a country that it is now utterly hedonistic and anti-family.
So you are saying a person excommunicated by The Church, rather than a Successor to Peter, is a more credible teacher for you? How odd.
FA,
Would you mind posting a link to the Encyclical which states that Church and State must be separate? I must have missed that.
Thank you.
Not everything is in an encyclical, and The Magisterium is there to lead and guide The Church.
I think most things promulgated since the last Council, and certainly recent Occupants of the See of Rome, have articulated such a view.
And so once again you suggest that the Pope is not just sometimes infallible but rather at all times impeccable. You really do not grasp what the authentic Magisterium of the Church is. What it is not is a confusion of teaching between different Popes. You confuse personal opinion with formal teaching.
On the contrary, I have given examples of wrong judgement: Pope Benedict rewriting history on abrogation, and the farcical Odrinariate. That, however, doesn’t mean he wasn’t a good Pope. Both decisions, were legal rather than theological, as he says there is only One Holy Mass, and the Ordinariate is a novel departure from how we normally receive people into Full Communion anyway.
The really dangerous and outrageous rewriting of history was Benedict’s “resignation,” which makes of the divinely instituted Chair of Peter just another seat at the corporate table, even if it is that of CEO. Popes do not resign, they abdicate. And when they abdicate, which they rarely do, only twice in the Church’s entire history, they cease calling themselves Pope and they stay out of the public eye. Many of the Church’s enemies have longed and fought hard to get just one Pope to resign, for then they can claim that the See of Peter is no longer autocratic, as Christ Our Lord instituted it, but rather democratic with a built-in retirement package. How scandalous!
Whether its called resignation or abdication, he gave up, voluntarily, The Petrine Office.
The Pope emeritus title, and to still wear the gear, is possibly a mistake, but less so than rejecting The Church on a false ideology as some have done.
“The Pope emeritus title, and to still wear the gear, is possibly a mistake, but less so than rejecting The Church on a false ideology as some have done.”
Indeed! That’s why St. Vincent of Lerins admonishes that when some novel contagion infects the entire Church (such as today’s Modernism), the faithful Catholic must seek shelter from the disease in Sacred Tradition. Wise advice!
FA
The problem is that none of those prior to the council said any such thing – in fact they taught precisely the opposite!
Do you really believe that what was true for 1900-odd years suddenly ceased to be true in the 1960s?
Clearly those things termed Modernist did not “exist” before they were identified by the then Pope, in relatively recent times, or else they would not be termed “Modernist”. To suggest otherwise would be nonsensical beyond believe.
The term Modernism in anyone’s language must mean: mod·ern·ism (m d r-n z m). n. 1. a. Modern thought, character, or practice. b. Sympathy with or conformity to modern ideas, practices, or standards. That is, recent.
As has been identified, by sound thinkers, some what these recent Popes identified as problems were not properly understood by them.
You should read the combined Syllabi of Popes Pius IX & X condemning various erroneous propositions, in which you will find condemned your own proposition that the Popes did not understand what they were condemning.
THE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY OF
PAPAL ENCYCLICALS
By Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton
Exact from the American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August, 1949, pp. 136-150
THE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY OF
PAPAL ENCYCLICALS
By Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton
Exact from the American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August, 1949, pp. 136-150
“Despite the divergent views about the existence of the infallible pontifical teaching in the encyclical letters, there is one point on which all theologians are manifestly in agreement. They are all convinced that all Catholics are bound in conscience to give a definite internal religious assent to those doctrines which the Holy Father teaches when he speaks to the universal Church of God on earth without employing his God-given charism of infallibility. Thus, prescinding from the question as to whether any individual encyclical or group of encyclicals may be said to contain specifically infallible teaching, all theologians are in agreement that this religious assent must be accorded the teachings which the Sovereign Pontiff includes in these documents. This assent is due, as Lercher has noted, until the Church might choose to modify the teaching previously presented or until proportionately serious reasons for abandoning the non-infallible teaching contained in a pontifical document might appear. It goes without saying that any reason which would justify the relinquishing of a position taken in a pontifical statement would have to be very serious indeed.”
There is no reply button at Fidelity Always post at 6.36.am.and it is that I am replying to.
“Nothing can ever pass away from the words of Christ, nor can anything be changed in the doctrine which the Catholic Church received from Christ to guard, protect, and preach.”
Bl. Pope Pius IX
That contradicts what the Monsignor you quote says but you will agree that a pope’s statements is more important.
These quotes also contradict your Monsignor Fenton –
I cannot sufficiently be astonished that such is the insanity of some men, such the impiety of their blinded understanding, such, finally, their lust after error, that they will not be content with the rule of faith delivered once and for all from antiquity, but must daily seek after something new, and even newer still, and are always longing to add something to religion, or to change it, or to subtract from it!
St. Vincent of Lerins
The nature of the Catholic faith is such that nothing can be added to it, nothing taken away. Either it is held in its entirety or it is rejected totally. This is the Catholic faith which, unless a man believes faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
Pope Benedict XV
Fidelity Always
You appear to hold a gravely defective understanding of Catholic teaching on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.
You have spoken a great deal about the need to “follow Peter” and the Magisterium.
Are you suggesting that if Pope Francis or any subsequent Pope were to teach that the souls of the faithful departed would only possess the Beatific Vision after the Last Judgement, the Catholic laity would be obliged to accept that teaching?
Before answering that question, Fidelity Always, you might consider reading, or re-reading about Pope John XXII.
I know taking advice from you would be like selling my soul to The Devil.
Then maybe you will listen to this wise advice from Archbishop Lefebvre after the Council: “Satan’s masterstroke has been to sow disobedience through obedience.”
The Devil doesn’t usually appear with a sale option. No, he saves on the bargain by appearing, as St. Paul tells us, disguised as an angel of light.
Yes, that’s the same St. Paul who wrote: “For there will come a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but according to their own desires will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.” One such fable, presented as though from an angel of light, is false ecumenism.
The same Archbishop who set up his own cult, and was excommunicated, and who a Successor of St Peter, warned was doing the work of The Devil, and promoting evil?
Not exactly one to buy a Used Car of, is he? Less so, one to give theological opinions. He wanted to be a Prince amongst pygmies.
Msgr. Lefebvre had ‘front line’ experience in the trenches of furtherance of The Faith in adverse circumstances. Which is more than one can say about the ladder-climbing,self-indulgent [and that includes Franciscus] that we have to-day.
My faith is grounded upon what I was taught by clergy who are now referred top as “neanderthal”, Franciscus appears [typical Modernist approach] to tell us that was a sin yesterday is not a sin to-day and that Truth is a variable and capable of development. [expletives deleted]
Fidelity Always
You posted the following in a reply to Athanasius:
“Blessed John Cardinal Newman predated The Council by some distance, and he spoke of the development of doctrine. The Church must constantly grow in understanding of truths.
I repeat again the problem is you read documents literally and removed from their historical, and cultural, context and impose a prejudiced view on them.” – June 15, 1.40pm
You are dancing on thin ice there. Newman is regularly called in, quite erroneously, and his words used mischievously, by Modernists who seek to justify “evolution” in dogma.
