In a bid to keep talks on course to a possible reconciliation, Pope Benedict XVI has appointed American Archbishop J. Augustine DiNoia as vice president of the commission charged with helping to bring the Society of St. Pius X back into full communion with Rome.
The 68-year-old Dominican and Bronx, N.Y., native, until now secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, becomes vice president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. He spoke with Register correspondent Edward Pentin June 27 about his new position, some of the obstacles involved in bringing the society back into full communion, and his hopes for a successful resolution.
As Archbishop DiNoia had not yet begun work at the commission, he preferred not to comment on reports of a leaked letter from the SSPX that said the society found the doctrinal preamble “clearly unacceptable.” The document is supposed to form the basis for reconciliation with Rome.
What was your reaction when you were appointed? Did it come as a surprise?
It was a surprise, but, then, these things are always a surprise. Being appointed here [as secretary at the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments] was a surprise.
What stage has the Vatican reached in its talks with the SSPX?
To be honest, I don’t know. I have a steep learning curve in terms of the issues as they have developed in the dialogue. When I came here, I studied the history of the reform and took a close look at the [Second Vatican] Council, so I’ve learned a lot about the objections that come from that world. I’ve read books by Romano Amerio and Roberto de Mattei on the Council, and, of course, I’ve been studying the Council for years; so, in that sense, I have a framework out of which I can talk with them about their problems.
Another factor of great importance, autobiographically for me, is that I had lived my entire religious life, until I came here to Rome, in a Dominican priory, mostly in Washington or in New Haven, Conn. In those places, the hermeneutic of continuity and reform, if I may put it that way, was lived. I never experienced the Council as a rupture. It’s interesting — only as I’ve begun to read this traditionalist literature and interpretation have I begun to understand that, in a certain sense, there are problems that are real. But if you cease to believe that the Holy Spirit is preserving the Church from error, you cut your moorings.
The councils cannot — whatever their interpretations may be by the left or right, or whatever the intentions of the authors were of the council documents — be led into error. All of the documents stand. Schism is not the answer. So I’m sympathetic to the society, but the solution is not breaking off from the Church.
That being the case, why do you think some Catholics have decided to stick to “frozen” tradition, as it were, rather than coming into full communion?
I don’t honestly know; I can only speculate. To say why people are traditionalist I’d have to say it depends on their experiences. The [reform of the] liturgy has been a factor; it was a terrible revolution and shock for people. Many of these people feel abandoned, like the Church left them at the dock with the ship. So the reasons are very complicated and vary from one type of traditionalism to another and from countries, cultures and contexts in which they have arisen.
Another issue is there’s a failure to recognize a simple fact of the history of the Church: that all theological disagreements need not be Church-dividing. So, for example, the Jesuits and Dominicans had a tremendous disagreement in the 16th century about the theology of grace. In the end, the Pope forbade them to call each other heretics, which they had been doing. The Pope said, “You may continue to hold your theological opinion,” but he refused to give a doctrinal determination, saying the Jesuits or Dominicans were right. Now, this is a very interesting example, because it shows that Catholicism is broad enough to include a tremendous amount of theological diversity and debate. Sometimes the Church will act, but only when it sees people slipping into heresy and therefore breaking off from communion.
You’ve worked closely with Pope Benedict XVI in the past. How important is this reconciliation for him?
The Pope hopes for reconciliation — that’s the Pope’s job. The ministry of Peter is above all to preserve the unity of the Church. So, apart from whatever personal interest Pope Benedict might have, he shares his concern with John Paul II. As you know, he has been involved in this from the beginning.
The Pope is bending over backwards to accommodate them, but he’s not going to give in on the issue of the authenticity of the teaching of Vatican II as a series of acts of the magisterium.
The Society of St. Pius X argues the Second Vatican Council promulgated no infallible and irreformable teaching. It was pastoral and not dogmatic. If that is so, why is it important that they agree with it?
There’s enough that’s dogmatic in it. The sacramentality of episcopal ordination, to take one example, is a development of the teaching of the episcopacy, so it is doctrinal.
Traditionally, the doctrines were stated as canons with anathemas. There aren’t any of those, but it’s certainly full of the ordinary magisterium and a restatement of it. It’s doctrinally rich. But did it seek to clarify what Trent left open or that Vatican I left open with regards to Scripture and Tradition?
There are doctrinal developments here and there. And the society thinks, of course, that the whole teaching on religious liberty is a departure from the Tradition. But some very smart people have tried to point out it’s a development that is consistent.
What I’ve tried to argue is that all they have to do is to say there’s nothing in the Council that is contrary to Tradition and that every text, or every part of it that is controversial, should be read in context of the Council — and read it in light of the Tradition. It seems to me, despite their difficulties, they should be able to do that.
What do you say to the argument that if the Council documents are neither infallible nor unchangeable then they are therefore not binding?
To say they are not binding is sophistry. The Council contains swathes of the ordinary magisterium, which is de fide divina [of divine faith].
Now, the pastoral constitution “On the Church in the Modern World” [Gaudium et Spes] makes comments about the nature of culture which, generally speaking, everyone now believes was overly optimistic. Well, that’s not de fide divina. It’s not precise; it’s very imprecise. But the Council’s full of the ordinary magisterium. When I worked at the [U.S.] bishops’ conference and I was discussing, say, Veritatis Splendor, people would ask me: “Is it infallible?” I would say, “The more important question is: Is it true?”
What I meant was: The overemphasis is on infallibility. This is why John Paul II and Benedict XVI decided not to define anything infallibly anymore because you see what happens is: People say: “I only have to believe what’s been infallibly defined.” Now, that is very little. So that’s why there’s a distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium. The extraordinary magisterium is what the Church defines, and it almost always involves settling disagreements that probably have been defined. The Church would perhaps have never said Mary was the Mother of God if Nestorius hadn’t denied it. But with the ordinary magisterium there’s huge amounts of what we believe that’s de fide divina that’s never been defined. That’s why people have talked about the ordinary magisterium, trying to get out of this reductionist reading that says you only have to believe what’s infallible. So, no, the Council does have binding teaching. The Fathers are writing as bishops of the Church in union with the Pope; that’s why the Council is so important.
Yet Cardinal Ratzinger stressed the Council should not be seen as a kind of “superdogma.”
It did not seek to define infallibly any doctrines; that’s what he’s saying, but he’s not saying it doesn’t contain great amounts of the ordinary magisterium.
If you take the dogmatic constitutions, they are called dogmatic constitutions — Divine Revelation [Dei Verbum], Lumen Gentium, those two surely, but other ones, too.
What would the Society of St. Pius X bring that would positively impact the Church if they reconcile?
The traditionalists that are now in the Church, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, have brought what the Pope has insisted upon: that in the solemnity of the way in which they celebrate the liturgy, especially in the area of the liturgy, they are a testimony to the continuing liveliness of liturgical tradition previous to the Council, which is the message of Summorum Pontificum. The thing is: They can’t say that the Novus Ordo is invalid, but their celebration of the 1962 Missal is something that remains attractive and nourishes faith, even of those who have no experience of it. So that’s a very important factor.
I’ve tried to find an analogy for this. Let’s say the American Constitution can be read in at least two ways: Historians read it, and they are interested in historical context: in the framers, intentions of the framers, the backgrounds of framers and all of that historical work about the Constitution. So, you have a Constitution you can study historically and shed a great deal of light on the meaning of it.
However, when the Supreme Court uses the Constitution, when it’s read as an institutional living document upon which institutions of a country are based, it’s a different reading. So what the framers thought, including not only experts upon whom they’re dependent — they are parallel to the bishops, and the experts are parallel to the periti [theologians who serve participants at an ecumenical council].
