One Catholic Writer's Take On Kate Kelly

[saemo]

3DOP, when you said you'd go Mormon rather than stay Catholic (unless I misunderstood you), then is when I came to believe that excommunication was warranted.

What drew me to Catholicism is the understanding that the Church is Christ's and that He does not abandon His Bride. History shows us the truth of this, in the midst of a history that includes "bad popes", the Spirit guides the Church to all truth.

So what if today is dismal to you? It is obvious the future generations, us, of bad times past continue the pilgrim journey.

My view is, either you believe Christ is present in His Church and ever leads Her on Her pilgrim journey, or you don't. Real and perceived evil of course must be confessed, and behavior changed to true discipleship. Sin is in us all, and it is the primary reason the Church teaches that the Church is both human and divine. Despair is a sin, itself.

The Church is growing fastest in Africa, whose languages are not related or heavily borrowed from Latin. Perhaps our missions in Africa view the vernacular for bringing people to Christ, there, as providential?

Edited August 31, 2014 by saemo

[Calm]

I think you misunderstood him.

If you read the rest of his posts it is clear he has faith the Church will weather this set of in his opinion bad popes and other leaders, learn from their mistakes, listen to God and move back on course connecting with/anchoring in the past as appropriate as has happened in the past....

50ish years is just a blip in over 2000 after all.

[mfbukowski]

As this thread seems to be winding down, for my fellow Catholics Bart and saemo, my fellow former Catholics Christ Knight and mfbukowski, and any others who may be interested, I hope I will not be begrudged a final point or two to be made favoring the use of the use of Latin in the liturgy and official documents of the Catholic Church. I have been here about eleven years without having this discussion. I don't want to lose what might be an opportunity that doesn't come along again for a while!

 

First, is that of course I appreciate the desire to understand what is being said. As the Apostle Paul remarks to the church at Corinth, regarding those who speak in supernatural tongues in the Church, however wonderful are the words, they are of limited value if they are unintelligible to the listener. Be assured everyone understands that. But what if there were good reasons to try to understand and even learn a little, this language which at one time was vernacular, but has for many centuries been a truly dead language, unused by any except the Catholic Church? With all of the helps that are available, Latin is not difficult to understand translated into our own languages. Since the European languages derive to a great extent from the Latin, one will have increased comprehension of one's own native tongue from even a superficial acquaintance with some of the commonest Latin terms. So first I must say again that I have never known anyone who appreciates the reasons in favor of Latin, who would be ambivalent about whether the faithful could understand. No. It is essential that the faithful understand. 

 

The Catholic Church has not endured for nearly 2,000 years by failing to regard her position in time and history. The Church believes it will endure until Christ returns at the end of the world. She cannot afford for very long, to forget that She does not have the luxury of embracing the novel policies and ideas of the moment. She must look far into the past as well as in to the future. I came across an interesting comment about why the Church has been wise in making the Latin language such an integral part of trying to communicate its hopeful and joyful precepts to a world that doesn't ordinarily know Latin, going so far as to even insist that the prayers of the Mass always be said in that language, until less than fifty years ago:

 

"The fact that Latin is a dead language is in its favor: It is the best means of protecting the expression of faith against linguistic changes which take place naturally in the course of time...Semantics investigates changes in the meaning of words, the gradual shift of signification in the passage of time and often over very short periods. Let us make use of this branch of knowledge, therefore, to understand the danger of handing over the deposit of faith to changing ways of speaking. Do you believe that we could have kept intangible, eternal truths free of corruption for two thousand years if they were expressed in languages that are constantly evolving and differ from one country and even one region to another? Living languages change and fluctuate. If we put the liturgy into any one of them at any time, we will have to be continually adapting according to semantic requirements." (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Angelus Press 1986, Abp. Marcel Lefebvre)

 

Its being "dead" assures that Latin meanings remain the same until Christ returns if it takes 10,000 years. Whatever argument anyone has for a vernacular Mass today, we can be certain, that our grandchildren in a thousand years will not be able to understand today's vernacular liturgy. Committees will be necessary to keep constant oversight in each country and in each language to assure that every translation remains up to date. When after 40 years, the translations of the vernacular liturgies in many countries still haven't managed to get "pro multis" or "et cum spiritu tuo" correct, it seems like an unmanageable project. It will create an administrative nightmare as the times arrive when the original vernaculars (which even now are not completely satisfactory copies of the originals) become not defective because of the problems of translating alone, but also because the liturgical language has already changed and slipped into obsolescence! If we faithful Catholics will as we must, take a long view of the life of the Church, how can we believe it is a good idea that all of these vernacular liturgies are going to be requiring this constant oversight as theological precision is continuously eroded by linguistic evolution until Christ returns?

 

We can not afford to think only of ourselves in the 20th and 21st Centuries. We have to consider the next two thousand years. Will succeeding generations thank us for making them the heirs of a liturgy that is a virtual "babel" of multitudinous tongues. I recall that when God wanted to separate the people in Genesis, He divided them by giving them a multiplicity of tongues at the Tower of Babel. And what happens on Pentecost Sunday? The Holy Ghost comes and supernaturally unites the people to where they all understood one another linguistically. What the supernatural gift of tongues did in the Church supernaturally, the Latin language does in the Church naturally. What kind of parish life is it when you need a Spanish Mass at 9, a Vietnamese Mass at 10, and an English Mass at 11? You have three parishes, not one. The people don't mix as they should; they are practically separated by the language barrier, when in Christ we are supposed to be one. It is better when all to go to Mass together, without regard for the language preferred.

 

Are we as uplifted by a rote telling of Gospel truths in the simplest and often colloquialized language we hear while riding the bus, sitting in the doctor's office, or turning on the radio? I submit that an additional reason for retaining an official liturgical language, that requires a little bit more effort to understand is so that even if someone is present who doesn't understand precisely what is being said, they will come away with the correct idea that something elevated, mysterious, and perhaps transcendent was discussed. To use the language to which we are accustomed when listening to stock reports and ball scores is not becoming to the supernatural truth claims of the Lord Jesus Christ at Holy Mass. If the children do not understand the words, they will see many others applying themselves, turning pages and placing ribbons in their missals. That will be a greater lesson to the next generation than hearing elevated truths clothed in everyday language. Why are these people making this effort? It must be something important to them. "Daddy, could I have that missal for kids that I saw in the bookstore for my birthday?"

 

As I said, I appreciate wanting to understand. I even appreciate wanting to easily understand. I am merely explaining why those of us who favor Latin, do so. It isn't that we are oblivious to the difficulty that Latin presents to the faithful. It is that the benefits of Latin, especially over the course of the life of the Church, are well-rewarded and worth the slight obstacle that it can present to those who can't quite appreciate why anyone would want to use a language that nobody even speaks anymore.  

 

Thanks for your consideration.

 

3DOP

Bravissimo!

 

You could not be more right and consistent with your views in this analysis of the role of language in religious parlance.  The only way, in my opinion, Catholicism can be preserved is precisely in the way you have indicated- the return of Latin and the return of ancient liturgies. Otherwise it's all over.