Pope Saint Pius X, clearly identified the agenda and tactics of those propagating the “synthesis of all heresies”:
“Evolution in the Church itself is fed by the need of adapting itself to historical conditions and of harmonising itself with existing forms of society.”- Pascendi
Monsignor Philip Flanagan D.D. in an introduction written in a compilation of twenty five of Newman’s sermons entitled Newman Against the Liberals explains:
“Newman’s theory of doctrinal development is fundamentally different from the theology of the Modernists, who so unjustly claim his support. For them revelation is a continuing process destined to go on till the end of time, with earlier statements of the truth being modified and perhaps even contradicted by later statements more suited to the spirit of the age in which they are made. For Newman the revealed message was given once and for all by God, to be more and more fully grasped as time goes on, but to be passed on in its entirety, undiminished and uncorrupted. For the Modernist, dogmas have no absolute truth and are valid for the time in which they are made, but not necessarily at other periods.”- p. 26 (cited in Partisans of Error, by Michael Davies, p. 54)
Newman listed seven requirements for a true development.
“These are unity of type, continuity of principle, power of assimilation, logical sequence, anticipation of its future, conservation of its past, and finally, chronic vigour. ‘The point to be ascertained is the unity and identity of the idea with itself through all stages of its development from first to last, and these are seven tokens that it may rightly be accounted one and the same all along’ (Newman Against the Liberals).” – Davies, p. 55
In other words Newman expressed the same attitude to Church teaching as other Catholics who are faithful to Tradition and who continue to be subjected to ill-informed and illogical neo Catholic tantrums, to say nothing of defamation and persecution.
The following words of Newman might have written with the present Conciliar madness in mind.
“The body of bishops failed in their confession of the Faith…They spoke variously, one against another; there was nothing, after (the Council of) Nicea (325 AD) of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony, for nearly sixty years. There were untrustworthy Councils. Unfaithful bishops; there was weakness, fear of consequences, misguidance, delusion, hallucination, endless, hopeless, extending into nearly every corner of the Catholic Church. The comparatively few who remained faithful were discredited and driven into exile; the rest were either deceivers or deceived.”
– John Henry Newman, On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine.
I think readers can figure out who is who there.
LEO,
Exquisitely put!
Thank you, Athanasius
You’ve being doing a bit of that yourself!
As far as I can see you think there have been three Popes: Peter, Pius X and Pius Xl. The last two over reached themselves, and we discover their judgements have been judged by their successors, and an Ecumenical Council, not to be wholly authentic, and were an imperfect attempt to identify problems, and propose solutions.
I find your use of quotations highly suspect, and as you think Pope Benedict a Modernist you should note he is the biggest advocate of his cause. May I suggest your opinion of these things contain an inherent contradiction. Unfortunately you don’t seem to suffer from self doubt, but you are out of stop with The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
In a letter to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on July 20, 1983, Cardinal Ratzinger states that:
“It must be noted that, because the conciliar texts are of varying authority, criticism of certain of their expressions, in accordance to the general rules of adhesion to the Magisterium, is not forbidden. You may likewise express a desire for a statement or an explanation on various points. … You say that personally you cannot see how they are compatible, and so ask the Holy See for an explanation.”
It is impossible for infallible texts to “vary in authority”. As for asking the “Holy See for an explanation”, I’m sure many here are aware of the Dubia which Archbishop Lefebvre submitted to Rome in October 1985, setting out thirty nine doubts concerning the continuity of the Council’s teaching on religious liberty with previous Church teaching. These doubts are published in the book, Religious Liberty Questioned.
Rome’s fifty page reply, received about eighteen months later if I’m not mistaken, addressed none of the doubts in particular, admitted that the doctrine on religious liberty was “incontestably a novelty”, but claimed that it was the outcome of “doctrinal development in continuity.”
Support for the Archbishop’s criticism concerning lack of continuity comes from an unlikely source:
“It cannot be denied that a text like this (the declaration on Religious Liberty) does materially say something different from the Syllabus of 1864, and even almost the opposite of propositions 15 and 77-79 of that document.” Yves Congar, Challenge to the Church, p.147
Cardinal Ratzinger rightly argued that not all the Documents had the same status. In more than one of his works he identifies those he thinks are exceptional in expounding some things, and he also states which he thinks are less weighty. (Their subject matter will also have some bearing on their status, as they may not concern faith and morals.)
Yves Congar is highlighting the fact the wrong emphasis has sometimes been given to some propositions, and their status as proper Magisterial statements is questionable. Clearly history proves him right. Ask Galileo!
The Council did not address faith and morals issues, nor was it a doctrinal Council bearing the mark of infallibility. It was a purely pastoral Council that was supposed to deal with lesser issues in the Church. How then can it be used to justify a new vernacular Mass (contrary to Council teaching), a new ecclesiology, a new Catechism and a new Code of Canon Law? In fact, Vatican II called for none of these things.
Neither did it order ecumenical and inter-faith get-togethers, the re-ordering of churches, Communion in the hand, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, girl altar servers, the heretical Dutch Catechism, an increase in marriage annulments (from 700 annually in the U.S. in 1970 to more than 50,000 by 1995), clown Masses, coffee table Masses, balloon Masses, the sharing of shrines and churches with Buddhists, Hindus, etc., prelates receiving blessings from non-Catholics, the closure of hundreds of seminaries and religious houses and thousands of churches.
Are you innovators completely blind to the bitter fruits of so-called Conciliar reform? It would seem so. Well at least have the decency not to lay the blame for this disaster on the Holy Spirit, for that would be blasphemy. The spirit of the reform has not been the Holy Spirit, you may be assured of that!
To list things you don’t like and call them abuses is hardly sound theology, or ecclesiology is it? Nor is it right to cherry pick Papal Teaching: Summurum Pontificum says The Ordinary Form of The Mass is the norm, and lift an abrogation. You accept the legal change, but not the teaching.
You deny you are saying there is no Pope, and yet you choose the teaching of an excommunicated, dead, Bishop over that of The Magisterium. Tow recent Pope’s have been canonised, and one is to be beatified, and they are all wrong?
Who is not listening and denying Church Teaching?
“and yet you choose the teaching of an excommunicated, dead, Bishop over that of The Magisterium.”
What that dead Bishop taught was the undiluted Catholic Faith in it’s entirety as had been taught by the Church since time immemorial.
Clearly he didn’t or his Cult followers would sign the Vatican document affirming ALL Church teaching.
To sum it up…From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy
You might say that Satan has some unwitting puppets in eminent positions.
Editor can individual commentators remove the reply “button”? if not, why does it sometimes not appear?
If it is an individual decision, is it not cowardly not to accept an alternative view?
FA,
The reply button disappears after a certain number of replies. I think we selected the maximum, probably 10.
It can be annoying, but what I do is go to the next comment above and use that “reply” button if it is still there, then I say that this is a reply to X at such and such a time/date. Bit of a nuisance but not the end of the blogosphere.
Thank You for your courteous reply, and helpful advice.
God Bless you.
“Yves Congar is highlighting the fact the wrong emphasis has sometimes been given to some propositions, and their status as proper Magisterial statements is questionable. Clearly history proves him right. Ask Galileo!”
Fidelity Always
You make another inaccurate, unsustainable statement in opposition to traditional papal teaching.
What is your basis for stating as “fact” that “wrong emphasis has sometimes been given to some propositions”? Do you, by some double standard, then deny Catholics in these days of unprecedented apostasy, the right under canon law, indeed their Catholic duty, to question the shepherds on matters of faith and the salvation of souls?
“It is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed.”
– Pope Innocent III, De Consuetudine
“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith,
do not follow him.” – Pope Pius IX, Letter to Bishop Brizen
Do you contradict the following words of a Pope or find them “questionable”?
As Pope Leo XIII, citing his predecessor Felix III, teaches: “An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed.” (Inimica Vis [1892]).