Those documents have an independence from all of them. I often say that what Council Fathers intended doesn’t matter because it’s how you apply it today that matters. It’s a living document.
Yet it’s the way it has been applied that’s the problem.
What’s very important for theologians, people in charge to understand is that the Council has been interpreted in wildly destructive and discontinuous ways. I’m reading a book by Louis Bouyer, who wrote a book -– in 1968 — called The Decomposition of Catholicism. Then there’s Xavier Rynne, who shaped the Western world’s understanding of the Council by writing those articles in The New Yorker.
The Pope has written brilliantly about this many, many times, but, you see, in part, the traditionalists are reacting justly against the outlandish interpretations of the Council by the progressivists.
What else positive can they bring?
If they are accepted by the Church and restored to full communion, they will be a sort of living witness to the continuity. They can be perfectly happy being in the Catholic Church, so they would be a living testimony to show that the continuity before and after the Council is real.
But that’s only if they comply with the Vatican’s conditions?
It’s more than that. It’s not like an edict — stop on red; go on green — because membership and full communion involves faith that the Holy Spirit is preserving the Church from error and that communion with the See of Peter is part of the reality of being in full communion. It’s not accidental.
So, if they comply, it has to be with the necessary requirements of being fully Catholic, not simply what the Pope says or what I say. … They have to say: “Yes, I do believe the Church is preserved from error by the Holy Spirit.” Then I can say, “Okay, then; you’re a Catholic.”
The society has been fed by people who use the word “error.” “Error” is a vague word in the Catholic Tradition. There are many different levels of error. Sometimes it means you’ve fallen into heresy; sometimes it means that you are rash.
Your new position is as vice president of Ecclesia Dei, but it’s not clear who you are replacing.
There was a vice president for a while, Msgr. Camille Perl. However, what they’ve done is fill a position which I believe has been empty for three years. I’m not sure when Msgr. Perl went into pensione [retirement].
Some have argued that you have been brought in to help prepare a canonical structure for the SSPX should they reconcile. Is this based on the extensive work you did in helping to create the Anglican ordinariate?
I don’t know; the Pope didn’t tell me why he chose me. I was involved in the ordinariate from the beginning. I was under secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, involved in discussions that led to formation of the ordinariate, but I am not a canonist. I didn’t have a direct role in the composition of the constitution, but, yes, I have experience, perhaps of dialogue.
The Anglicans who came to Rome seeking full communion would often come and see me. So I guess I must have some kind of gift that attracts them to me [laughs].
How much is a perceived weakening of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (no salvation outside the Church) a major part of the problem, as some traditionalists assert? Has today’s understanding of the dogma contradicted its earlier teaching?
I don’t know if you can blame this on the Council so much as the emergence of a theological trend that emphasized the possibility of salvation of non-Christians. But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it. … [Karl] Rahner had a disastrous effect on this with his “anonymous Christianity.” But the Council does not alter the teaching of the Church.
And yet they argue it does?
This is a very good example of two of the things we’ve mentioned: the danger of reading this as it’s been read by Rahner, instead of in the light of the whole Tradition.
They claim that salvation is hardly proclaimed anymore.
Ralph Martin agrees with that. We do have a crisis, because the Church has been infected with the idea that we don’t have to worry or be anxious or we don’t sufficiently take the mandate to proclaim Christ seriously. But it’s not because of Vatican II, but bad theology. That’s why Dominus Iesus was part of the response to all of that theology of religion. There is no question that the necessity of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus has a long history. But they were talking about heretics, not nonbelievers. That formula addresses the problems of heresies. It has its history.
The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.
Some traditionalists say secular humanism frequently wins over dogmatic assertions in the modern Church. To give an example: The Holy Father has said he wouldn’t have lifted the excommunication on Bishop [Richard] Williamson had he known about his anti-Semitism. But while anti-Semitism is heinous, traditionalists say that such views aren’t a dogmatic position. And yet Catholic politicians can freely speak against the dogma and remain in full communion with the Church. What do you say to such an argument?
That’s a trap. Edward Norman, in his very good book Secularization, says there’s no question that what he calls internal secularization, secular humanism, has definitely invaded parts of the Church. They [SSPX] are probably right about that, and I could give them a longer list of examples than they could probably make themselves.
However, to try and defend Williamson on this basis is disgusting and odious. Is a politician the same thing as a bishop? Give me a break. It’s garbage; it’s sophistry.
Do they want a blanket excommunication of everyone who’s pro-choice? And yet here is a person, a bishop, who openly proclaims a position which the Church is desperately trying to suppress in the Church itself, which is anti-Semitism.
In the CDF statement that accompanied your appointment, it said your experience “will facilitate the development of certain desired liturgical provisions” in the celebration of the 1962 Roman Missal, commonly known as the Tridentine rite. Could you explain this in more detail?
There are two things: In the calendar, there are a lot of saints they would like to add, but the Roman Missal is fixed. There’s got to be a dialogue between them and the Congregation for Divine Worship on how to incorporate elements of the Roman calendar and how it has developed over the last 50 years. And then the prefaces: The old Roman Missal of 1962 has a very limited number of prefaces, and they are also interested in incorporating some of the prefaces. But because it’s the 1962 edition, who can revise the 1962 edition of the Missal?
In effect the Novus Ordo, the current Roman Missal, is a revision of the 1962 Roman Missal. So the issue is: How can they do this? I don’t know, but the job has to be done. We already had two meetings, between representatives of the congregation and representatives of Ecclesia Dei, to discuss how that could be done.
Mention was made of your good relations with the Jewish community. How good are those relations?
I’ve had long and warm relationships with various Jewish leaders from the time I was in the United States, working at the bishops’ conference, which has continued all along. They have come to see me every year. I don’t know if they’ve said anything in public, but on the phone they’re very happy. They know I’m sensitive to their concerns.
Nostra Aetate (a document believed by many to have helped foster better Jewish-Catholic relations) is a problem for the SSPX.
Yes, but remember: If you take the constitution exactly, as a jurist, there’s the broad and the strict, and that’s a disagreement that can be held by two justices simultaneously. So again, if they want to take a stricter reading of those conciliar texts, they’re perfectly free to do so theologically. But it doesn’t mean they have to be outside the Church, and they should argue against people based on theology.
If they believe Nostra Aetate is being badly interpreted, then they have to get into the battle to correctly interpret it. Rather than walk away from the field, they have to play the game.
Could a reconciliation be timely, given the problems in the Church and culture?
It’s my instinct; remember that until Benedict said in December 2005 in his address to the Curia, in which he made his famous discourse about hermeneutic of continuity, you couldn’t even talk about these things. So Benedict has liberated us for the first time.
You can now criticize [theologians Cardinal Henri-Marie] De Lubac, [Cardinal Yves] Congar, [Father Marie-Dominique] Chenu. And many young people are writing dissertations and books that were somehow impossible before. So I would say that the dominant progressivist reading of the Council is in retreat. It’s never been in retreat before. But insistence on continuity — they have to embrace that too.
Traditionalists have to be converted from seeing the Council as rupture and discontinuity.
This is a distinction [historian Roberto] de Mattei makes. The Council was experienced as a rupture, but doctrinally and theologically it has to be read in continuity — otherwise you must just as well throw in the towel.
Do you think SSPX fears their concerns won’t be safeguarded if they reconcile?
How will they not be safeguarded? Who’s telling them what to do? The only thing I’m telling them is: Vatican II is not a departure from Tradition.
Are you optimistic or pessimistic about reconciliation?
I’m neither; I just don’t know. I think it will be an act of grace.
In fact, I’m going to ask the Dominicans to start praying. I hope it’ll happen. The Pope doesn’t want this to continue — another sect, another division.