 

There is huge mystical power in the Latin mass, which really is a-linguistic, if that is even a word.  There is something in the experience of a believer adoring his creator in an ancient tongue with an ancient ritual which cannot be matched anywhere else in Christianity.  There is real power in the experience.  My idol Wittgenstein was arguably a life-long "closet" Catholic, I think precisely for this reason. 

 

The experience stimulates, I think, direct revelation which is non-verbal.  Joseph used a seer-stone, and he used ancient papyri to receive his revelations.  I think it is perfectly reasonable that one use the experience of the mass to also stimulate direct revelation.

 

The only place we differ I think, and have always thought, is in our expression of what the word "truth" means- what the linguistic description leads us to believe about the relationship between God and humanity.   I don't like Catholic descriptions of God, and for better or worse, that is about the best description of our differences I can come up with.

 

For me it's all really poetry anyway.  Some people like Walt Whitman, some hate him.  For me, it is impossible to describe God "correctly" so in the long run, I suppose we can have a chat about it some day sitting on a cloud.

 

But of course Mormonism works much better for my mental processes, and I know for a fact this is where my Creator wants me.  Your experience may differ, Brother Rory 

[saemo]

The way I understand it, is liturgy is a part of Sacred Tradition.

“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority [import] of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

[3DOP]

I can see the point about the meaning of the Latin language not changing since it is a dead language, but in your first quote you mention three things that in the Latin Mass (is that the right name?) that are in the vernacular.  If these parts are in the vernacular how does the Latin Mass solve the problem of people being separated by language?  Do you just do the Mass in Latin and English and to heck with the Spanish and Vietnamese speakers?

 

 

There is still a language barrier, except for the prayers of the Mass. But that is a wonderful unifier. We kneel before God together, we stand before God together, and we pray in the same Latin together even if we can't have a conversation with each other. We do everything possible to be as one. It is an important bond between different cultures and different languages. We cannot have a sermon in Latin, and it would be stupid to announce in Latin that so and so was going to be buried on Thursday, and to announce in Latin that there would be a meeting of the Altar Society between the Masses next Sunday. Everybody of every language understands that sermons and announcements have to be in vernacular.

 

I have never left the United States, but I am told that it is very comforting to go anywhere in the world, even sometimes strange and exotic places, but go to Mass and hear the priest begin with: Introibo ad altare Dei. That has to be amazing. If I were in Saigon or Nairobi or even Berlin and heard those words, I can't tell you how it would give me a feeling of knowing that even though I might be on the other side of the world, everything was A-Okay. God is in His Heaven, and He is looking at me and I am home, and I am for these moments united with these people of different races and cultures in worshipping the same God the same way as many of our ancestors have for many hundreds of years. But thinking about it now, it isn't just about unity of place either. It also unites us in time with our Fathers before us who we know were nourished and who also responded with a hearty "Habemus ad Dominum" when the priest encouraged them to "Sursum corda". Fr. Faber is the author of many 19th Century hymns that have often been adapted to Protestant use. Faith of Our Fathers is one of them. Its kind of amusing now to look back at how they changed his words to mean something he never would have meant. One thing he did say that they have never tried to adapt is this: that the Tridentine Latin Mass of the Catholic Church is "the most beautiful thing this side of heaven." 

 

I conceded and still do that I would rather, if I were forced to make a choice, to have the Old Mass in the vernacular than the New Mass in Latin. Latin isn't everything. But that doesn't mean it can be scrapped without a loss of much that seems to be completely unappreciated these days. If after serious consideration of the reasons offered for using Latin through all of the centuries, and weighing the pros and cons, one can't at least understand why the Church retained Latin for so long, I can only think they are being deliberately obtuse. The Church has always been solicitous for her children to understand what was happening. Even In the days before people were literate, and missals weren't as readily available, the Church instituted the use of bells as a signal to the faithful that critical moments were now occurring. Anyway, nobody is saying "to heck with anybody". The use of one ancient liturgical language is not for the purpose of excluding anyone, rather it is closer to trying include everyone. 

[saemo]

I can see the point about the meaning of the Latin language not changing since it is a dead language, but in your first quote you mention three things that in the Latin Mass (is that the right name?) that are in the vernacular. If these parts are in the vernacular how does the Latin Mass solve the problem of people being separated by language? Do you just do the Mass in Latin and English and to heck with the Spanish and Vietnamese speakers?

The liturgy is comprised of several distinct rites. The only-Latin argument mainly focuses on the Liturgy of the Eucharist and in particular the Eucharistic Prayer. The Liturgy of the Word is where 3DOP sited vernacular usage as acceptable. Other prayers and the readings will sometimes alternate in languages, depending on the Mass and who are there. For example, my parish is both English and Spanish. The English Mass is in English, entirely, and the Spanish Mass is entirely Spanish. But we have certain Masses throughout the year that are bilingual, except the Liturgy of the Eucharist, which is always in one language, either English or Spanish.

My parish retains the tradition of ringing the bells at the Institution, regardless of what language is being used.

Edited September 1, 2014 by saemo

[3DOP]

3DOP, when you said you'd go Mormon rather than stay Catholic (unless I misunderstood you), then is when I came to believe that excommunication was warranted.

What drew me to Catholicism is the understanding that the Church is Christ's and that He does not abandon His Bride. History shows us the truth of this, in the midst of a history that includes "bad popes", the Spirit guides the Church to all truth.

So what if today is dismal to you? It is obvious the future generations, us, of bad times past continue the pilgrim journey.

My view is, either you believe Christ is present in His Church and ever leads Her on Her pilgrim journey, or you don't. Real and perceived evil of course must be confessed, and behavior changed to true discipleship. Sin is in us all, and it is the primary reason the Church teaches that the Church is both human and divine. Despair is a sin, itself.

The Church is growing fastest in Africa, whose languages are not related or heavily borrowed from Latin. Perhaps our missions in Africa view the vernacular for bringing people to Christ, there, as providential?

 

Hi saemo. I do say stuff like that...but it is supposed to be obvious that I am so far from becoming Mormon, yet, I am even farther from something else.

 

If I recollect, I said I could sooner be Mormon, than try to defend a Catholic faith that didn't get ecumenism or religious liberty right, and also hated Jews until 1965. I said that that was way too late to be finally getting it right with regards to such questions. That is way too long to be wrong about things, and to be canonizing kings, and prelates and theologians who supported policies and contradicted Vatican II. How do you canonize a king who made Catholicism the state religion, and then turn around and say that was wrong? I don't know how to do that. Yeah, I could sooner believe in an apostasy than try to have a "hermeneutic of continuity" that looks like that! But as it happens, that is your problem, not mine if you treat Vatican II like every other Council before it. I accept what the Church taught before 1965 and I have it on the highest authority, the pope himself, Paul VI, who affirmed that Vatican II defined no new dogma. If that is true, then nothing has changed and I can rely on Pius XI for ecumenism, Pius X for modernism, Pius IX for religious liberty, and continue to believe that a Jew who rejects Christ is in no better position by virtue of his ethnicity than anybody else. 

 

If you don't mind, for sake of time, rather than writing everything out, I think a lot of what I said to a friend some time back, apparently before the summer of 2007, named Dave, still explains my conscience on this matter. If you don't read anything else, ponder the papal quotes that are bolded. (The last quote is by Cardinal Ratzinger before his elevation to the papacy. It is bolded as well.)  At the end, I even speak to the question you raise regarding my excommunication!