Do you hold that the following Magisterial statements are “questionable?
“This you (the bishops of the world) will do perfectly if you watch over yourselves and your doctrine, as your office makes it your duty, repeating incessantly to yourselves that every novelty attempts to undermine the Universal Church and that, according to the warning of the holy Pope Agatho, “nothing that has been regularly defined can bear diminution, or change, or addition, and repels every alteration of sense, or even words.” – Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari vos 15 August 1832
“Nor do we merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies, or what is called the spirit, of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties….
The law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: let there be no innovation: keep to what has been handed down.” –Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922), Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914
Are you questioning the Magisterial status of the following words? If so, on what basis? And stating that the Modernist revolutionaries didn’t like it, won’t be good enough.
“From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an ‘insanity’, Namely, that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted Society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word or mouth, by the press, or in any other way.’ But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition…’ Therefore, by Our Apostolic Authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all the sons of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.” Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864
In the American Ecclesiastical Review in May 1953, Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Holy Office, condemned those who attempt to bypass permanently valid teaching in encyclicals on the grounds that it was transient and applicable only to the historical circumstances which prompted it:
“The first fault of these persons consists precisely in their failure to accept fully the arma veritatis and the teachings which the Roman Pontiffs during the past century, and particularly the reigning Pontiff Pius XII, have given to Catholics on this subject in encyclical letters, allocutions, and instructions of various kinds.
“To justify themselves, these people assert that in the body of teaching imparted within the Church there are to be distinguished two elements, the one permanent, and the other transient. This latter is supposed to be due to the reflection of particular contemporary conditions.
“Unfortunately, they carry this tactic so far as to apply it to the principles taught in pontifical documents, principles on which the teachings of the Popes have remained constant so as to make these principles a part of the patrimony of Catholic doctrine.”
Before making statements about fomenting schism and dissidents and cults, and barmy armies and following Peter, and claims that it is “fact” that “the wrong emphasis has sometimes been given to some propositions”, I respectfully and in charity suggest, Fidelity Always,that you look at the issue through the lense of fidelity to Catholic Tradition. Your arguments, and indeed methods of arguing and, at times your language, have to date been very “questionable”.
Fidelity Always
THE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY OF
PAPAL ENCYCLICALS
By Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton
Exact from the American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August, 1949, pp. 136-150
“Despite the divergent views about the existence of the infallible pontifical teaching in the encyclical letters, there is one point on which all theologians are manifestly in agreement. They are all convinced that all Catholics are bound in conscience to give a definite internal religious assent to those doctrines which the Holy Father teaches when he speaks to the universal Church of God on earth without employing his God-given charism of infallibility. Thus, prescinding from the question as to whether any individual encyclical or group of encyclicals may be said to contain specifically infallible teaching, all theologians are in agreement that this religious assent must be accorded the teachings which the Sovereign Pontiff includes in these documents. This assent is due, as Lercher has noted, until the Church might choose to modify the teaching previously presented or until proportionately serious reasons for abandoning the non-infallible teaching contained in a pontifical document might appear. It goes without saying that any reason which would justify the relinquishing of a position taken in a pontifical statement would have to be very serious indeed.”
Lionel:
Pope Pius XII has called ‘the dogma’ extra ecclesiam nulla salus an ‘infallible teaching’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949). The dogma has always to be taught as the Church teaches it, the Letter says.The saints have always taught the dogma as having no exceptions. Even the editor here in a post has said that there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
However the Letter of the Holy Office also mentions the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as an exception.
So in the Letter the magisterium in the past has said there are no exceptions and now it is saying there are exceptions. So at one of the two times, the magisterium has to be wrong.
Editor: the only reason this post is getting through is because it is loosely related to the topic and I am trying one more time to show where you are in grave error. Two hypotheses follow:
1) Mr X desires baptism. He deeply wishes to die a Catholic. Has instruction. Prays the Rosary. Loves the Faith. Can’t wait for his Baptism. He is in a car accident and dies the day before his Baptism was due to take place in his local parish. Is he inside or outside the Church – in God’s eyes? Clearly, unless God is completely unreasonable, that man dies a member of the Catholic Church. Therefore, there is no exception. He dies a Catholic.
2) Mr Y – for whatever reason – has never heard of the Catholic Church. He longs to do God’s will in all things. He prays to do God’s will in all things. He dies without ever having heard of the Catholic Church. In God’s eyes, is he a member of Christ’s Church ?(always objectively speaking of course) IF he dies a member of Christ’s Church, then he is not an exception.
You are confused. If the Church taught that non-Christians would be saved in their own religion – THAT would be an exception. But the Church does not teach that. There are no exceptions but in certain cases where souls desire to be part of the Church but are prevented through no fault of their own, the baptism is conferred directly by God, to put it as clearly as I am able to manage right now. If this isn’t clear enough to end your confusion, I am truly giving up and would question your good faith.
LIONEL ANDRADES,
You claim that the Magisterium has at some point in time formally contradicted itself in respect to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This obviously cannot be the case given the promise of Our Lord, so it must be your interpretation of statements that is flawed. In general the Church declares that there is no salvation outside of herself, hence it is incumbent upon all who have the ability to seek out the true Church for their salvation. Our Lord has established His Church and made it perfectly visible to man on earth, so for a majority there is no excuse to remain apart from the Catholic religion.
However, the Church declares with complimentary teaching that for those who are in invincible ignorance, i.e., those upright souls who keep the Commandments of God written in the hearts of all men, who serve God faithfully with the limited lights they have, but who are not given the opportunity to know and embrace the Catholic religion in a formal way, these will have the mercy of God extended to them since they are united in spirit with the Church.
The primary example would be the Good Thief who died repentant asking Our Lord to remember him. Now this man had not received baptism yet he offered his suffering and death in atonement for his sins – baptism of blood. He desired salvation and Our Lord granted it to him “this day you will be with me in paradise.”
We find this same theme repeated during the early persecutions when Catechumens, not yet baptised but desirous of baptism, were saved by their desire and the sacrifice of their lives for Christ. It is patently obvious then that a strict reading of the dogma, such as you and other followers of Fr. Feeney embrace, has neither historical nor theological support. All it achieves, like the doctrines of the Pharisees, is to make the all-merciful God a stickler for material protocol across the board, who has no mercy to extend even to those who through no fault of their own, unbaptised babies is another example, condemning them to hell for all eternity, even if they die with no objective mortal sin on their souls. This is preposterous and an insult to Our Lord. The Church has never formally taught such a monstrous doctrine. The letter of Church law is very important, yes, for all those who have the ability to know and abide by it. Your error, though, and that of your fellow Feeneyites, is that you completely ignore the spirit of God’s law, which is mercy and compassion.
It would be grossly unfair of God to place souls in this world who had no hope of knowing and entering His Catholic Church physically, and then to condemn them to eternal torment for it. I don’t know what kind of God you believe in but it’s not the one the Church holds up to us, the one who died in torments on the Cross even for His murderers. You need to assess very urgently your perception of Our Lord for your own salvation, for what you mete out to others so strictly in contradiction of the spirit of Our Lord and His Church will be meted out to you also at your judgment.
Athanasius says:
You claim that the Magisterium has at some point in time formally contradicted itself in respect to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Here are some of the popes saying the same thing.
Lionel:
Yes.
1) Hundreds of saints have used what the secular media calls ‘the rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Here are some of the popes saying the same thing while you and the editor allege that the baptism of desire is a VISIBLE exception to the traditional interpretation.
Either you or I are correct.One of us has to be wrong.