Edward Pentin is the Register’s Rome correspondent. He blogs at NCRegister.com.
View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
Angelo, (Posted by Angelo on Wednesday, Jul 11, 2012 8:15 PM)reference to russia being consecrated;
Why did jpii feel compelled to add, after completing the consecration formula in 1984, an extra prayer that was not in the
script—“Enlighten especially the people whose consecration and entrusting you yourself are awaiting from us”— much as Pius XII had included a veiled allusion to an unnamed Russia in his world consecration of 1942? Why did JPii feel he had to do still ANOTHER consecration in 2000, after the Vatican had been insisting since 1989 that even Sr. Lucy must endorse the 1984 consecration as having been everything needed? Why did both these pontiffs repeatedly send high-level emissaries to question Sr.
Lucy about what, exactly, Our Lady had required, and why did JPII repeatedly ask close aides, after one or the other of his world consecrations, whether they thought what he had done had satisfied Our Lady’s conditions for the consecration of Russia? Clearly, they sensed that more was needed; they wished to comply but felt they could not. They tried to do as much as they possibly could without mentioning Russia by name—the invisible line they dared not cross. (Not to mention Assisi)!
Angelo
Vennari and Fr. Gruner are masons?? And you also state that Fr. Gruner is in the 5th and last stage of being excommunicated for all the lies he has fabricated.
Where would one find sources for these claims?
Question posed : SSPX argues the VCII promulgated no infallible and irreformable teaching. It was pastoral and not dogmatic. If that is so, why is it important that they agree with it? (Maybe the question should be “Why weren’t the pastoral teachings declared infallible? Maybe because of the possibility of errors? The council was not comfortable with the idea that everything was declared infallible for a reason!
Dinoia answers: “There’s enough that’s dogmatic in it. The sacramentality of episcopal ordination,... is doctrinal.”
“... it’s certainly full of the ordinary magisterium and a restatement of it. It’s doctrinally rich. There are doctrinal developments here and there.” ( dogmatic material- that is not the issue at hand, it is the non infallible parts that have sspx questioning.)
...“every text, or every part of it that is controversial, should be read in context of the Council — and read it in light of the Tradition”. ( To which I say ; maybe it should have been WRITTEN in light of Tradition instead of written with the intention of having more than 2 or 3 interpretations. Why such ambiguity when dealing with truth. There must be a reason why it was such a lengthly written council - if not to have a hidden agenda behind the ambiguous language.
Sam,
You are making me wonder if you have posing as a Catholic . You sound exactly like a Calvinist Protestant. You would fit in well with your views on double predestination in a Christian Reformed protestant church. I believe you are really a protestant (not even main line) . If you are not read John Calvin and tell me you do not agree with his incorrect theology.
Angelo—so does God love everyone EQUALLY? If you answer yes to this question you are wrong and you don’t know what you are talking about.
Angelo, You have gone wrong. It’s not that what you’re doing is “not a dogma” it’s not doctrine,it’s not a tradition, it’s not Catholic at all. A good example proving you wrong is the fact that Pope John 22nd was a pope who was preaching error publicly on an issue of faith. A Vicar of Christ can easily mislead people. And your position of accepting everything from the mouth of the Pope as the voice of God is evidence that you have been misled into novelties by the enemies of the Church. You simply accept a Protestant caricature of the papacy and take a positive view of it. By refusing to acknowledge the distinction between a Pope’s personal views and the voice of the Magisterium of the Church that he has the power to try to invoke if he so chooses, you are equating the voice of man with the voice of God with no distinction. And consequently by treating the voice of a man as if it’s the voice of God you are materially guilty of idolatry towards the Pope. It’s a crime against God and the papacy itself. No one is loyal to the Pope who either diminishes who he is and what the power of the office is like the liberals nor are the conservatives who extend the power of the man to levels that the office itself doesn’t give him.
Sam, You have revealed your own ignorance. Scripture says that before God created the world he called all human beings into existance. God also says, “Before you were in your mothers womb I knew you” God says this to each and every human being. You confuse God’s love for everyone, with those who please God the most. Your understanding would only serve satans purposes. By your understanding Men and Woman would have the right to say God does not love me, and then commit the mortal sin of despair. Please don’t spread that heresy lest you become the direct cause of the loss of souls.
Angelo—you are so wrong! God definitely does not love everyone equally! Your confidence in your own opinions is disgusting and totally reveals your ignorance.
Gerard, In the time that I have accepted all that comes from the Holy Father, I have never gone wrong. Perhaps its not a Dogma but nevertheless I shall continue to accept all that the Holy Father says as the very voice of God on earth. I prefer to listen to the Vicar of Christ than to be misled by the novelties of the enemies of the Church. Tell me, do you believe that Christ chose the papacy just to be a mere decoration for his Church. I believe not!
Sam, St. Paul entered a pagan temple in Greece. The pagans had an altar dedicated to the “unknown God”, St. Paul prayed there and told the pagans that this certain altar was to the true God. St. Paul was directly guided by the Holy Ghost in this. God loves everyone equally, there are some who are more pleasing to God that others, but he loves everyone the same. By your reasoning have you ever thought that maybe God does not love you at all. Of course not! By your reasoning, God loves you and only you. Sorry but thats unacceptable reasoning.
Sam, If Rome stated that the 3rd Secrt was revealed in its entirety and was confirmed by Sister Lucia, then whose word do you think I am going to take for it? The greatest proof is that miraculous cures are being reported to Rome that came about through Sister Lucias intercession after her death. The controversy on Sister Lucia that you speak of I most certainly dismiss in its entirety, I see no truth whatsoever in those fables. Look at the 3rd Secret and meditate on it, its full of prophecy. Our Lady is known to speak in forms that are not literal. Take what the children witnessed in that vision, “The Pope walking through a city, half in ruins”. I believe this alludes to the Church after V2, half in ruins because of the misinterpretaions of V2. But notice if the city is half in ruins, that means the other half is not in ruins. The other half not in ruins is the Holy Father the Vicar of Christ and all who obey him, they stand firm in the faith! Benedict XVl as Card. Ratzinger by order of Bl. John Paul ll gave an interpretaion of the secret. Card. Ratzinger clearly stated that the Secret is open to further interpretation. This is the best I can send you, if its not good enough then look elsewhere.
Angelo—-I just looked at the evidence on Traditioninaction again about the two sister lucy controversy and I still don’t know how you dismiss it so easily. I guess it might have something to do with the fact the the Popes, infallible in your estimation on just about anything they say regarding spiritual things, have said that the secret was fully revealed. If you have some good articles for me to read, please send them my way.
I’m sorry I even brought up the predestination topic because it is just too mysterious to even talk about. But I also assure you, Angelo, that you have probably very little understanding what Aquinas says on the issue. It’s just a lot more mysterious than you think, and also, so is God. His ways and thoughts are not your or my ways or thoughts. He doesn’t love everyone equally, He doesn’t choose everyone! But, I don’t think you are emotionally ready to accept that truth.
But going back to the Koran-kissing-giving-communion-to-non-catholics-encouraging-pagans-to-pray-to-their-false-gods Pope. Why is a Pope accepting the Koran as a gift anyway? It is a book that came from the devil! And then he KISSES IT! Do you think Jesus would have done the same thing? ANd gathering the leaders of the worlds’ religions to pray to their false gods? Would Jesus have done the same thing? I know you are going to respond something like this (or I at least suspect this is what you would say): He wasn’t encouraging them to pray to their false gods. He was getting them together to pray to the One God of all people….
Well, what should we expect if we show up to a Hindu service? Are they praying to the One God? Should we encourage them to pray to Shiva for world peace?
I say Apostasy!
But I guess your strident version of loyalty to the Pope will not let you think that he is capable of making these or any mistakes. (I am speaking a little hyperbole here, but I might not be far off).