 

__________________________________

 

1) "Differing from other councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral."

 

Pope Paul VI, General Audience of August 6, 1975, To the rectors of the Universities of the Society of Jesus

 

2) "Today we are concluding the Second Vatican Council...But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements..."

 

Pope Paul VI, Address of the last general meeting of the Council, Dec. 7, 1965

 

3) "There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in any extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility."

 

Pope Paul VI, General Audience of Dec. 1, 1966

 

4) "Taking into account conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present council, the sacred synod defined as binding on the Church only those matters of faith and morals which it has expressly put forward as such."

 

Addendum of Nov. 16, 1964 (alluded to by Paul VI above) in the Explanatory Note to Lumen Gentium. A little commentary might be helpful here. Many of the council fathers were wary of some of theological ambiguity that characterized the volumes of words with which they had to deal. You can read about this in The Rhine Flows Through the Tiber, by Fr. Ralph Wiltgen. Earlier councils were written with the concise brevity and clarity that characterizes your writing Dave. Your writing is easy to analyze. It is easy to know if you agree or disagree, and it is the kind of writing that is required in an infallible pronouncement. Of what use is an infallible pronouncement that is subject to multiple interpretations?

 

So, some of the more conservative council fathers, before signing off on Lumen Gentium, wanted to make certain that they weren't signing off on something that could be said to be binding on the Church. In response they were directed to a document written four months previously to Lumen Gentium, that applied not only to that document, but to the entire council. It can be misleading seeing it is now seen as an explanatory note to Lumen Gentium, but a careful reading of the whole explanation will reveal that it applied to all of the Council teachings. That would be why Paul VI cited that explanatory note when qualifying the teaching authority of the entire Council in his audience of Dec. 1, 1966.

 

It seems to me to be at least very doubtful about whether Paul VI intended to proclaim Vatican II to be proclaiming infallible teachings. Subsequently, many conservative Catholics have taken a position which doesn't take into consideration the distinct difference drawn between Vatican II and all previous ecumenical councils by its promulgator, Pope Paul VI. The problem is that those Catholics who have recognized the liberty we have to question the fallible teachings of the Council, have been so attacked and maligned by the liberal bishops who predominate in the episcopal conferences, that we have been demoted to an at best irregular status in the Church, while many or most are convinced we are excommunicated and in schism. It is the saddest story, and upon hearing it and understanding it, recognizing that we are not bound to accept fallible teachings, I gained a clear conscience in associating myself with faithful Catholics who in their own ironic way, are much more liberal than those who malign them. Those in the majority cannot perceive of any development in the Catholic understanding of an ecumenical council. They seem unwilling to even comment upon the statements of Paul VI, or the history of a Council where it seems like many of the documents were only accepted with the assurance that they were NOT infallible.

 

One of the young "periti", (episcopal advisers) at the Council has commented very clearly, it seems to me, in concurrence with what I have tried to propose in regards to Paul VI and the fallible teachings of Vatican II. In 1988, amidst the hair pulling which accompanied the decision of Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate the four bishops against the wishes of the Holy Father (one of whom has since ridden in my car to the airport and asked me all manner of questions about Mount St. Helens!), Josef Cardinal Ratzinger spoke disappointedly about the events but with charity and forthcoming candor about the rupture between the Society of St. Pius X and Rome to the assembled bishops of Chile on July 13, 1988. Without condoning the consecrations, he was very sympathetic with some of the reasons why so many good Catholics were being drawn toward the Society's point of view. In regard to our present question, the dogmatic authority of Vatican II, he said this: "The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."

   

There's the rub David. Forget about the liberty to question. The "Conciliar Church" doesn't even recognize the liberty to insist that Vatican II reconcile itself with Catholic Tradition. Instead, Vatican II has somehow become the "New Tradition" by which every other tradition must be judged! And that is why, in my opinion, because of his unwillingness to acknowledge the "superdogma", as Cardinal Ratzinger called it, Archbishop Lefebvre, the priests he ordained, and his seminarians were persecuted into a state of necessity. A state of necessity, according to John Paul II's 1983 Code of Canon Law, arguably grants a bishop the right to consecrate bishops apart from papal permission. I say arguably, but twenty years later, no ecclesiastical court has ever been held to try the case. Instead, Rome hangs on to John Paul's declaration that the four and Archbishop Lefebvre were excommunicated latae sententiae, by virtue of the act. Unless it is latae sententiae, there is no excommunication. They were never tried, and in keeping with John Paul's unwillingness to exercise his disciplinary authority, he never used his own keys to declare by virtue of his office, the excommunication. That is why I consider it very doubtful that the bishops are lawfully excommunicated and certain that I am not.       

 

Rory

 

PS: You may access the entire talk given by Cardinal Ratzinger by googling "Ratzinger Chilean Bishops".

Edited September 1, 2014 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

saemo

What drew me to Catholicism is the understanding that the Church is Christ's and that He does not abandon His Bride. History shows us the truth of this, in the midst of a history that includes "bad popes", the Spirit guides the Church to all truth.

 

3DOP

I wouldn't take that from you saemo. I concur. I look with amazement in the Gospel to see the Holy Family receiving the authoritative rites of the Levitical priesthood, which was never lost through all the crazy "apostasies" of the Old testament. And then we are informed that the New Covenant is made upon even better promises!

 

saemo
So what if today is dismal to you? It is obvious the future generations, us, of bad times past continue the pilgrim journey.

 

3DOP

If today were dismal to me, I would talk about it. Today is great and everyday with Christ and His Church seems better than the day before. I am the happiest man I know, although I am sure somebody else is happier. Heheh. I care about the Church and the glory of God and I see my children doing well and loving the Church, and I can only chuckle at the suggestion that perhaps I am depressed about things. I am filled with every hope, based on the solemn promises of our Lord Jesus Christ that Christ's Bride will endure to the end of time. Does that make Vatican II correct when it contradicts Catholic Tradition? I don't see how my hope and my joy and my desire to glorify God are dependent on affirming novelties that give every indication of being dead vines.

 

Yeah, my son is in the SSPX Seminary in the U.S. Assuredly that makes me biased. But he sure wasn't going to seminary when we were in the Novus Ordo. We were driving forty miles past a great many parishes, and even went into another archdiocese to go to a conservative Novus Ordo. Most conservatives won't go to their neighborhood parish. Its not me that proves that the Church is in crisis. That fact proves the emergency in the Church. Anyway, we moved when a priest at this "conservative parish" started hassling our youngest boy because he was being too solemn when he served Mass. He was told to smile and instead of genuflecting before Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar, he needed to do this thing he called a bow, which seemed more like a slight bob of the head kind of like I give on the road when I meet a fellow truck driver. 