___________________________________________
Fourth Lateran Council (1215): “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (1302): “We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her’ (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Boniface I, Epistle 14.1: “It is clear that this Roman Church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship.”
Pope Pelagius II (578-590): “Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord… Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness… Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned… [If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church” (Denzinger, 469).
Saint Gregory the Great (590-604), Moralia: “Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus
Athanasius:
The primary example would be the Good Thief who died repentant asking Our Lord to remember him. Now this man had not received baptism yet he offered his suffering and death in atonement for his sins – baptism of blood. He desired salvation and Our Lord granted it to him “this day you will be with me in paradise.”
Lionel:
Please clarify your terms.
You could be assuming that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are VISIBLE, persons seen in the flesh.
For me they are INVISIBLE, cases known only to God.
Since for me the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, or ‘ a ray of the Truth'(NA 2) , refer to persons invisible for us , I have no problem with the Good Thief being saved with or without the baptism of water.
If there is such a case in 2014 it would not be an exception, for me, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Editor: you are now saying here what I and others have been saying all along. Gimme strength. Seems Athanasius has the magic touch as usual. Signed, Livid, Glasgow…
Athanasius says:
We find this same theme repeated during the early persecutions when Catechumens, not yet baptised but desirous of baptism, were saved by their desire and the sacrifice of their lives for Christ.
Lionel:
Please note that I keep repeating that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for me. I do not have a problem with the baptism of desire. I accept the baptism of desire.
I accept an implicit for us baptism of desire and reject an explicit for us baptism of desire in 2014.
_______________________
It is patently obvious then that a strict reading of the dogma, such as you and other followers of Fr. Feeney embrace, has neither historical nor theological support.
Lionel:
A ‘strict reading of the dogma’, for me, is compatible, with the baptism of desire ( implicit).For me there is no contradiction. So I accept the baptism of desire.
I can hold the traditional interpretation of the dogma along with invisible for us and visible for God only, baptism of desire. This would not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
However if the baptism of desire was explicit, then there would be a contradiction and it would not be the teaching of the Church(before 1940).
The Church accepts a baptism of desire .Before 1940 it was always considered implicit for us. It was a possibility but irrelevant to the dogma. After 1940 the magisterium interpreted it, it seems, as visible for us and so an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
___________________
Editor: this is the same old nonsensical mantra which I’m only letting through because it is a reply to Athanasius, whom I hope forgives me! Really there is nothing more to be said – it’s all been clearly explained and yet still Lionel is determined to hammer home the straw man of his own creation.
LIONELANDRADES,
I’m at a loss with this distinction you introduce between implicit and explicit baptism of desire. What exactly are you trying to say? Do you accept the Church’s complimentary doctrine (complimentary to her infallible dogma) of invincible ignorance, baptism of blood and baptism of desire, or do you not accept them? There is no difference in God’s sight between those who implicitly desire baptism and those who make that implicit desire explicit. God reads the hearts of men regardless of if and how that desire manifests itself to others.
You know, the Church’s formal teaching is very easy for the faithful to understand. Why, then, do you seek to complicate it with incomprehensible interpretations of you own making. Trust the teaching of the authentic Magisterium rather than your own imaginings. It’s not a complicated doctrine, Lionel.
If you do wish to continue to insist on your own theory then you will have to explain your understanding of things with more clarity. At the moment, I don’t know what exactly it is you believe and don’t believe.
For you there are exceptions to the dogma on salvation.So you infer that there are VISIBLE cases on earth.Otherwise how could there be exceptions?
Athanasius thank you for responding.
Athanasius:
I’m at a loss with this distinction you introduce between implicit and explicit baptism of desire. What exactly are you trying to say?
Lionel:
I am saying that when we have a discussion on a controversial subject we need to define our terms.Otherwise I will be saying something and it could mean something else for you.
The baptism of desire refers to the catechumen who dies before receiving the baptism of water.Theologically some Catholics say that God will provide him with a teacher and the baptism of water necessary for salvation.(St.Thomas Aquinas was one of them).Other Catholics say that the catechuman had justification and also salvation.He could be saved and is saved. This is theology.
I am not referring to theology at this moment. Bear with me.
I am saying that a catechumen who had the desire to receive the baptism of water dies and is in Heaven and is INVISIBLE for us on earth. He cannot be known or seen on earth in a physical sense.This is a theoretical case. A hypothetical case.Please note again I am making an intellectual observation of a fact of life. We cannot see the dead physically. Again I repeat,this is not theology.It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead.It is an objective understanding that in general, the dead cannot be seen in the flesh on earth.
So I come back to defining our terms.
For me the baptism of desire/ implicit desire refers to the hypothetical case of a person who is INVISIBLE physically on earth.Since he is invisible he cannot be an exception in 2014 to the traditional teaching of the Church which says all need faith and baptism for salvation and there are no exceptions.If he does not exist physically he cannot be an exception.
For you and the editor there are exceptions to the dogma on salvation.So you infer that there are VISIBLE cases on earth.Otherwise how could they be exceptions?
Athanasius:
Do you accept the Church’s complimentary doctrine (complimentary to her infallible dogma)
Lionel:
Now lets define our terms here.
The infallible dogma does not mention any exceptions.I have already provided you the text of Cantate Dominion, Council of Florence,1441 etc.
While I accept an implicit baptism of desire,invisible for me, but theoretically acceptable.
This is complimentary to the infallible dogma.
Athanasius:
of invincible ignorance, baptism of blood and baptism of desire, or do you not accept them?
Lionel:
I accept them only as physically INVISIBLE cases.I accept them as possibilities.I do not accept them as being physically VISIBLE on earth.
Athanasius:
There is no difference in God’s sight between those who implicitly desire baptism and those who make that implicit desire explicit.
Lionel:
This would be the theology.
Athanasius:
God reads the hearts of men regardless of if and how that desire manifests itself to others.
Lionel:
True. I agree with you here.
Athanasius:
You know, the Church’s formal teaching is very easy for the faithful to understand.
Lionel:
If the faithful understand the baptism of desire as being known to us in special cases, of being VISIBLE to us, I reject this.For the faithful the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.For me this view is irrational.
Athanasius:
Why, then, do you seek to complicate it with incomprehensible interpretations of you own making.
Lionel:
I am obligated to refer to INVISIBLE and VISIBLE baptism of desire since most people imply ( whether they know it or not) that these hypothetical cases are VISIBLE to us in real life.
Athanasius:
Trust the teaching of the authentic Magisterium
Lionel:
If the magisterium implies that these cases are VISIBLE to us then it is an objective error.
If they imply that the baptism of desire (implicit for us) is an exception to the extra ecclesiam nulla salus then the magisterium has made a factual error.It is common knowledge that we cannot see the dead. This is nor theology or a personal opinion.
Athanasius:
rather than your own imaginings. It’s not a complicated doctrine, Lionel.
Lionel:
It is made complicated by those who infer that the deceased-saved are visible to us.
Athansius:
If you do wish to continue to insist on your own theory then you will have to explain your understanding of things with more clarity. At the moment, I don’t know what exactly it is you believe and don’t believe.
Lionel:
I have tried to define my terms.
Basically I would ask you is the baptism of desire referring to cases physically visible to you on earth ?
If these cases are implicit for us and known only to God can they be inferred as being explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus e.g Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence? -Lionel Andrades
This teaching of the Church on baptism of desire refers to cases which are INVISIBLE or VISIBLE for you ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/this-teaching-of-church-on-baptism-of.html#links
Lionel,
You are clearly utterly confused on this issue. You appear to be saying that you want proof that there are souls saved through baptism of desire, you won’t believe it unless you see a saved soul. Ridiculous.