Angelo,
For the sake of your soul, you are lead astray by your beliefs. You claim that for you “personally” every word out of the mouth of the Pope on faith and morals is infallible. That is not Catholic teaching, no Pope nor Council has made that claim. You have already departed from Catholicism by adopting that subjectivist idolatry of the Office of the Pope. You should not need to add personal “reinforcements” of your own making on top of the faith. The Devil can get you by excess as well as deficiency. Adopting excessive beliefs in the papacy not taught by the Church is not allowable, nor suitable for you even if you think it does “work”, it doesn’t. You are not being loyal to the Church or the Pope if you place your salvation in him. He is the Vicar of Christ, not Christ Himself and he does not always speak with the voice of God on matters of faith and morals or matters related to the faith and morals.
Well said Angelo.
According to scripture, God before creating the world called all men he would create. The Childrens Baltimore Catechism asks, “Why did God create us” and the answer, “To know him, love him and serve him in this world in order that we may be eternaly happy with him in Heaven.” At Fatima our Lady showed the children hell, after which she said, “You have seen hell, where the souls of poor sinners go, because there is no one to offer sacrifices for them. In order to save them God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart” The absurd idea that God created men out of love only to decide they will burn in hell with no hope of salvation, is the worst of heresies that could ever be invented. St. Thomas Aquinas, I am positive condemns this error that could only serve satans purposes by leading souls to despair. Definatly not of God!!!
I was thinking about the predestination issue. Simple predestination is the Church’s view and traditional Christianity’s view on it. This means he created all men . He foreknew who would choose Him and who would reject Him. He predestines those who will choose Him for the grace to accept Him. Double Predestination which is the belief that man’s free will has no part in their eternal destiny is not correct. Although he foreknows who will choose or reject Him He wills that all be saved although He knows who will reject Him.
I am not sure if I explained myself well but my feable attempt to explain it is the Church’s view on predestination and has been. I doubt if Acquinas would tell you men has no choice in their eternal destiny.
Sam, Christ chose St. Peter as the first Pope. Today his successor is Benedict XVl. Scripture warns us of false prophets. The Holy Father is the voice of God on earth. For myself personaly every word that comes from the Holy Father on matters of Faith and Morals are infallible. Whether it suits you or not. I have never gone wrong by obeying the Pope, and if I continue to obey him till my death then I am confident of God granting me eternal salvation. Thank God for the Holy Father!!!
Thank God He did not create us as playthings for his amusement. He wanted a people that would choose to love and serve Him of their own free will. He also gave men the free will to reject Him because He wanted a people for Himself that loved Him and served because they chose to. ” He came not into the world to condemn the world but that through Him all men might be saved.”
or “His mercy triumphs over his judgment.” Sam, earlier I made it clear I don’t like to argue for arguments sake but I have to say is it balanced to base a subject of utmost importance like who can be saved on the example of one or two figures in the Church (and some devout Protestants) and a couple of scriptures taken out of context compared to many Holy Saints, Popes, Early Church Fathers , and many many scriptures that point towards Gods will that all be saved. When I was a Protestant we use to pick out pet doctrines on the basis of a verse or two and run with it or because an esteemed preacher said so. The scripture is to be taken as a whole. You are still my brother but I disagree with you.
By the way, I am not saying that you have to believe what I believe in order to be saved. But what I am saying is the truth. What Aquinas teaches is the truth on Predestination.
Rememeber, everything God does, He does first and ultimately for Himself. Not for you or me or any other human being. And yes, He has chosen some to manifest in them His mercy, the rest, He desires to manifest His justice. That does not mean that he makes them sin, but in not helping them as much as the elect, they do sin.
Apoc—Predestination is also a doctrine of the church, how do you understand predestination?
Apoc—do you accept Aquinas’ explanation for why God created us (to manifest His goodness, both His Mercy and His Justice. His Mercy in the elect and His Justice in the reprobate)?
Angelo—you still seem to be committing the error of thinking that the Holy Father can never err when talking about fain and morals. Please explain a little further, although you may have already done so. Do you say that in a homily, the Holy Father cannot err? In a personal letter written to you about faith and morals, the Holy Father cannot err? Or is it only when using definitive language and promulgating a teaching to the whole Church?
Ok Apoc and Angelo—but God does not will absolutely and without qualification that all men be saved. Apoc, I thought you said you had read and studied Aquinas and Garigou-Lagrange. God does will to manifest His divine Justice, and that is why all men are not chosen. It is repeated over and over and over in scripture that all men are not chosen, only a few. And it is because they are chosen by God that they are saved. God does not choose the reprobate, and because they are not chosen, they are not given the extra help that God gives to the chosen. This is Aquinas, this is Scripture. Yes, I know that the controversy between the Molinists and the Thomists was not definitively settled by the pope, but that doesn’t mean that the Thomistic position isn’t the correct one. And yes, Angelo, I have wondered if I am chosen or not. It is a reasonable question. Yes, I know that the scriptures say that God wills that all men be saved, but Aquinas explains all of the possible interpretations of that scripture passage. It certainly does not exclude God’s will to manifest His Divine Justice in the un-chosen reprobate. Read Aquinas. And no, I am not saying anything other than what Aquinas said, Angelo, I am not saying that the un-chosen are “chosen” for hell. I know all the technical differences between Aquinas, Jansenism, Calvinism, etc. So, Apoc, your quote that “God wills all men to be saved, etc” being a dogma of the church doesn’t take away from Aquinas’ teachings, that God has both an antecedent will and a consequent will. God gives MORE to the elect than He gives to the reprobate. He LOVES the elect MORE than the reprobate and because of God’s extra help and love for the elect, HE preserves the elect from falling away, but HE does not preserve the reprobate from falling away. It is a lot more complex and mysterious than either of you seem to understand.
Sam, You say I will be very shocked when I enter eternity. Well, I have a back up plan. You see, I believe in the supreme authority of Christ’s Vicar, the Holy Father. I read what he says and I believe and try to practice what he teaches. I call it the “safest path to Heaven”. I would like to recount a story from the Lives of the Saints. There was a certain Saint who had a Protestant friend. This friend tried all he could to convince the Saint that the Holy Roman Catholic Church was a false religion. The Protestant put this question to the Saint, “Suppose when you die, you discover that the Catholic Church was in fact a false religion?” The Saint answered, “If that should happen, which it will not! It will not be my fault, it would be all God’s fault. Because it is he who convinced me that the Catholic Church is the true religion founded by Christ.” So with myself, it is God who convinced me to follow and obey the Holy Father. If I am wrong, then I will make that Saints words my own, It will be God’s fault for having convinced me that the Holy Father is his voice on earth.
Sam, Have you ever wondered whether or not you are a chosen one. By your own reasoning maybe you have been destined to be eternaly punished, If only for God’s supreme pleasure. And nothing you say or do can change that. Perhaps your and my efforts to be saved are in vain. Perhaps we have been chosen for eternal punishment with no hope of salvation whatsoever. By your reasoning does hell already know that you and I have been pre-destined for eternal punishment, and is just waiting for us.
Sam, Vatican Council ll was a Pastoral Council that confirmed the Dogmatic teachings of the Church. The Council Documents contain everything necessary to prove modernists wrong. Modernism did not end with its condemnation by St. Pius X. It spread like a plague throughout the Church. If not for V2 confirming the teachings of the Church in a Pastoral manner, today we would have no Dogmas to defend.
“This doctrine, that God wishes all men to be saved is now a certain doctrine taught by the Catholic Church, as theologians in common teach, namely, Petavius, Gonet, Gotti, and others, besides Tourneley, who adds, that it is a doctrine all but of faith.
.