 

We left at a critical moment for our family. Young people don't seem to stay very much in the New Mass. They go to college and then...the statistics are just terrible. In our little chapel of less than 300 people, which includes a bazillion babies and little ones, we have three young men considering the priesthood. Two are in the seminary already, and one appears ready to start next year. I guess you guys have a trickle of vocations. I dunno. Jesus said we could recognize the tree by its fruits. If we had made the switch, as we did, and all our kids just hated it, and went to the devil, I could maybe reconsider my decision. But they are doing so wonderfully. A deputy sheriff who goes to the Traditional Mass with his wife and baby. A mom happily married to a former seminarian who is more of a hardliner than me! And with all that we might end up being the parents of a priest! Sometimes I think my heart will burst with joy. God is so good...and I believe all of His promises for His Holy Catholic Church with all of my heart. But it isn't going to make me think I need to go back to that priest who was hassling my "seminary boy" because he sensed the need to genuflect and avoid grinning during Mass. I can't do that when it is the popes of the Council who give me the ammo I need to question the Council!

 

I accept the Council. And I accept it as the popes have given it. I reject the Council as it has been received by 99% of the bishops and in the way it has been presented to the faithful and in the way it has ravaged and sterilized God's Vineyard. But I am here to say that the Holy Ghost is still calling people to God's service. 
 

saemo

My view is, either you believe Christ is present in His Church and ever leads Her on Her pilgrim journey, or you don't. Real and perceived evil of course must be confessed, and behavior changed to true discipleship. Sin is in us all, and it is the primary reason the Church teaches that the Church is both human and divine. Despair is a sin, itself.

 

3DOP

To be theologically precise, despair is a sin only if the despair has to do with its opposite virtue in relation to our salvation. It is okay to despair about whether Washington State can beat Oregon in football this year. It is also okay to not have hope that the Novus Ordo is going to all of a sudden start blooming with the fruits of the New Springtime that Pope John Paul kept talking about. Hope in a lost cause is not a virtue, and despair, giving in to the inevitable is okay when whatever is being considered, is impossible. But of course, as long as we are alive, we should not despair of God's grace and His loving concern to save us and love us and give us His divine nature and make us brothers and sisters of His only begotten Son, and adopted children,and heirs of the kingdom of God and all of the promises that go with that. But to despair of Cardinal Kasper's ideas about how the Jews are saved by the Old Covenant? Yeah, count me guilty of despair. I despair of thinking that this synod on the family that's coming in October can change the eternal truths about marriage once and forever that could ever make it okay for one who wouldn't even go to the trouble of trying to get an annulment to admit to divorce and remarriage while the spouse lives, and still receive communion in a state of grace. I despair about that. I despair of having any hope in that and every other whacko novelty that Catholics had always rejected until 1965.  
 

saemo

The Church is growing fastest in Africa, whose languages are not related or heavily borrowed from Latin. Perhaps our missions in Africa view the vernacular for bringing people to Christ, there, as providential?

 

3DOP

I have stated the case for Latin which I think has a fairly universal application. I don't hold that it has always been necessarily the best policy. When St. Francis Xavier and the Jesuits went to China, it was at about the same time that the Franciscans went to the New World. Of course, there was marvelous success in both hemispheres. The Franciscans transmitted the faith by means of the Latin liturgy. It is a long story, but the Jesuits in the Far East devised a Chinese liturgy that they presented to one of the popes, I don't know who. They argued that the Chinese had an ancient civilization and a venerable language that merited a liturgy of its own to more easily evangelise the people. The pope consulted the Franciscans who were adamant about how successfully they had used Latin among the tribal people of the Americas. He took what was perhaps the safer route, and decided to insist on Latin for the Chinese.

 

In retrospect, and without being very critical, I tend to think it would have been prudent to allow the Far East a liturgy in some kind of Far Eastern language. . As things played out, it seems like Christianity in the Far East might have fared much better, have seemed less foreign to those peoples, if they could have had the Mass in their own tongue. I am not just for Latin for Latin's sake. There might be reasons to use something else.

 

Abp. Lefbvre was the Apostolic delegate for the entire continent of Africa. He gave his reports to Pope Pius XII every year. He was the Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers who had over 5,000 missionaries, training the African people using the Latin Rite liturgy. He started seminaries (just like the one that got him into such hot water in the 70's!) and ordained and consecrated many new African priests and bishops, some of whom are still with us today. But in my opinion, China and Japan were different than Africa with regards to their language. It is easy to say now, but I lean towards the Jesuits for China and the Franciscan for America without trying to compare the one with the other. I join you in being pleased that Africa remains responsive to the message of Christ's Gospel.

Edited September 1, 2014 by 3DOP

[saemo]

saemo

What drew me to Catholicism is the understanding that the Church is Christ's and that He does not abandon His Bride. History shows us the truth of this, in the midst of a history that includes "bad popes", the Spirit guides the Church to all truth.

3DOP

I wouldn't take that from you saemo. I concur. I look with amazement in the Gospel to see the Holy Family receiving the authoritative rites of the Levitical priesthood, which was never lost through all the crazy "apostasies" of the Old testament. And then we are informed that the New Covenant is made upon even better promises!

saemo

So what if today is dismal to you? It is obvious the future generations, us, of bad times past continue the pilgrim journey.

3DOP

If today were dismal to me, I would talk about it. Today is great and everyday with Christ and His Church seems better than the day before. I am the happiest man I know, although I am sure somebody else is happier. Heheh. I care about the Church and the glory of God and I see my children doing well and loving the Church, and I can only chuckle at the suggestion that perhaps I am depressed about things. I am filled with every hope, based on the solemn promises of our Lord Jesus Christ that Christ's Bride will endure to the end of time. Does that make Vatican II correct when it contradicts Catholic Tradition? I don't see how my hope and my joy and my desire to glorify God are dependent on affirming novelties that give every indication of being dead vines.

Yeah, my son is in the SSPX Seminary in the U.S. Assuredly that makes me biased. But he sure wasn't going to seminary when we were in the Novus Ordo. We were driving forty miles past a great many parishes, and even went into another archdiocese to go to a conservative Novus Ordo. Most conservatives won't go to their neighborhood parish. Its not me that proves that the Church is in crisis. That fact proves the emergency in the Church. Anyway, we moved when a priest at this "conservative parish" started hassling our youngest boy because he was being too solemn when he served Mass. He was told to smile and instead of genuflecting before Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar, he needed to do this thing he called a bow, which seemed more like a slight bob of the head kind of like I give on the road when I meet a fellow truck driver.

We left at a critical moment for our family. Young people don't seem to stay very much in the New Mass. They go to college and then...the statistics are just terrible. In our little chapel of less than 300 people, which includes a bazillion babies and little ones, we have three young men considering the priesthood. Two are in the seminary already, and one appears ready to start next year. I guess you guys have a trickle of vocations. I dunno. Jesus said we could recognize the tree by its fruits. If we had made the switch, as we did, and all our kids just hated it, and went to the devil, I could maybe reconsider my decision. But they are doing so wonderfully. A deputy sheriff who goes to the Traditional Mass with his wife and baby. A mom happily married to a former seminarian who is more of a hardliner than me! And with all that we might end up being the parents of a priest! Sometimes I think my heart will burst with joy. God is so good...and I believe all of His promises for His Holy Catholic Church with all of my heart. But it isn't going to make me think I need to go back to that priest who was hassling my "seminary boy" because he sensed the need to genuflect and avoid grinning during Mass. I can't do that when it is the popes of the Council who give me the ammo I need to question the Council!