My advice to Athanasius is not to respond to the above post, beyond possibly copying your previous answer. Whatever, Lionel, even if Athanasius responds, take note of this absolutely final warning: NO FURTHER POSTS ON THIS SUBJECT FROM LIONEL WILL BE PUBLISHED HERE.
Oops! I’ve just answered his confused post. Sorry about that.
Athanasius,
That’s fine – I allowed for your response and, in fact, it makes it easier for me, in conscience, to stick to my warning about no future posts after this reply from you. We’re going round in circles with this and, as you say, it’s a very easy doctrine to understand. No more posts from Lionel will be published on this subject here.
Sorry, Lionel, but you’ve had a very fair deal from us on this blog.
God bless
LIONELANDRADES,
I think your error lies in your separation of the letter of the law from its spirit, a common error of the Scriptural Pharisees.
In actual fact there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since those who go to heaven by invincible ignorance, baptism of blood or baptism of desire, are implicitly part of the Mystical Body of Christ, His Holy Catholic Church, in spirit. That they were, or are, deprived on earth of either the knowledge or time to confirm that union by formal baptism with water or actual reception into the Church in the material sense does not detract from their good will and their dying without unrepented objective mortal sin on their souls.
The argument, then, about visible and invisible baptism of desire is false. Some cases are known to us from Sacred Scripture, such as the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets, the Good Thief on Calvary and the martyred Catechumens of the early Church. These are all visible examples of baptism of desire and/or blood. Others are unknown to us but are known to God.
Only two things are important for us to remember in this matter. The first is that the mercy of God excludes the possibility of Hell for all who die in invincible ignorance or with a desire for baptism who have kept the law written in the hearts of all men and who have no objective mortal sin on their souls. The other is that this doctrine cannot and must not be extended to become the heresy of ‘Universal Salvation,’ as some of today’s liberals would like to see.
It is, as I said before, a very easy doctrine to understand, so stop making a rod for your own back by excessive introspection.
This response is to Fidelityalways’s post at 06.36 a.m. today – which will be some way up the page by now (no reply button).
There you posted a quote from Mgr Joseph Clifford Fenton which you apparently think supports your position – it doesn’t. Fenton wrote his STD under Garrigou-Lagrange and had you known that you might have realized you were barking up the wrong tree!
In the passage you quoted, Fenton is talking about modifying or changing the teaching in a (singular) pontifical document – the correction of a single error (the possibility of which everyone here freely admits). You cannot extend his argument to countenance the overturning of unbroken centuries of Tradition.
Yet at Vatican II – if we were to accept your position – this is exactly what happened. The most glaring example of this is the “teaching” of the council on religious liberty, which is almost precisely the opposite of that which had been taught consistently for many centuries.
You will find no support for such a move in Fenton. Indeed, Fenton was a peritus at the council and he was one of those most bitterly opposed to Murray’s ideas.
I’m afraid Dr Fenton was entirely on the opposite side of the fence from you!
That is exactly the point, some documents you hold dear, and incorrectly interpret, or quote as a proper Magisterial Teaching, are not that. The Magisterium has corrected the errors.
Thank you, Confitebor Domino
Very well put. Monsignor Fenton was most definitely a firm and resolute defender of Catholic Tradition and opponent of the neo-Modernists.
Readers might be interested in the following short article, courtesy of John Vennari of Catholic Family News
http://www.cfnews.org/jv-v2fail.htm
Here’s a glimpse of the main point.
“As if predicting the future, Fenton closes: ‘It is possible that the council might act other than with the fullness of supernatural prudence. It is possible that, seen it this perspective, it may not be successful.’”
As Mgr Fenton died long before the fruits of The Council were fully evident his judgement may be suspect. The New Code of Canon Law, and The Catechism of the Council Church took years to produce.
However, it is good that people here take him seriously as in 1949 he wrote an important reminder to those who merely quote documents, and fail to understand them, or journey with The Magisterium as they encourage us to reveal the truths of the Gospel in every age. He wrote:
THE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY OF
PAPAL ENCYCLICALS
By Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton
Exact from the American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August, 1949, pp. 136-150
“Despite the divergent views about the existence of the infallible pontifical teaching in the encyclical letters, there is one point on which all theologians are manifestly in agreement. They are all convinced that all Catholics are bound in conscience to give a definite internal religious assent to those doctrines which the Holy Father teaches when he speaks to the universal Church of God on earth without employing his God-given charism of infallibility. Thus, prescinding from the question as to whether any individual encyclical or group of encyclicals may be said to contain specifically infallible teaching, all theologians are in agreement that this religious assent must be accorded the teachings which the Sovereign Pontiff includes in these documents. This assent is due, as Lercher has noted, until the Church might choose to modify the teaching previously presented or until proportionately serious reasons for abandoning the non-infallible teaching contained in a pontifical document might appear. It goes without saying that any reason which would justify the relinquishing of a position taken in a pontifical statement would have to be very serious indeed.”
FA,
You can post that passage here as often as you like but it still will not support your view, for reasons I outlined above.
With respect, if you don’t wish to engage in constructive debate your time might be better spent elsewhere.
With respect your interpretation of Church documents is pretty lax. Summorum Pontificum, and the accompany letter, and various things by Cardinal Ratzinger, and Pope Paul Vi (son to be beatified), St John, and St John Paul (recently Canonised) couldn’t be clearer. You choose not to listen to sound teaching from The Magisterium.
FIDELITYALWAYS,
You should have said “bitter fruits of the Council,” you left out the “bitter.” Words are cheap, fruits are conclusive, as Our Lord said “by their fruits you shall know them.” The actual fruits of the Council are loss of faith in Europe, millions of apostasies, a crisis in vocations, hundreds of seminaries and religious house closed, tens of thousands of parish churches closed, loss of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, no Catechetical formation of the young, many Catholics living in an objective state of mortal sin yet going to Holy Communion. I could go on and on. So you’re wasting your words here. God have mercy on every priest and prelate who has participated in this Conciliar revolution that has left the House of the Lord devastated.
St John Paul, John Paul, Paul Vl, Benedict and Francis all speaks of the fruits of The Council, and Paul Vl said the work of the SPPX was evil, and part of Satan’s attack on the fruits of The Council.
We not long ago concluded a Year of Faith to mark the beginning of The Council, and the loyal Traditionalist wait with eager anticipation to learn how we will mark fifty years since the end of The Council.
And to mark the Year of Faith, Pope Benedict wrote:
It seemed to me that timing the launch of the Year of Faith to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council would provide a good opportunity to help people understand that the texts bequeathed by the Council Fathers, in the words of Blessed John Paul II, “have lost nothing of their value or brilliance. They need to be read correctly, to be widely known and taken to heart as important and normative texts of the Magisterium, within the Church’s Tradition … I feel more than ever in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century: there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning.”[9] I would also like to emphasize strongly what I had occasion to say concerning the Council a few months after my election as Successor of Peter: “if we interpret and implement it guided by a right hermeneutic, it can be and can become increasingly powerful for the ever necessary renewal of the Church.”
Pope Paul VI approved the foundation of the SSPX through the Bishop of Fribourg. The SSPX was at that time in its infancy and in no way the huge organisation it is today. Therefore your claim that Paul VI said the SSPX was evil is calumnious and harmful. I don’t know if you have any awareness of sin but you should consider seriously your behaviour in wickedly expounding these lies in public.