With reason, therefore, were the predestinarians condemned, who, among their errors, taught that God does not will all men to be saved; as Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, testifies of them in his first letter, where he says, “the ancient predestinarians asserted that God does not will all men to be saved, but only those who are saved”. These persons were condemned, first in the Council of Arles, A.D. 475, which pronounced “anathema to him that said that Christ did not die for all men, and that He does not will all to be saved” - Anathema 6…”
.
St.Alphonsus Ligouri said this, goes on to quote other Councils, including Trent. The very doctrine is of course stated repeatedly in Scripture, by both St.Paul and St.Peter.
.
It only means that God with absolute certainty gives all men sufficient grace to come to the knowledge of truth and salvation, but that many through their own fault, will reject that grace.
Sam, It seems you are doing a repeat of the Jansenist heresy. Was there anything good in “Dominus Iesus” that you found? Probably not as you were not in search of truth but seeking only fault with the Church’s Magisterial teachings. Such an attitude is sensless. Bl. John Paul ll, Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVl and the then Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone studied very carefully what they wrote, then the Pope ordered its publication. All of the Church’s Documents are handled in this manner.
And Angelo—you may have already discussed this somewhere else in the comments, but I would like to ask you again. What do you think about the nature of V2 being “pastoral” rather than “dogmatic?” All of the Popes from the beginning of V2 to the present have reaffirmed that V2 was pastoral and not dogmatic. What does that mean to you?
The doctrine of Predestination is very sobering, as is Aquinas’ explanation for why God created the universe and us men. I believe you will be very shocked when you enter eternity to see that all that God does He does for Himself, first and foremost, and not for you or us. We really only exist for God to manifest His goodness in us, either His mercy or His justice. And He is the one who decided before any of us decided whether we will be vessels of mercy or vessels of wrath.
And God most certainly wills to manifest His divine justice in the reprobate. That is why He does not choose all men. He wills to manifest His divine justice. (Aquinas). I could likewise quote and quote and quote from scripture to back up the fact that all men are not chosen.
Angelo—I still think the picture evidence of the false sister lucy is compelling and there is more evidence that the third secret was contained on a singel piece of paper, etc… so there is more mystery to it that you are willing to concede. Also, my beliefs on predestination come from Aquinas. Some are chosen, the great many are not chosen for salvation.
Sam, You error brother. The doctrine you are espousing is nothing but HyperCalvinism. A radical Protestant. (John Calvin). Man is not saved because he rejects the mercy of God in Christs redemption. The fact that man rejects Christ and refuses to repent and believe the Gospel is why men go to hell. Not because God wills it. Scripture says, ” It is not my will that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” and for “God so loved the World that he gave His only Son that WHOSOEVER believeth on Him shall be saved.” I could keep qouting from Scripture and he can throw in early Church fathers qoutes if you like.
But I am not surprised to find this error in the document. The great hope that all men will be saved is an error in the thought of Von Balthasar and other incorrect theologians who influenced Vatican 2 and the Popes.
Ok, Angelo, I just read Dominus Iesus. I am first struck by a repeated assertion without qualification in the document: that God wills ALL men to be saved. This phrase, repeated over and over, permeates all of the teachings contained in the document. But, does God will absolutely the salvation of all men? No. According to Aquinas. God does not will the salvation of ALL men. The document also states that all are called to faith in Christ. But is this true? NO. Only some are called, and even fewer are actually chosen. SO, this document suffers from the theological error that God wills all men to be saved, when God only wills the chosen to be saved. God actually wills to manifest His justice in the vast majority of men by punishing them in the eternal place of His justice, hell.
Jason, Why are you implying that Bl. John Paul ll in kissing the gift presented to him, in some way implies that the Roman Pontiff was declaring the Koran as a dogmatic teaching of the Church? This is called spreading error! Lets not seek to look into what is not there. When I wrote about the fault finders I was refering to those Catholics who run around in circles looking for anything wrong that the Supreme Pontiff says or does. Such actions of course originate in hell, and then spread out by way of the unfaithful. Lets be faithful to Christ and his Church, and not run around seeking fables.
Sam, Bl. John Paul ll, and the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger confirmed that Secret was reavealed in its entirety. Sister Maria Lucia confirmed that the Secret was revealed in its entirety and that there is no more to the Secret. Then the consiracy theories, Masons, the kidnapping of the real Sister Lucia, Sister Lucia alledgedly locked in a cell by orders of Rome, Siter Lucia forced by Rome to make false statements under obedience ect… The evidence you speak of is a matter of fact, mere hearsay. There is absolutly no evidence that all this hearsay is factual. Rome has well documented everything that has to do with Fatima. And there is alot! One thing is that Sister Lucia suffered immensly because of Fr. Nicholas Gruner. In her letter to Bl. John Paul ll she states that Fr. Gruner was putting words in her mouth, words she never said. She complained that Gruner was causing great damage to the real message of Fatima. All the conspiracy theories are fabricated lies. And those who believe them have been damaged in their faith. Fr. Gruner is in the 5th and last stage of being excommunicated for all the lies he has fabricated. He knows he’s lieing but has such a large gathering, leading so many souls astray, causing the true message of Fatima to lose its credibility. He knows what he’s doing, but cries that Rome is persecuting him. If and when the edict of excommunication is pronounced against him, it is my hope that Rome will give a full explanation for the good of the true message of Fatima.
Angelo—you mentioned a bit ago that the third secret had been fully revealed. I believe that the evidence suggests the contrary. The traditioninaction people have a lot of evidence that I believe is accurate.
I misquoted the name of the Document. It is “Dominus Iesus” and not Domine Iesus. The Holy Father Bl. John Paul ll “ratified and confirmed this Declaration,” It is signed by Joseph Card. Ratzinger and Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B. On August 6, 2000 the Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord.
I see we believe the same on Ecumenism. Pope Benedict XVl clarified that there has been a false ecumenism. He stated that the truth must always be told, that ecumenism is for the purpose of reuniting all the Churches into the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. That there is no room for compromise when it comes to Truth. It was Bl. John Paul ll who comissioned the then Cardinal Ratzinger to write what is called “Domine Iesus” which confirms that the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Christ and necessary for salvation. In it is a warning to us Catholics that belonging to the true religion means that God’d judgements will be harsher on us than on non Catholics. This Document blasted me away when I first read it. It angered alot of liberal Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims. My understanding was that “Domine Iesus” was meant to be the blueprint for Ecumenism. I believe thats what Bl. John Paul ll said. If one has not read this Document yet, its must reading.
Yes, Sam, I agree with you. True ecumenism is an ecumenism that seeks by explaining Catholic doctrine precisely and in a friendly manner the return of the separated to the Catholic Church. This can be done in a charitable way, but we must not neglect to stress the point. I am only defending true ecumenism or ecumenism of the return in principle. I agree there have been abuses. Do you agree that the recent reception of Anglicans into the Catholic Church, where they professed the Catholic faith in its entirety, was an instance of true ecumenism?
.
“It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded.
.
This Sacred Council exhorts the faithful to refrain from superficiality and imprudent zeal, which can hinder real progress toward unity. Their ecumenical action must be fully and sincerely Catholic, that is to say, faithful to the truth which we have received from the apostles and Fathers of the Church, in harmony with the faith which the Catholic Church has always professed, and at the same time directed toward that fullness to which Our Lord wills His Body to grow in the course of time”
.
As for those invincibly ignorant of the Christian religion, God will illumine them directly or, according to St.Thomas, by sending an Angel. A minority of theologians hold that what is mentioned in Heb 11:6 suffices as explicit faith. It is the opinion of St.Thomas, St.Alphonsus, several Saints and most of the better theologians that explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary by necessity of means for salvation, even for such a person. That is my opinion too, but the Church has, according to these same theologians, never defined this dogmatically.