I accept the Council. And I accept it as the popes have given it. I reject the Council as it has been received by 99% of the bishops and in the way it has been presented to the faithful and in the way it has ravaged and sterilized God's Vineyard. But I am here to say that the Holy Ghost is still calling people to God's service.

saemo

My view is, either you believe Christ is present in His Church and ever leads Her on Her pilgrim journey, or you don't. Real and perceived evil of course must be confessed, and behavior changed to true discipleship. Sin is in us all, and it is the primary reason the Church teaches that the Church is both human and divine. Despair is a sin, itself.

3DOP

To be theologically precise, despair is a sin only if the despair has to do with its opposite virtue in relation to our salvation. It is okay to despair about whether Washington State can beat Oregon in football this year. It is also okay to not have hope that the Novus Ordo is going to all of a sudden start blooming with the fruits of the New Springtime that Pope John Paul kept talking about. Hope in a lost cause is not a virtue, and despair, giving in to the inevitable is okay when whatever is being considered, is impossible. But of course, as long as we are alive, we should not despair of God's grace and His loving concern to save us and love us and give us His divine nature and make us brothers and sisters of His only begotten Son, and adopted children,and heirs of the kingdom of God and all of the promises that go with that. But to despair of Cardinal Kasper's ideas about how the Jews are saved by the Old Covenant? Yeah, count me guilty of despair. I despair of thinking that this synod on the family that's coming in October can change the eternal truths about marriage once and forever that could ever make it okay for one who wouldn't even go to the trouble of trying to get an annulment to admit to divorce and remarriage while the spouse lives, and still receive communion in a state of grace. I despair about that. I despair of having any hope in that and every other whacko novelty that Catholics had always rejected until 1965.

saemo

The Church is growing fastest in Africa, whose languages are not related or heavily borrowed from Latin. Perhaps our missions in Africa view the vernacular for bringing people to Christ, there, as providential?

3DOP

I have stated the case for Latin which I think has a fairly universal application. I don't hold that it has always been necessarily the best policy. When St. Francis Xavier and the Jesuits went to China, it was at about the same time that the Franciscans went to the New World. Of course, there was marvelous success in both hemispheres. The Franciscans transmitted the faith by means of the Latin liturgy. It is a long story, but the Jesuits in the Far East devised a Chinese liturgy that they presented to one of the popes, I don't know who. They argued that the Chinese had an ancient civilization and a venerable language that merited a liturgy of its own to more easily evangelise the people. The pope consulted the Franciscans who were adamant about how successfully they had used Latin among the tribal people of the Americas. He took what was perhaps the safer route, and decided to insist on Latin for the Chinese.

In retrospect, and without being very critical, I tend to think it would have been prudent to allow the Far East a liturgy in some kind of Far Eastern language. . As things played out, it seems like Christianity in the Far East might have fared much better, have seemed less foreign to those peoples, if they could have had the Mass in their own tongue. I am not just for Latin for Latin's sake. There might be reasons to use something else.

Abp. Lefbvre was the Apostolic delegate for the entire continent of Africa. He gave his reports to Pope Pius XII every year. He was the Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers who had over 5,000 missionaries, training the African people using the Latin Rite liturgy. He started seminaries (just like the one that got him into such hot water in the 70's!) and ordained and consecrated many new African priests and bishops, some of whom are still with us today. But in my opinion, China and Japan were different than Africa with regards to their language. It is easy to say now, but I lean towards the Jesuits for China and the Franciscan for America without trying to compare the one with the other. I join you in being pleased that Africa remains responsive to the message of Christ's Gospel.

Thanks 3DOP,

I know the theological meaning of despair, and used it in that way.

If you see the Church as suffering, I can't say I agree the Catholic response is to remove oneself from suffering.

We remembered today, in the prayer intentions at Mass, James Folley. A devout Roman Catholic by his own confession, and by a witness to his torture in captivity, he was subjected to a mock crucifixion because of his faith. Why do his parents say they have never been prouder of him? Because of his witness to the faith, in the fact that he entered into the suffering of the Syrian people in order to expose it, and in turn, suffered with them. His parents are proud of his witness for Christ.

It is this type of example that I view as the fruits of the church. Archbp Oscar Romero, whose writings I fell in love with during my conversion, because of his witness for the faith is another.

But I understand, when it comes to our kids, things become different. I get it.

But I still think viewing Latin as a sacred language, and the Church becoming ineffective without it, as not supported by tradition. Almost superstitious to what I'm hearing. It is not magic, or magic language, from where the Sacraments flow, it is from the Holy Spirit. I see the working of the Holy Spirit in the Church I entered, as a stranger in a strange land, who didn't know the language or the customs. The language of the Church is strange, and unknown, to any with a background like mine, and that is saying so while studying and hearing all there is, in English.

I don't know that I would have been able to enter the strange world of Catholicism, if Mass had been in Latin. It is a what if kind of thinking, but I can say, this is where God led me, and I am a fruit of a post Vatican II Church. Not in the form of, how cool am I, but as a witness for the Holy Spirit who brought me to Christ from atheism.

Edited September 1, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

I think you misunderstood him.

If you read the rest of his posts it is clear he has faith the Church will weather this set of in his opinion bad popes and other leaders, learn from their mistakes, listen to God and move back on course connecting with/anchoring in the past as appropriate as has happened in the past....

50ish years is just a blip in over 2000 after all.

Perhaps, but Catholicism is not an individualistic kind of religion. If a view of wandering must be taken, then it must be taken in the view of communion, as the People of God. If the People God, Israel, wandered together for forty years, so too do the People of God, the Church. The idea that you break away, in order to achieve communion, is so upside down of a way for a Catholic to think, I don't know how one can even grasp the idea, let alone build a whole life around it.

[saemo]

Hi saemo. I do say stuff like that...but it is supposed to be obvious that I am so far from becoming Mormon, yet, I am even farther from something else.

If I recollect, I said I could sooner be Mormon, than try to defend a Catholic faith that didn't get ecumenism or religious liberty right, and also hated Jews until 1965. I said that that was way too late to be finally getting it right with regards to such questions. That is way too long to be wrong about things, and to be canonizing kings, and prelates and theologians who supported policies and contradicted Vatican II. How do you canonize a king who made Catholicism the state religion, and then turn around and say that was wrong? I don't know how to do that. Yeah, I could sooner believe in an apostasy than try to have a "hermeneutic of continuity" that looks like that! But as it happens, that is your problem, not mine if you treat Vatican II like every other Council before it. I accept what the Church taught before 1965 and I have it on the highest authority, the pope himself, Paul VI, who affirmed that Vatican II defined no new dogma. If that is true, then nothing has changed and I can rely on Pius XI for ecumenism, Pius X for modernism, Pius IX for religious liberty, and continue to believe that a Jew who rejects Christ is in no better position by virtue of his ethnicity than anybody else.

If you don't mind, for sake of time, rather than writing everything out, I think a lot of what I said to a friend some time back, apparently before the summer of 2007, named Dave, still explains my conscience on this matter. If you don't read anything else, ponder the papal quotes that are bolded. (The last quote is by Cardinal Ratzinger before his elevation to the papacy. It is bolded as well.) At the end, I even speak to the question you raise regarding my excommunication!