As regards the rest of your post above, you have completely ignored the proofs of bitter fruits I have presented to you and gone on, like a blind man, to hail the Council. You are by no means an honest and objective commentator on this blog and so I cannot in good conscience continue to debate with you. You have an agenda but it’s not one that has the glory of God, the good of the Church and the salvation of souls as its end.
And when SSPX started to grow and become a success the local ordinary and his cohorts set-out to undermine the Society, with the rest history!
Athanasius,
You are perfectly correct to withdraw from debate with FA because he is not, in my opinion, as far as I can tell, in good faith.
For example, somewhere – I can’t now locate the comment – he repeats, after correction, that Baptism is not enough to save a soul even though Fidelis had pointed out that was not her meaning. That is, he was ready to let the casual reader assume that someone had said Baptism, without the other sacraments, is all that is required to be saved. That’s dishonest. In the extreme.
So, as I said on a previous occasion, nobody ought to feel duty bound to respond to any of FA’s posts now. Been there, done that, bought the T shirt which reads “FA’s not listening to Catholic Truth.”
Editor,
Absolutely right! I have been watching very carefully throughout my exchanges with FA, as well as his exchanges with others, and have noted that he does not enter into objective debate. Many of the facts revealed here would have caused even the most ardent defender of Vatican II to pause and think that perhaps something has gone seriously wrong in the Church after all. The least any of us could expect from one of upright intention would be a refutation of our facts with their facts, but that hasn’t happened either. All I have seen from FA are unjust accusations and a parrot-like repetition of ‘up with the Council, down with the Trads.’ Well, that’s not honest debate, it’s nastiness. I suspect if this person is Catholic then he has to a great extent lost the faith, or at least is uncomfortable in conscience with the teaching of the Church for 2000 years up to Vatican II. There’s something very much amiss.
Archbishop L himself reported Paul Vi said it,
Archbishop Lefebvre own notes of a meeting with Pope Paul Vl 11th September 1976: “The Holy Father was lively enough at the beginning – one could almost call it somewhat violent in a way: one could feel that he was deeply wounded and rather provoked by what we are doing. He said to me:
‘You condemn me, you condemn me. I am a Modernist. I am a Protestant. It cannot be allowed, you are doing an evil work, you ought not to continue, you are causing scandal in the Church, etc…’with nervous irritability.
I kept quiet, you may be sure”
He also said in in 1972, and 1976 in more coded language.
Comment removed – off topic
“The same Archbishop who set up his own cult, and was excommunicated, and who a Successor of St Peter, warned was doing the work of The Devil, and promoting evil?
“Not exactly one to buy a Used Car of, is he? Less so, one to give theological opinions. He wanted to be a Prince amongst pygmies.” – June 16, 7.37pm
That’s quite a mouthful, Fidelity Always.
I’ve no doubt that the Church will settle the question of “excommunication” definitively, and justice will be done at some point in the future. I’ve no doubt that Archbishop Lefebvre will be raised to the altars in God’s good time, once sanity is restored.
In the meantime, without claiming any authority not due to an ordinary layman, I believe that neither Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Castro de Mayer, or any of the four bishops were ever “excommunicated”. There was not, is not, any excommunication to lift. A very strong case can be made for that belief, under canon law.
I think many, many people are hindered by the finger wagging neo Catholic pharisees who set themselves up as some sort of parallel magisterium with the power to declare faithful Catholics anathema. A common canonical adage is that “against necessity, there is no law,” or “necessity knows no law.” In his constitution, Exiit qui seminat of August 14, 1279, Pope Nicholas III confirmed this principle: “one is to be excused from every [positive] law on account of extreme necessity”. Many neo Catholics, not only in effect deny this principle, but actually pontificate that the opposite holds: “against law there is no necessity”.
The questions of true and false obedience, the fact that in canon law, the supreme law is the salvations of souls, and the fact that Catholics are under no obligation whatsoever to obey unjust commands, no matter who from, has been dealt with on other threads. Catholics theologians of the immense standing of Aquinas, Bellarmine, Suarez, and Vitoria have explained this very clearly and have been quoted on this blog.
“Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.” – St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theoligica II-II, q. 104, art. 5, ad. 3
“A tyrannical law, through not being according to reason, is not a law, absolutely speaking, but rather a perversion of law.” – Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, II, q.92, a.1, ad 4.
On matters of doctrine, Saint Paul, could not have been clearer.
“But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” (Galatians 1:8).
The old chestnut of excommunication is probably top of the list when it comes to disinformation about the Society. A great many of those Catholic who give the issue any amount of thought appear not to be aware that the priests of the Society and the laity to whom they minister were never excommunicated.
The principle that an excommunication without proper cause is null and void is explained by Saint Thomas Aquinas. He writes:
“An excommunication may be unjust for two reasons… Secondly, on the part of the excommunication, through there being no proper cause, or through the sentence being passed without the forms of law being observed. In this case, if the error, on the part of the sentence, be such as to render the sentence void, this has no effect, for there is no excommunication . . .” –Summa Theologica Supplement to Part 3, Q. 21, Art. 4
Those who claim that the issue is cut and dried will point to canon 1382 which states that both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
Well they seem to ignore the fact that canon law comes to the defence of Archbishop Lefebvre and the other Bishops. Leaving aside the fact that before 1951, consecrating a bishop without papal mandate (canon 2370 1917 Code of Canon Law) did not incur automatic excommunication, canons 1323 and 1324 of the 1983 Code provide a very firm basis for saying that latae sententiae excommunications were not incurred on June 30 1988.
Canon 1323 clearly states that those acting “out of necessity” are “not subject to penalties” i.e. not subject to any penalty, and canon 1324, #3 states that “one is not bound by an automatic (latae sententiae) penalty”…who erroneously yet culpably thought” (1324 #1,8) that he was acting out of the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience…” (1323,4)
Canon 1324 #3 states that, “an accused is not bound by an automatic penalty (latae sententiae) in the presence of any of the circumstances enumerated in #1”. These include the violation of law or precept “by one erroneously yet culpably thought one of the circumstances in in canon 1323, nn. 4 and 5 was verified” (see immediately above).
In short, canon law states that automatic penalty is not incurred when one even erroneously yet culpably considered himself to be acting out of necessity. Whether or not there was a grave necessity, whether or not the Archbishop was right in thinking there was a grave necessity, are not relevant in the sight of canon law. What is relevant as far as the issue of the excommunications being unjust and therefore void, is that the Archbishop sincerely believed that there was a grave necessity.
Surely, anyone who is any position to express an opinion on this matter, cannot in good faith doubt the Archbishop’s mind on the crisis facing the Church after everything he had done and said, and written for years, and the lengths he had gone to find a proper and just solution to that crisis.
Neither the Pope or anyone else in the Church has the power to simply make someone an excommunicate. If that’s the case, we are into the territory of Pope as capricious tyrant. Whether someone is excommunicated latae sententiae depends on whether they have committed an offense that incurs such an excommunication.
It shouldn’t need to be repeated at this stage that the supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls.
How can it be reasonably doubted that canon law was very much in Archbishop Lefebvre’s favour, to say the least? How can anyone reasonably doubt that there is grave matter of restorative justice at stake here? How can any Catholic doubt that the Church will one day rectify this wrong?
The Archbishop was excommunicated for Ordaining four to the Episcopate, and they likewise. Can I offer any confirmation? Yes:
“LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
CONCERNING THE REMISSION OF THE EXCOMMUNICATION
OF THE FOUR BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE
Dear Brothers in the Episcopal Ministry!
The remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre without a mandate of the Holy See has for many reasons caused, both within and beyond the Catholic Church, a discussion more heated than any we have seen for a long time. Many Bishops felt perplexed by an event which came about unexpectedly and was difficult to view positively in the light of the issues and tasks facing the Church today. Even though many Bishops and members of the faithful were disposed in principle to take a positive view of the Pope’s concern for reconciliation, the question remained whether such a gesture was fitting in view of the genuinely urgent demands of the life of faith in our time. Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment. I therefore feel obliged to offer you, dear Brothers, a word of clarification, which ought to help you understand the concerns which led me and the competent offices of the Holy See to take this step. In this way I hope to contribute to peace in the Church.” 10th march 2009.
In case you haven’t noticed, you do not interpret Canon Law, but The Vatican does.
St Athanasius was excommunicated twice. He’s now a Doctor of the Church. So what does that prove, that another unjust excommunication was issued by another pope on Archbishop Lefebvre? It just proves that popes do fall into error at times.
No it says people can err, and be reconciled to The Church as happened, to a degree, for the four SSPX “Bishops”.
Imagine the Pope having to write to his bishops to ask them not to be so angry over the remission of the excommunications of four bishops.
Now, whether one accepts or rejects the validity of those excommunications of 1988, bearing in mind that Canon Law provides for such action as the consecration of bishops when a state of emergency exists in the Church, we have here a great number of bishops in the Church expressing fury at the Pope because he effectively, in their eyes, lifted a sentence that otherwise would have led to the damnation of four priestly souls. In other words, many bishops in the Church wanted the souls of the four SSPX bishops to be damned and were furious that the Pope extended charity to them. How incredible! Thank you for posting that Papal letter, it says everything that needs saying about the wickedness that presently exists at the highest levels of the Church, confirmed again by Pope Francis today in his sermon when he spoke of corruption.
An excellent and thoughtful point, Athanasius. Well said.
The Vatican interprets those laws, not you, and I would say it knows what it is doing, not you.
Fidelity Always,
Yes, it is obviously the case that the Catholic Church’s own jurisdictions (local ordinaries as well as central forums) are the appropriate bodies to interpret their own rules and regulations. Last summer I happen to have fallen among a group of Roman clergy at a conference in one of the colleges, and gleaned in conversation that the Scottish legal “line” is to deal with any “schismatic act” only after it has been repented of, so as to keep scandal to a minimum. But you are obviously right on who is entitled to judge. A proper judgment requires, fairly obviously, legal training. Same would hold of writing any sort of counsel’s opinion. Nothing to argue about there: lay interpretation of canon law has little weight – and the more desperate the “emergency” pleaded specially the less convincing a case will seem.
Your remarks aimed at the fairly eccentric lay interpretation offered on this blog are, however, misdirected. Sad experience of fecund plagiarism by students has made me suspicious of work which is just that bit too improbably expert, too sure of obscure arguments and drawing on Latin sources that are that bit too recondite. So time to run a plagiarism check.
Sure enough, the text given above has been re-hashed twice already on this site, sometimes in fuller versions and, in all three instances, Leo completely fails to acknowledge the actual source of a significant proportion of “his” text, which might otherwise appear to be his own original work. It is not. The source of much of it appears to be one Mario Derksen, ‘A Defense of the Society of St. Pius X and it’s [sic.] current legal Status’ (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/mdsspx.htm).
Derksen’s effusion seems to have been composed and used on different sites between 2001 and 2003. I gather the author (of the original work appearing here without proper acknowledgement, not of the copy) is (now) a “sedevacantist”.
The case Leo puts forward is not difficult for the proper authorities to answer but more relevant to the reputation of this blog is that fact that it is not, sad to say, Leo’s case. I have no dog in the fight when it comes to whether FSSPX and RCC are in schism (we are schismatics all from every other point of view) but I deplore this fecund plagiarism.
Dowden,
You really are smarting from Leo’s trouncing on various issues, notably your attack on Saint Pius X. And oh how you are smarting! Yet again you attack Leo in your own self-confessed obscure writing style while failing to even remotely substantiate your claim of plagiarism. Patent nonsense. With all due respect, of course.
Nobody has to be a lawyer to know the law. I know that if I break the rules of the road, I’m in trouble. At one time I had some points on my licence to prove it. Don’t drive at 43mph in a 30 mile zone and expect them to care that you didn’t see the 30 mile sign. That’s your (actually it was my) problem. Canon Law is clear. Anyone who can’t understand it, needs help. I understood it first time I read it. And I’m no genius, although you are free to disagree with me on that… 😀
Anybody with half a brain who thought that Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong to think that the Church was in an emergency situation should be able to see now that he was spot on. If not, I suggest they send out a search party to find the other half of that brain. ASAP.
However, the best bit for us, dear Dowden, has to be the very fact that you and FidelityAlways (add “in the wrong”) are in full agreement because that just seals the case for the prosecution – you being an official, fully paid up Protestant and he being one of the new brand of Protestant Catholics.
Thank you, Dowden. Thaaaaaaaank you! 😀
Sorry, the plagiarism is manifest. Great lumps of the post are lifted from the source given in the link. Try whatever diversionary tactic you like, trying to make every issue personal. Fact is plagiarism is plagiarism – simple bit of software which (these days) is on all of our desktops. Try the truth for a change and let’s wait and see if the sedevacantist source is the ultimate source or if both are fishing in the same pond. Either way, plagiarism.
Dowden,
I don’t know what it is that Leo wrote that you claim is “plagiarism” but it’s not “plagiarism” to copy and paste text onto a blog – he’s not claiming it as original work in order to be awarded a Degree in Theology, is he? You note that “Great lumps of the post are lifted from the source given in the link” – do you actually believe that Leo is so stupid that he would try to pass off as his own, words that he then supplies the link to check at source? Gerragrip. That’s a completely acceptable convention – I do it all the time. Did you think when I quoted St Vincent Lerins a couple of times, word for word and then put the link to source, that I was trying to create the impression that I was even cleverer, more holy, etc than I am already renowned to be? That’s not plagiarism – it’s called GLTM (good literary time management). Behave yourself, Dowden.
Gerragrip, Dowden. Stop clutching at “Gotcha Leo” straws.
Clearly if an expert visited this blog Rome would close it.
I am, however, doing my best to defend The Church against the unwarranted, unjust, irrational, attack from disloyal dissidents who even hide behind the names of a Saint.
Gosh, we are not going to see any issue except in personal terms: the Sun’s readers’ notorious Gotcha!
No, since you ask, I do not believe anyone would be so stupid as to give the link demonstrating plagiarism. But Leo did not give the link (that, dear lady, is the point). I gave it, or rather my trusty plagiarism-detection software discovered it and I passed it on. But let the man speak for himself! With an advocate as inaccurate in detail as you, he could hardly do worse.
From my angle, if sedevacantist sources are key to an FSSPX “defence” that fact is relevant and ought to be disclosed – there was no end of demands for citations when that suited the purpose.
Name of the game is to give citations and not wait for the plagiarism software to find them. That is in the “truth” game rather than the “catholic truth” version. Derkson’s points may be discreditable but they deserve to be credited as being his. Magna est ueritas and all that!
The Sun invented “Gotcha”? Gerragrip.
Dowden, you have got to get over Leo’s superb knowledge and command of all things relevant to the crisis in the Church. That he uses the same words as someone else to talk about stuff we’re talking about all the time, doesn’t mean he’s cheating in some way. You really are clutching hard at that straw.