Angelo—we are all His creation, yes. But we are not all part of His new creation. It doesn’t matter to be His creation. What matters is to be part of the new creation. A new creation in Jesus Christ. Without Faith in Christ one cannot be part of the new creation.
Apoc—also I have no problem with ecumenism as long as the Pope is clear about the need for other religions to convert to Catholicism. But since V2 there has been a false ecumenism that the Popes have engaged in where they act as though there is no need to convert to Catholicism. This is what I have a problem with.
Apoc—I thought you already stated earlier that you believed that people need to have explicit Faith in the Trinity. That quote from Pius IX mentions nothing about the need for supernatural faith for salvation. It can only be a half truth. Yes, God can enlighten their minds and give them Faith in a miraculous way (without sending them a missionary). But are you saying that the Pope was saying that they can be saved without supernatural Faith, without an explicit knowledge of the One God and His Son Jesus Christ? Do you honesty agree with that?
Angelo—trying to defend Assissi and the Koran kissing is ridiculous. No saint before V2 would defend such things.
@ Angelo Regarding the Koran, best to heed St. Teresa’s words.
Saint Teresa writes, “I only regard a revelation as true if it is in no way contrary to Holy Scripture and to the laws of the Church, which we are obliged to follow.” The soul favored with extraordinary graces “feels capable of confounding all the demons in order to uphold the smallest of the truths taught by the Church!” If a revelation “departed ever so little from Holy Scripture, I would see in it a snare of the Devil… in such a case, it is not necessary to look for any other signs nor even to examine what manner of spirit it is. This mark alone so clearly unveils the wiles of the evil spirit that, were all the world to assure me that it is the spirit of God, I still would not believe it.”
Must the Holy Father cave to islamic culture and kiss the Koran? Is he obliged to kiss a gift? No less a gift that leads souls away from God? Post VII, yes, he must always be friendly, smile, even at the expense of kissing a heretical manuscript. Rather than offend men of this world, many saints died rather than offend God. The Koran states that Jesus is a mere “good” prophet—that is blasphemous to our Lord!
Would ANYONE have been offended if a muslim cleric (or buddhist, hindu, etc) did not kiss a Catholic bible when presented? Of course not. No muslim would been offended if he hadn’t kissed the Koran. They would’ve respected him for it.
You and Bl. JPII can praise and smooch the Koran, I’ll follow St. Teresa’s advice stick with Holy Scripture.
I don’t want you folks to think I have negative feelings to Pope John Paul 2
I ask for his intercession daily and for the intercession of Mother Theresa due to the fact they are two modern day soon to be saints. However, I believe there is a danger in trying to be too ecumenical expecially when it comes to other religions. God’s Word says, “There is no other name under heaven by which a man can be saved.” In the name of love and peace I believe we can let the lost go to hell. How much more love would it show to boldly declare” Jesus - the way the truth and life. No man comes to the Father but through me.” and to boldly declare the Grace and beauty through the Catholic Church in particular. I have made it clear my loyalty to the papacy but I confess the ecumenical thing has been a thorn in my side mainly when it comes to other religions. I can understand it more it trying to reach out to the Protestants (without changing our message that the Catholic Church is the Fullness of the Truth) but at least the Protestants believe Jesus is the Way to heaven for the most part. If everyone is ok in their own religions then why would Jesus say to “go into all the world and preach the gospel.” ?
@ Angelo “There are too many today that live only to find fault in everything, with no intention of knowing whether they be right or wrong in their rash judgements.”
Agreed and wise words. These are words you should live by (see your last post calling people Sede’s, heretics, etc).
Just to be clear, Sam, the above post was from me. I’m Nishant.
Jason, On the Koran it would do well to know a little about it. What I learned is that the Koran is a mixture of Roman Catholicism and Judaism. This book contains much of God’s Catholic truth. The Koran holds that Our Lady was God’s perfect creation. Those of Islam have a deep respect for her. Today many muslims go to Fatima on pilgrimage to pray. I believe its important to first understand that which we condemn. As for the Holy Father kissing the Koran, one must understand that in the tradition of Islam, when one gives a gift it is customary to kiss the gift as a symbol of acceptance of the gift. This the Holy Father done, only to respect their custom. It was in no way an implication that the Church holds the Koran as Catholic Doctrine. There are too many today that live only to find fault in everything, with no intention of knowing whether they be right or wrong in their rash judgements.
Linda, The Third Secret of Fatima has been reavealed in its entirety. This was confirmed by Sister Lucia herself. After the revelation of that Third Secret, along came conspiracy theories, masons, the kidnapping of Sister Lucia ect… The revealing of the secret, seems to me brought more evil than good. That is the work of the evil one. If one meditates on the contents of the third secret, one will find all the sensationalism that we all were expecting, if only for entertainment purposes.
Sam, I take it your a sedevantist. No Pope beginning with St. Peter is to be trusted with leading the Church. One has the option to reject all the canonizations and beatifications in the 2000 year history of the Church. Everyone is an Apostate or a heretic. Except you of course. So Christ broke his promise to always be with his Church. Christ did’nt choose St. Peter to feed his sheep. The truth of Pentecost never happened ect…ect…ect… By your reasoning there really does not exist any Catholic Church founded by Christ. Sam, this is called Protestanism, modernism, liberalism, heresy, schism ect…I hold that Christ founded his Church and the Holy Ghost guides it in a supernatural manner.
When it comes to Assisi, there have been many misunderstandings. I remember when Assisi happened, the Church made clear what was to take place. Bl. John Paul ll invited the leaders of all the worlds religions to come together in one place and each to pray in their own tradition and ask God for world peace. Those religious leaders were invited for the purpose of representing all their peoples. All of God’s creation, to gather in one place and ask God for peace. Catholics were not to pray together with other religions. It was all done according to the Traditions of the Church. No tradional teaching of the Church was violated. So where is the problem in this? I see no problem, Bl. John Paul ll I am sure pleased God who created us all.
Sam, all right, let’s start with the doctrinal questions, ecumenism first.
.
“The way was also prepared by the Holy See. Even prior to the Second Vatican Council the Popes fostered the Prayer for Unity and the Week of Prayer for Unity. Popes Leo XIII and Benedict XV prepared the way for openness towards ecumenism; Pope Pius XI gave express approval of the Malines Conversations with the Anglicans (1921-1926).[2]
.
Pope Pius XII went a step further. In an Instruction of 1950 he expressly welcomed the ecumenical movement and attributed it to the influence of the Holy Spirit. In addition, this Pope also paved the way for the Council with a series of groundbreaking encyclicals. It would therefore be erroneous to overlook this fundamental continuity and see the Council as a radical breach with tradition and the advent of a new church.”
.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFECUM.HTM
.
I already mentioned the example of the safe conduct given to the Protestants at the Council of Trent where they were peacably united for the purpose of theological disputation.
.
Here is Pope Pius IX on the possibility that those yet unaware of the Christian faith may receive light and grace,
.
“There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.” (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore)
.
It is the characteristic of divine Justice to punish His people for their sins and their lack of fervor by sometimes sending them shepherds who are less than perfect. Holy Writ furnishes plenty of examples of this.
Yes, I agree, respectful admonitions certainly have a part, and the SSPX is not wrong in doing so, but that alone will not suffice. The crisis in the Church stems first and foremost from a loss of spiritual life and a lack of prayer, hence Our Lady’s oft repeated words, “Pray much for the Holy Father”. This is not some irrelevant means, it is the proper means to use in this case, and only those souls who have recourse to it will resist the temptation to fall into bitterness and despair.
.
Please read this book, just at least page 335 in the below pdf entitled “the sole remedy for a bad Pope”.