__________________________________

1) "Differing from other councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral."

Pope Paul VI, General Audience of August 6, 1975, To the rectors of the Universities of the Society of Jesus

2) "Today we are concluding the Second Vatican Council...But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements..."

Pope Paul VI, Address of the last general meeting of the Council, Dec. 7, 1965

3) "There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in any extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility."

Pope Paul VI, General Audience of Dec. 1, 1966

4) "Taking into account conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present council, the sacred synod defined as binding on the Church only those matters of faith and morals which it has expressly put forward as such."

Addendum of Nov. 16, 1964 (alluded to by Paul VI above) in the Explanatory Note to Lumen Gentium. A little commentary might be helpful here. Many of the council fathers were wary of some of theological ambiguity that characterized the volumes of words with which they had to deal. You can read about this in The Rhine Flows Through the Tiber, by Fr. Ralph Wiltgen. Earlier councils were written with the concise brevity and clarity that characterizes your writing Dave. Your writing is easy to analyze. It is easy to know if you agree or disagree, and it is the kind of writing that is required in an infallible pronouncement. Of what use is an infallible pronouncement that is subject to multiple interpretations?

So, some of the more conservative council fathers, before signing off on Lumen Gentium, wanted to make certain that they weren't signing off on something that could be said to be binding on the Church. In response they were directed to a document written four months previously to Lumen Gentium, that applied not only to that document, but to the entire council. It can be misleading seeing it is now seen as an explanatory note to Lumen Gentium, but a careful reading of the whole explanation will reveal that it applied to all of the Council teachings. That would be why Paul VI cited that explanatory note when qualifying the teaching authority of the entire Council in his audience of Dec. 1, 1966.

It seems to me to be at least very doubtful about whether Paul VI intended to proclaim Vatican II to be proclaiming infallible teachings. Subsequently, many conservative Catholics have taken a position which doesn't take into consideration the distinct difference drawn between Vatican II and all previous ecumenical councils by its promulgator, Pope Paul VI. The problem is that those Catholics who have recognized the liberty we have to question the fallible teachings of the Council, have been so attacked and maligned by the liberal bishops who predominate in the episcopal conferences, that we have been demoted to an at best irregular status in the Church, while many or most are convinced we are excommunicated and in schism. It is the saddest story, and upon hearing it and understanding it, recognizing that we are not bound to accept fallible teachings, I gained a clear conscience in associating myself with faithful Catholics who in their own ironic way, are much more liberal than those who malign them. Those in the majority cannot perceive of any development in the Catholic understanding of an ecumenical council. They seem unwilling to even comment upon the statements of Paul VI, or the history of a Council where it seems like many of the documents were only accepted with the assurance that they were NOT infallible.

One of the young "periti", (episcopal advisers) at the Council has commented very clearly, it seems to me, in concurrence with what I have tried to propose in regards to Paul VI and the fallible teachings of Vatican II. In 1988, amidst the hair pulling which accompanied the decision of Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate the four bishops against the wishes of the Holy Father (one of whom has since ridden in my car to the airport and asked me all manner of questions about Mount St. Helens!), Josef Cardinal Ratzinger spoke disappointedly about the events but with charity and forthcoming candor about the rupture between the Society of St. Pius X and Rome to the assembled bishops of Chile on July 13, 1988. Without condoning the consecrations, he was very sympathetic with some of the reasons why so many good Catholics were being drawn toward the Society's point of view. In regard to our present question, the dogmatic authority of Vatican II, he said this: "The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."

There's the rub David. Forget about the liberty to question. The "Conciliar Church" doesn't even recognize the liberty to insist that Vatican II reconcile itself with Catholic Tradition. Instead, Vatican II has somehow become the "New Tradition" by which every other tradition must be judged! And that is why, in my opinion, because of his unwillingness to acknowledge the "superdogma", as Cardinal Ratzinger called it, Archbishop Lefebvre, the priests he ordained, and his seminarians were persecuted into a state of necessity. A state of necessity, according to John Paul II's 1983 Code of Canon Law, arguably grants a bishop the right to consecrate bishops apart from papal permission. I say arguably, but twenty years later, no ecclesiastical court has ever been held to try the case. Instead, Rome hangs on to John Paul's declaration that the four and Archbishop Lefebvre were excommunicated latae sententiae, by virtue of the act. Unless it is latae sententiae, there is no excommunication. They were never tried, and in keeping with John Paul's unwillingness to exercise his disciplinary authority, he never used his own keys to declare by virtue of his office, the excommunication. That is why I consider it very doubtful that the bishops are lawfully excommunicated and certain that I am not.

Rory

PS: You may access the entire talk given by Cardinal Ratzinger by googling "Ratzinger Chilean Bishops".

Fine, I'm not going to argue what you believe you have worked out. For myself, I accept the concept of reaching back into tradition and using what is already there.

As for excommunication, that is between you and a Roman Catholic priest who has the authority to determine. I make that qualifier because last I heard, the status of SSPX is that their clergy do not have canonical authority.

Edited September 1, 2014 by saemo

[3DOP]

Fine, I'm not going to argue what you believe you have worked out. For myself, I accept the concept of reaching back into tradition and using what is already there.

As for excommunication, that is between you and a Roman Catholic priest who has the authority to determine. I make that qualifier because last I heard, the status of SSPX is that their clergy do not have canonical authority.

 

I never get any arguments when I show what the popes have said about Vatican II. It seems to be a problem for those who think they have to disagree with me, but at the same time they want to agree with the popes. At Catholic Answers, they just ban you and delete the posts.

[saemo]

The issue I see with SSPX is schism, which St. Augustine called a sin against charity. Breaking from the Church out of fear of contamination is the very definition of schism. Lefebvre broke communion. To me that ruins any doctrinal claim he will ever hope to make, and makes SSPX quoting of Popes not an end towards charity, but a means towards schism. I can be a catholic, not in schism, recognize discontinuity and have faith that we will be led through.

CAF is not in support of schismatics, and I've never seen where they would allow their website to be used for that purpose.

SSPX is agains ecumenism but that is the very thing being relied on for claiming valid Sacraments. Otherwise, if you are in schism pre Vatican II, that's it, you are in schism and excommunicated.

Edited September 1, 2014 by saemo

[3DOP]

Perhaps, but Catholicism is not an individualistic kind of religion. If a view of wandering must be taken, then it must be taken in the view of communion, as the People of God. If the People God, Israel, wandered together for forty years, so too do the People of God, the Church. The idea that you break away, in order to achieve communion, is so upside down of a way for a Catholic to think, I don't know how one can even grasp the idea, let alone build a whole life around it.

 

Who is advocating a break away? Not me. Are you going to follow this thing that is threatening where powerful prelates are trying to gain access to Holy Communion for divorced and remarried people?

 

For you Mormons, I speak of those who have living spouses. They are practicing adultery according to Catholic Tradition...until perhaps now. If the German and French bishops get their way, and they often do, the scenario will have the beknighted Catholics taking until the year of our Lord, 2014 to recognize what the Protestants, the Buddhists, the Communists, the Masons, the Rosicrucians, and Hollywood actors have always believed. We can divorce and remarry at will. Great. The Catholic Church, as always, is the last to get the word about the teachings that the rest of the world had nailed down for centuries. That won't make anybody think the Church is ridiculous, will it?   