Madam Editor,
When in the electronic presence of the good Dr. Dowden, should you not make a metaphorical curtsy prior to addressing him, and gentlemen contributors, doff their caps? A great pity there are equivalents of ‘smileys’ for the required courtesy.
Ah well now, our Dowden means well, Sixupman. He’s not a Catholic so can’t be blamed, really, for his confusion – especially given that the very Pope himself is confused! Not to mention the “Pope Emeritus”! See new thread to comment further on that one!
No, be accurate. The Sun famously/notoriously used it. “Invented” is your careless attribution.
No, be accurate. Superb knowledge it may be but Derkson’s knowledge is Derkson’s knowledge, no one else’s intellectual property.
No, be accurate. Using the same few words can be a coincidence, using hundreds of the same words in the same sequence to argue the same point is something different. Use thousands of acknowledged sources to construct a thesis and that is a DPhil. Use one unacknowledged source and that is plagiarism.
Go on, editor, give accuracy a try. You know it makes sense. And it will make such a nice change.
Well, if we are to avoid using all the words used by The Sun non-newspaper, we’d have to work very hard indeed.
It’s no big deal, Dowden, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. And you’re asking for trouble because in every single case when you thought you had Leo by the throat, he made mince-meat out of your allegations. Stand by!
A classic case of building a straw man to deflect attention away from the core topic.
Sigh.
I’ve only read Dowden’s posts alleging “plagiarism” this morning. And it was quite a surprise, to put it mildly. Sometimes it’s a good idea to take a bit of time before replying to accusations. Cool head and all that. I think this is such an occasion.
Dowden
There are a few questions that jump out of your accusing posts. Obviously, you don’t have to answer them, but I’d imagine others here are wondering the same thing. I’m not a bit bothered, just slightly curious.
Does every post on this blog, or every post over a certain length, get run through your plagiarism check software? Am I the only blogger to be so “honoured”?
How long have you considered it worthwhile to conduct such operations? Is it only during the last two weeks?
Have all others posts scrutinised by you plagiarism software passed to your satisfaction?
I might just make a few preliminary observations.
The post of mine yesterday at 1.69pm that you refer to, Dowden is 1,100 words long including words from Fidelity Always. The article of Mario Derksen that you accuse me of plagiarising is 29,000 words long. Considering that you claim that a “significant portion” or “great lumps” involved plagiarism, later upgraded to “using hundreds of the same words in the same sequence” (out of 1,100 words), I’m interested in your explanation as to why you say the source merely “appears” to be Derksen’s article. “Hundreds of the same words in the same sequence” don’t admit to doubt, or difficulty of proof. I’m also a wee bit curious, no more, to know how you came across the article, Dowden. A bit of Googling? Maybe you are expanding your reading programme.
Certainly, the article has been in the public domain for a while. You appear to acknowledge that, Dowden. I think you are owed some, qualified gratitude for posting it. I hope everyone reads it. I have certainly read it a few times. I have no problem whatsoever in saying that I have drawn from its content in various posts. I’ve had a quick skim of the article again today. I was wondering where I had come across the very useful quote from Pope Nicholas III, so I’m grateful to you for finding the source. I’m not sure if the quotations from Saint Thomas Aquinas are in Derksen’s article, but I wouldn’t be a bit surprised. I wasn’t surprised either that it contains the words of Bellarmine, Suarez, and Vitoria whom I mentioned. Their words appear on this blog regularly, as do the words of Saint Paul to the Galatians.
I believe it is correct, although of course subject to correction, that Derksen has unfortunately fallen into sedevacantism.That has no bearing on the issue under discussion, and he no doubt deserves appreciation for his very comprehensive and informative article, which covers the same ground as many other similar documents. Make no mistake, this is no concession on the issue at stake here, Dowden, but in general I am very reluctant to point anyone here in the direction of proponents of sedevacantism. I don’t want that on my conscience. I have in the past relied on the work of a sedevacantist priest, which I consider very informative on the subject of the Mass, but my reservations are real. I believe, again subject to correction, that under the Editorial policy here, posts promoting sedevacantism, or linking to such sites, are deleted. If anyone thinks that the Society are reliant on support from sedevacantists they really aren’t up to speed.
When I read your posts, Dowden, I was more than a little bit puzzled. Certainly a lot of the same arguments and same quotations appear all over the place on the blogosphere and in published works. When it comes to specific parts of canon law and quotations there is bound to be overlap of words. That’s unavoidable.
As far as I’m concerned, plagiarism involves a desire for personal gain. I think I have repeatedly made the point, without being guilty of false humility, that I am a very ordinary lay Catholic. I make no claims to authority, or knowledge that isn’t available to anyone with an open mind or good will. Very learned, well qualified Catholic minds have set it all out, for anyone who is willing to listen. I don’t expect anyone to make up their mind on matters of the Faith based on mine or anyone else’s personal opinion: far from it. If an argument can’t be backed up by facts, or the words of Saints, Doctors or Popes isn’t doesn’t carry a whole lot of weight. That’s why it’s worth a bit of effort to quote useful “third party” evidence and not just insupportable opinion. I think I have made reasonable efforts to refute errors with verifiable evidence, quotations etc. In a lengthy post there could be links to four of five sources, if desired, which obviously means detention in the Moderation queue.
Egos aren’t at issue on this blog, let alone personal gain. We have all learnt a lot from many contributors here. Regulars here are courteous and very quick to express their appreciation, or even flattery. That’s more than enough reward as far I’m concerned. It’s safe to say that most people here are only interested in defending the Catholic Faith in this time of diabolical disorientation.
Now for the accusation of plagiarism and my post of June 17, 1.59pm.
I’ve actually put the post through the Grammarly plagiarism software. Sure enough it came up with something. A “significant portion” or even “great lump” was highlighted.
There was a “Citation Audit” figure of 80%, which possibly means that 80% of my 1,100 words was “plagiarism”, maybe even “fecund plagiarism”. Here’s the interesting bit though. I was told that “a part of your paper is matching some text from the Web. Please make sure that this text is properly referenced”.
The text referred to was a previous thread on this blog. No mention of Derksen. That might explain your use of the less than certain word “appears”, Dowden.
The above suggests that I have been guilty of plagiarism in my post of yesterday by reposting my own words on this blog! Guilty. Absolutely. I do it frequently, as I mention most times. There’s not much point in reinventing the wheel. The blog can be fairly fast moving, with time a bit precious. Repetition is the foundation of imparting knowledge, and one or two, it appears, refuse to acknowledge evidence no matter how many times it is presented.
I’d very much like to take this opportunity to redress an omission and acknowledge the use of Father Paul Kramer’s really excellent book entitled, The Suicide of Altering the Liturgy when trying to put the facts of canon law, namely canons 1323 and 1324 into concise language for a blog post. The book is one of the very best sources of fact and information on this issue. It most certainly is not, to use your words, Dowden, a “fairly eccentric lay interpretation”.
Maybe someone else has got something more concerning alleged “fecund plagiarism”. I’ll be glad to read it. In the meantime, let readers judge for themselves on the plagiarism charge by reading the 1,100 words posted yesterday and the 29,000 words and produce what you describe, Dowden as the “hundreds of the same words in the same sequence”. I really will be very interested to see that. In fact, I’m inclined to offer a large reward.
I think the charge of “fecund plagiarism” can slink away now.
Your are obviously a bit rattled, Dowden and it appears to have got very personal for you, all of a sudden. From translation none issues, to citation