.
http://www.ogilvieinstitute.org.uk/documents/journet.pdf
.
“In his Summa de Ecclesia (lib. II, cap. cvi) Cardinal Turrecremata pointed out several remedies for such a calamity: respectful admonitions, direct resistance to bad acts, and so forth. All these could, of course, prove useless.
.
There remains a supreme resource, never useless, terrible sometimes as death, as secret as love. This is prayer, the resource of the saints.
.
To the bad theologians who thought that the Church would be defenceless if not allowed to depose a vicious Pope, Cardinal Cajetan, who had seen the reign of Alexander VI, had but one answer: he reminded them of the power of prayer. For never has it such power as in such crises. We must always have recourse to prayer, as one of the purest weapons a Christian can use. But here it is not only a “common” means, i. e. one to be used along with others, it is the “proper” means, the proper instrument for the use of the Church in distress.”
Angelo—do as they say, but not as they do. Are canonizations/beatifications infallible or at least so definitive as to be binding. I do not think so. What I am getting at is: I dont think JP2 is a blessed. And even if they have legitimate authority which we must respect, we must hate the evil things they do. All of the post v2 popes have dpne evil things. Things that warrant a deep suspicion of heresy and apostasy.
I have to admit the ecumenical thing of “your ok I’m ok” has never set well with me.(Assisi) On that I have to agree with the SSPX. The more I read I have to say I have gained respect for the SSPX. My only obstacle is my need to be loyal to the papacy. I believe the way to fight for orthodoxy is within the church structure . I sure do wish the SSPX could come Home. What a powerful ally for the fight for traditional Catholicism. There is a SSPX chapel about an hour from me. If only they could possibly be a Papal Prelature like FSSP I know I would be willing to travel to be a part. Sadly, as is I cannot. I pray it happens and we can fight from within .One thing I think we all here would agree on: GOD DELIVER US OF LIBERAL CAFETERIA CATHOLICS!!
The only religious group that the Pope seems to care about converting is the SSPX.
Sam, Are you a disciple of John Vennari and Fr. Nicholas Gruner? You do know they are both masons, don’t you? As the saying goes “Roma Lucuta Est, Causa Finita Est!”.The Holy Father envisions a smaller Church and I think he means a Church without Heretics and Schismatic. We have 3 choices, Unity with the Pope, Heresy, or Schism. Or to put it another way, Unity with Christ’s Vicar or eternal loss through our own very fault.
Angelo,
From a 1997 interview that you can find in John Allen’s book “Conclave.”
Interviewer:
Your Eminence, you are very familiar with church history and know well what has happened in papal elections…Do you really believe that the Holy Spirit plays a role in the election of the pope?
Cardinal Ratzinger:
I would not say so in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the pope, because there are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit would obviously not have picked. I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.”
Don’t confuse poetic and pious remarks as doctrinal statements. Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Only God’s permissive will is involved in the choosing of a Pope. He may give graces to pick a good man, but they can easily be resisted. I’m sure there were better choices than the Borgia Popes or Alexander VI or John Paul II.
I have read your opinions. I am a catholic. I follow what has always been taught. Are you going to tell me that after 2000 years, Jesus said, “I’ve changed my mind. Let’s try something new.” The Blessed Virgin Mary told Sister Lucy to have them open the third secret after 1960, because it would then be clear. The entire third secret has yet to be released. I have talked to catholics that don’t even know what a scapular is. And one lady said that the Baltimore Catechism isn’t required teaching. What has happened to the Catholic church? People have become materialistic, worrying about what other religions think of us. We are here to do God’s work. Not living for wordly goods. That is what the devil wants. The Virgin Mother said in the end, all we will have is her Rosary. Say it every day. God Bless You and as Our Immaculate Mother has said, pray for the pope, who has much to suffer.
Did Christ call Bl. John Paul II to kiss the Koran?
Gerard,It has long been the teaching of the Church that it is God himself who chooses the Pope. Of course today through the College of Cardinals. When Bl. John Paul ll died, the then Cardinal Ratzinger in his funeral homily said, “Christ called Pope John Paul ll to be his Vicar. John Paul ll answered with a generous yes.” Pope Benedict XVl himself said that at the Conclave when votes began going his way, he strongly unconditionaly told the Cardinals not to vote for him, because he would not accept under any circumstance. Benedict XVl said that another Cardinal dropped him a note on his desk. Reminding him of his sermon on John Paul ll, reminding Ratzinger about his words that Christ called John Paul ll and that he answered with a generous yes. This Cardinal wrote in that note, “If Christ calls you, you have no choice but to answer with a generous yes. You have no choice.”. So BXVl generously said yes to Christ. Gerard lets stop inventing fables.
Angelo—sure there are elements of truth in other religions, but salvation without knowing Jesus Christ as savior as JP2 said?
Jason, as for the Austrian heresy you speak of, Pope Benedict XVl waited for the Austrian Bishops to make their Ad Limina Visit. Where he blasted them for allowing this, in what was called most unusual for a Pope to do. One should first get the full story and not play with halftruths. Thats how misunderstandings begin. Sam, I was invited to dinner by friends where there was an SSPX Priest and Seminarian. I brought up what you are talking about, that is elements of truth and grace in other Religions. The SSPX priest and seminarian confirmed that this was the absolute truth. And that in this V2 did not err. God created every human being, why deny God the right to love those he created. Its bad enouh we put limits on the Pope, must we put limits on God also. This which V2 taught is no new doctrine, it has always been held by the Church. In the manner you judge and condemn God and his Church, maybe that “Doctrinal Preamble” is absolutly neccessary after all. You need to read “Domine Iesus”, it states that God’s judgment will be harsher for Catholics than for non Catholics.
Angelo,
You wrote,“He was already chosen by Christ to be the successor of St. Peter.” The Pope is not positively chosen by Christ. Christ permits men to be elected to the papacy. No Cardinal will say that they received a direct revelation as to who to vote for. We’ve only had 3 saints who were Pope in the last thousand years. And one of them was a very inadequate Pope who resigned.
A thought! Why does’nt the SSPX sign the “Doctrinal Preamble” then do like the rest of the Bishops of the world. That is reject all of Vatican Council ll, and recreate the Church according to their own personal whims and fancies. Of course following the example first and foremost that of Levada and Muller. Of course I don’t mean this! Its just that all the Bishops are allowed to do whatever they want whether its heretical or not. And the SSPX is being treated with such severity, demanding they accept all of V2, when in fact those demanding this faithfullness are the very ones who still cling to the “spirit of Vatican ll” mentality which was condemned by Bl. John Paul ll and now Pope Benedict XVl. Allow me to say the demands proposed by the liberals for the Society are by far the biggest acts of hypocrasy I have ever seen in my entire life.
Apoc—so I guess the question I have now is: what do we do when the Holy Spirit protects an apostate Pope from promulgating erroneous teaching to the whole church but who continually exposes himself as an apostate through his actions and words not promulgated to the universal church? I think that is the state in which we find ourselves. With Assissi and koran kissing and synagogue participation we see we have apostate popes. Where is the FSSP and ICK denouncing these atrocities?
Apos—even if I were to grant that the Popes and vatican 2 have not doctrinally erred in any definitive statements, what about opposing all of the non-doctrinal things that they do that show them to be in great err. For instance, does the FSSP or ICK oppose the HOly Father and criticize him for Assissi or participating in synagogue services or kissing the Koran or any of these bad things? Do you personally opppose these actions? If so, would you openly rebuke the Holy Father for doing them? Is it a good thing that the SPPX does openly rebuke and oppose him for doing these things? If the FSSP does not rebuke him for doing these things, does that display a lack of vigilance and courage on their part?