 

I will not break away from the eternal and unchanging teachings of the Catholic Church. Neither bishop nor pope have the authority to even consider giving Communion to people who are living in adultery, and it is most uncharitable for them to do so. According to the constant teaching of the Church, Communion is either efficacious unto grace, or efficacious unto death. There is a very charitable reason why souls have always been discouraged from approaching the Lord's table if they are not properly disposed. Going back to St. Paul, we are told that many are sickly, and others are dead because of unworthily partaking of the Body of Christ.

 

I don't think these bishops even consider the possibility that the Holy Eucharist could be harmful to divorced and remarried people. I don't see how some of these bishops who advocate this could have the true faith in the Sacrament. If they did they would have some respect for Tradition. They would quake at the idea of being responsible for advocating sacrilege. Maybe this won't happen. But if it does, you will be considering me the break away Catholic? Because I am committed to following norms established from oh...33 AD to 2013 AD, I will be the one who is schismatic?

 

The issue I see with SSPX is schism, which St. Augustine called a sin against charity. Breaking from the Church out of fear of contamination is the very definition of schism.

CAF is not in support of schismatics, and I've never seen where they would allow their website to be used for that purpose.

 

Is it schismatic to believe what the popes said about Vatican II? I get the impression modern Catholics think Paul VI and the future Pope Benedict were both wrong. With regards to this critical question, who is breaking away from the Church?

[saemo]

SSPX quoting of Popes is not an end towards charity, but a means towards schism. I can be a catholic, not in schism, recognize discontinuity and have faith that we will be led through. Lefebvre broke communion. It is as simple as that, and that is who you follow. A quasi Pope? One person breaks communion cannot be argued that he is in communion...with himself? Self marooned and self proclaimed pope?

I find the more I read of SSPX arguments, the more I find quoting the current canon to support what is wanted while quoting current canon to support what is not wanted. It's like I just discovered the ultimate cafeteria Catholic.

Edited September 1, 2014 by saemo

[3DOP]

The issue I see with SSPX is schism, which St. Augustine called a sin against charity. Breaking from the Church out of fear of contamination is the very definition of schism. Lefebvre broke communion. To me that ruins any doctrinal claim he will ever hope to make.

CAF is not in support of schismatics, and I've never seen where they would allow their website to be used for that purpose.

SSPX is agains ecumenism but that is the very thing being relied on for claiming valid Sacraments. Otherwise, if you are in schism pre Vatican II, that's it, you are in schism and excommunicated.

 

Abp. Lefebvre was suspended in the 70's and 80's for what gained him elevation to the episcopate in the 40's and 50's. To be suspended is not the same as breaking communion. He carefully and prayerfully did what he thought was lawful according to the 1983 Code of Canon Law. He always sought a trial but none was ever given.

 

I wouldn't say the SSPX is against ecumenism. It is against an ecumenism that pretends that the Catholic Church is one among many equally valid religions.

 

As for valid Sacraments, the Catholic Church has always recognized the validity of the Sacraments of the Orthodox Churches. Excommunicated? Yes. In schism? Yes. Valid Sacraments? Yes.

 

You have heard about Leo XIII's investigation into the question of the validity of Anglican orders 400 years after the Anglicans had split. You don't understand Sacramental theology if you think that schism or excommunication invalidates the mere validity of a Sacrament. This is important. No wonder poor faithful Catholics who don't like the changes, are still afraid to do anything but obey obey obey. Go to crappy liturgies and sing insipid ballads while your kids look on bored to death in some ugly auditorium.

 

Anyway, why would Leo have questioned about Anglican orders in the 19th Century, if it is only the charity of modern ecumenism in 1965 that makes SSPX Sacraments valid? As it turns out he had to judge that if the Anglicans used the ordinal (the rite of priestly ordination) which was in place during his reign in the late 1800's from the time of the split with Rome, they would have valid orders because the form (words)was valid. Remember you have to have the proper form and matter. What is the matter? The laying on of the hands of a true bishop. 

 

But the problem was that historically there was a generation or two where they had observed an ordinal that didn't maintain the valid form. For that reason, and not because any schism, an entire generation of men were unordained. Even though they eventually reverted to a valid ordinal, it did them no good. Now there were no longer any "true bishops" to give the vaild matter and ordain a priest. So even if you don't agree about our position, please don't think that valid Sacraments depend on modern ecumenism. 

[saemo]

If it is going to be argued that Vatican II is pastoral not dogmatic, then helping Catholics through pastoral issues such as marriage should be viewed in the light of Vatican II not without it.

There is no continuity in SSPX arguments!

[saemo]

Abp. Lefebvre was suspended in the 70's and 80's for what gained him elevation to the episcopate in the 40's and 50's. To be suspended is not the same as breaking communion. He carefully and prayerfully did what he thought was lawful according to the 1983 Code of Canon Law. He always sought a trial but none was ever given.

 

I wouldn't say the SSPX is against ecumenism. It is against an ecumenism that pretends that the Catholic Church is one among many equally valid religions.

 

As for valid Sacraments, the Catholic Church has always recognized the validity of the Sacraments of the Orthodox Churches. Excommunicated? Yes. In schism? Yes. Valid Sacraments? Yes.

 

You have heard about Leo XIII's investigation into the question of the validity of Anglican orders 400 years after the Anglicans had split. You don't understand Sacramental theology if you think that schism or excommunication invalidates the mere validity of a Sacrament. This is important. No wonder poor faithful Catholics who don't like the changes, are still afraid to do anything but obey obey obey. Go to crappy liturgies and sing insipid ballads while your kids look on bored to death in some ugly auditorium.

 

Anyway, why would Leo have questioned about Anglican orders in the 19th Century, if it is only the charity of modern ecumenism in 1965 that makes SSPX Sacraments valid? As it turns out he had to judge that if the Anglicans used the ordinal (the rite of priestly ordination) which was in place during his reign in the late 1800's from the time of the split with Rome, they would have valid orders because the form (words)was valid. Remember you have to have the proper form and matter. What is the matter? The laying on of the hands of a true bishop. 

 

But the problem was that historically there was a generation or two where they had observed an ordinal that didn't maintain the valid form. For that reason, and not because any schism, an entire generation of men were unordained. Even though they eventually reverted to a valid ordinal, it did them no good. Now there were no longer any "true bishops" to give the vaild matter and ordain a priest. So even if you don't agree about our position, please don't think that valid Sacraments depend on modern ecumenism.

For whatever reason, you keep thinking you need to correct my understanding as though I just fell off the turnip truck. I understand what valid Sacraments are and I also understand what it means to be illicit.

And you are in fact relying on the ecumenism of Vatican II, otherwise SSPX and all it's followers would not believe themselves to be in communion, because you wouldn't be. Rome has been very generous, and that generosity is met with contempt at the worst, a working of the system to a self benefit at the best. Rome can take some blame for that I suppose, for being so naive to think that schism and charity go together.

[3DOP]

SSPX quoting of Popes is not an end towards charity, but a means towards schism. I can be a catholic, not in schism, recognize discontinuity and have faith that we will be led through. Lefebvre broke communion. It is as simple as that, and that is who you follow. A quasi Pope? One person breaks communion cannot be argued that he is in communion...with himself? Self marooned and self proclaimed pope?

I find the more I read of SSPX arguments, the more I find quoting the current canon to support what is wanted while quoting current canon to support what is not wanted. It's like I just discovered the ultimate cafeteria Catholic.

 

 

So it is not charitable to quote popes because according to you it leads to schism? According to you, I need to follow those who disagree with the pope, so I can avoid going into schism. Are you sure that they are trying to lead me towards the Church, and not away from it? I am wanting them to agree with me and the popes! How is that schismatic? How is that uncharitable?

 

You can proclaim us schismatic all you want, but its absurd when it becomes apparent that in order to, according to you, be charitable, and in communion with the Church on the question of the infallibility of Vatican, I have to disagree with the popes, including the pope who promulgated the Council! Don't you see how crazy this has become?

 

Maybe you're in schism? 

[saemo]

So it is not charitable to quote popes because according to you it leads to schism? According to you, I need to follow those who disagree with the pope, so I can avoid going into schism. Are you sure that they are trying to lead me towards the Church, and not away from it? I am wanting them to agree with me and the popes! How is that schismatic? How is that uncharitable?

You can proclaim us schismatic all you want, but its absurd when it becomes apparent that in order to, according to you, be charitable, and in communion with the Church on the question of the infallibility of Vatican, I have to disagree with the popes, including the pope who promulgated the Council! Don't you see how crazy this has become?

Maybe you're in schism?

What the heck are you talking about?

The papacy didn't end at Vatican II.

Edited September 1, 2014 by saemo

[3DOP]

For whatever reason, you keep thinking you need to correct my understanding as though I just fell off the turnip truck. I understand what valid Sacraments are and I also understand what it means to be illicit.

And you are in fact relying on the ecumenism of Vatican II, otherwise SSPX and all it's followers would not believe themselves to be in communion, because you wouldn't be. Rome has been very generous, and that generosity is met with contempt at the worst, a working of the system to a self benefit at the best. Rome can take some blame for that I suppose, for being so naive to think that schism and charity go together.

 

saemo, I am sorry that you take umbrage at my correction. I wouldn't characterize it as "falling off the turnip truck", and I have a respect for you and your journey from Mormonism, through atheism, and into the Catholic Church. I have been assisting at Society Masses since 2005 without ever saying one word to you or the LDS about the Society of St. Pius X until very recently. I have been mainly here to try to make gentle nudges, to plant seeds, and not to you because we are both Catholic. I have not been here as an SSPX, but as a mere Catholic. This comes up now, in 2014, because Pope Francis is pushing ideas that are deeply disturbing, worse than any of his predeccesors, while many worldlings are touting him is the greatest pope ever. Some of the Mormons like him a lot better than his predecessors. In the course of explaining why and how I, as a Catholic, can disagree with a living pope in order to agree with 99% of the dead popes, it has been exposed that I have sympathies for the Society of St. Pius X. You don't have to be SSPX to have sympathy with Catholics who are trying to wrestle with the problems that the current pope is causing. I am not an SSPX member, not even a tertiary, and I do not speak for them though I am admiring of them. I speak as a Catholic. Any Catholic can take most of my arguments about Vatican II and the developments that followed and be in "full communion" if they so desire. 

 

I think it is a quandary over at Catholic Answers how to deal with SSPX questions. They have this one area they call Traditional Catholicism where there are never ending discussions about the SSPX. Do you know what prompts this? All of these Catholics WANT it to be okay to go to Society Masses, but they are scared by phantoms that will not stand up to the test of Catholic Tradition as it relates to history, the Sacraments, obedience to authority, and modernity. The only thing that keeps them away are the false scare tactics of the builders of the status quo. But that is a dike that is bound to burst and when it does, we won't know what to do with all the people who are suddenly aware that it is okay to kneel for Communion at a rail, and receive on the tongue from a priest, who wears his cassock in public. Pope John, who started the Council claimed that we needed to "open the windows of the Church wide to the world". For those who are happy at their neighborhood parishes? Great. Go. But many are the Catholics, much more in number who have either left or are languishing in parishes that have not the fresh air, but the stink of the world about them. Once they try the SSPX, they find that they can't wait to..."Have another hit...of Fresh Air." (that's for those of you who might remember Quicksilver Messenger Service) Heh.

 

Sincerely,

 

Rory

Edited September 1, 2014 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

What the heck are you talking about?

The papacy didn't end at Vatican II.

You said that the SSPX "quoting of popes is not an end towards charity, but a means towards schism". I was commenting on the irony of the fact that quoting a pope who promulgates an ecumenical council, when he speaks about the authority of the Council, could possibly be a vehicle towards schism.

 

The reason I quote post Vatican II popes, is because I believe that the papacy has continued. As little as I respect him, Pope Francis is the pope and I have always spoken as though he were since his elevation. Why would you remind me that the papacy continued? What I have ever said here that ever gave the slightest hint that I didn't believe the papacy continued?

 

You can dislike dead popes and think the papacy continued. Why is it any different if the pope is alive? All Catholics admit there are a half-dozen real stinkers and nobody thinks they doubt the papacy. How does thinking that we have had one or more in our own times compromise belief in the papacy?   

Edited September 1, 2014 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

If it is going to be argued that Vatican II is pastoral not dogmatic, then helping Catholics through pastoral issues such as marriage should be viewed in the light of Vatican II not without it.

There is no continuity in SSPX arguments!

 

Vatican II doesn't authorise the Church to redefine the Sacrament of Matrimony so as to allow that divorced and remarried people are in a valid marriage and disposed to receive Holy Communion.

 

You seemed offended when I corrected your position that the validity of SSPX Sacraments depended on the generosity of Rome. Now, your remarks seem to show that you don't appreciate the doctrinal ramifications of any pastoral attempt to allow people who are living in adultery to be encouraged to receive Communion. You are going to be okay with this? All you need is for a bishop to tell you that it is now okay, and you think it will be? This is more than merely being nice and forgiving and accepting. It is about denying what the Church has always taught about the sanctity and irreversibility of the uniting of a man and woman in Holy Matrimony. They can get an annulment if there was never a marriage. But if there was a marriage, which is what divorce indicates, they are not free to remarry while the spouse lives. No pastoral initiative can change that. 

[Bart Burk]

On EWTN today I heard an apologist claim no Pope had ever errored in faith or morals even when there were bad Popes.He also said no Pope would ever do so because of Christ's promise that the gates of hell would not overcome the Church. How can we be sure this is true? Could we blindly accept a papal statement on doctrine when the Pope was wrong? Maybe infant baptism or the doctrine of hell for examples?

And how can we be sure a Mormon prophet could not have fallen and taught something wrong like polygamy. Is it possible that depending on authority can lead us all astray?

Edited September 1, 2014 by Bart Burk

[ERayR]

You can dislike dead popes and think the papacy continued. Why is it any different if the pope is alive? All Catholics admit there are a half-dozen real stinkers and nobody thinks they doubt the papacy. How does thinking that we have had one or more in our own times compromise belief in the papacy?   

 

Wise words that members of all religions would do well to ponder about their own churches.