In the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, (November 21,1964) the Second Vatican Council promulgated the following:
“The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion. Undoubtedly, in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community, these actions can truly engender a life of grace, and can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation.
“It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects already mentioned, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.
“As for common worship, however, it may not be regarded as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of unity among Christians. Such worship depends chiefly on two principles: it should signify the unity of the Church; it should provide a sharing in the means of grace. The fact that it should signify unity generally rules out common worship. Yet the gaining of needed grace sometimes commends it.”
I cannot see how this is not a new teaching. Have any of the Popes before v2 stated such things as are stated in this quote from v2?
As the contagion of religious indifferentism and false ecumenism began to spread with particular devastation, Pope Pius XI condemned these erroneous beliefs in no uncertain terms in Mortalium Animos (1929):
“With this object, congresses, meetings and addresses are arranged, attended by a large concourse of hearers, where all without distinction, unbelievers of every kind as well as Christians, even those who unhappily have rejected Christ and denied His Divine Nature or mission, are invited to join in the discussion. Now, such efforts can meet with no kind of approval among Catholics. They presuppose the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, inasmuch as all give expression, under various forms to that innate sense which leads men to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Those who hold such a view are not only in error, they distort the true idea of religion, and thus reject it, falling gradually into naturalism and atheism. To favor this opinion, therefore, and to encourage such undertakings is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God…
“This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See can by no means take part in these assemblies, nor is it in any way lawful for Catholics to give to such enterprises their encouragement or support. If they did so, they would be giving countenance to a false Christianity quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall we commit the iniquity of suffering the truth, the truth revealed by God, to be made a subject for compromise?
“... Can the object of faith, then, have become in the process of time so dim and uncertain that today we must tolerate contradictory opinions? If this were so, then we should have to admit that the coming of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, nay, the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have centuries ago lost their efficacy and value. To affirm this would be blasphemy.
“... Thus, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics. There is but one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for far from that one true Church they have in the past fallen away. The one Church of Christ is visible to all, and will remain, according to the Will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.”
Assisi? Ecumenism under the postV2 popes? Isn’t this definitive enough for you?
“The Holy Spirit is not only present in other religions through authentic expressions of prayer. ‘The Spirit’s presence and activity,’ as I wrote in the encyclical letter Redemptoris Missio, ‘affects not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions.’”
“Normally, ‘it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge Him as their Savior.’
John Paul 2 said this. I can’t believe that it is anything but heresy.
Apoc—I don’t know what the Padre Pio article has to do with the Sr. Lucy issue. Either there was an impostor Sr Lucy or there was not. I still think the photo and other evidence is highly suggestive that there was an impostor Sr Lucy.
Why did JP2 (and Padre Pio also) give communion to non-catholics? Doesn’t this show something seriously wrong with their faith?
Would the FSSP give communion to non-catholics, or is giving communion to non-catholics something the Pope can decide to do with his own authority?
I would like to see Catholics, Traditional or not, come to the defense of the SSPX. Liberals have destroyed too much in the past and they do not want to lose their hold on Christ’s Church. I wish someone who knows how, to perhaps start a petition asking the Holy Father to allow the SSPX to sign the ammended “Doctrinal Preamble” and bypass the CDF. With the intention for the SSPX to come under a Papal Prelature, thus making them untouchable by the deep rooted modernist establishment. If there ever was an opportunity to end modernism according to its condemnation by St. Pius X, this is it!
Donald Nelson & Jason, The lifting of the excommunication of the 4 out of 6 Bishops who were excommunicated “Latae Sententiae” was an act of goodwill by the Holy Father. Many of us rejoiced at this news. But now there are those who are destroying the act of goodwill by the Pope. I do not lay any fault on the SSPX. The original “Doctrinal Preamble” was ammended and it was said that Bishop Fellay was going to sign it. Then Levada changed the “Doctrinal Preamble” to its original form. Then Muller a die-hard enemy of the SSPX was chosen to be the new leader of the CDF. Muller called the SSPX “stupid” and called on its Bishops to resign. Many have thrown a wrench in this holy endeaver. And I believe it is because once the SSPX comes under Papal Prelature the liberals will no longer have any type of hold on them. If the SSPX comes under Papal Prelature it could very well be the end of the “spirit of Vatican ll” mentality, which has caused all the damage in the Church since Vatican ll. So much of this has been a farce. I hope the Holy Father will use his authority as the Vicar of Christ to intervene on behalf of Christ’s Church. And also for the Pope to send into exile those liberals who are working hard to destroy the unification of Rome and the SSPX.
They are in “full communion”, so we won’t talk about them being heretics, schismatic or resisting papal authority…
Last year, 300 Austrian priest issued “A Call to Disobedience,” demanding “reform” of Catholic teaching and practice to allow married and female priests and the reception of Holy Communion by non-Catholics and divorced and remarried Catholics. In the past year it has remained essentially unchallenged by Vienna’s Catholic authorities and has gained support from groups of priests in Germany, Ireland, Belgium, and the United States.
Jason, How typical! To spread error is the rule of schismatics. It certainly was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVl who lifted the excommunications of the 4 Bishops. He was already chosen by Christ to be the successor of St. Peter. Notice he did not lift the excommunications of Lefebvre nor that of Castro Mayor. You have your arguments mixed up along with the dates! Remember this, that the Holy Father, the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVl lifted the excommunications. And along came a dreadful warning. “CATASTRHOPIC CONCEQUENCES”.
@Angelo
Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, overturned this decision (of excommunication):
From the examination of the case… it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the decree of May 1, 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity. (June 28, 1993)
I am certain that many people are asking the question"How did the statement that upset the Society of St Pius X get put into the document if the Holy See did not authorize it?” Secondly is it possible that since it appears Bishop Fellay is open to reconciliation with the Church if others in the Society do not feel that way those who support Bishop Fellay should be welcomed back—-then let others return when and if they will????
The precise error you espouse, Gerard, was condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorum Fidei - that the Church can promulgate a harmful discipline. It has many times since and before been roundly condemned by the Church, most recently by Pope Pius XII. It is also absolutely excluded by the divine Word, viz. “Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” from h which it is proven that no one can accuse a rite of the Church to be harmful since it has received divine ratification.
..
I bring up the FSSP and ICK because their position involves no novelty on the subject of the Papal authority. Differing charisms is no problem, or even different approaches, the only problem is that of faith, saying an Ecumenical Council can contain heresy. Most of the worry and the confusion in your mind comes from implicitly and in effect thinking the Church has defected. Those in the FSSP are no less concerned about irreverence and indiscipline, heterodoxy and loss of faith than you, but we do not embrace a position incompatible with Catholic faith to explain it.
..
If you take a step back, without reference to the current crisis, from traditional Magisterial texts, and set your mind right on precisely what Papal authority entails as was defined as in the great documents of antiquity, you will see the FSSP position in this respect is the correct one.
..
Sam, all right, here’s the thing - many doctrines and theological certitudes are known with greater certainty than many historical facts taken for granted. Belief in a particular private revelation (even Fatima) is not and cannot be a dogma, but are you saying it would not be extremely rash and even sinful to deny it? It is somewhat similar, except that doctrines stated with certainty must be accepted as such, with proportionate assent. That is because these are capable of being made dogmas one day. For many centuries before Vatican I the divine institution of the Papacy and its permanence in the Bishopric of Rome was not always recognized as a dogma, but still a doctrine that would be a sin to deny.
..
Let’s say TIA is right about Sr.Lucia. How would you explain this letter of St.Padre Pio to Pope Paul VI? http://www.ewtn.com/padrepio/priest/pope.htm The reason they make this claim is because they are impious and schismatic crypto-sedevacantists who cannot believe living Saints could be faithfully subject to the Popes they don’t like. I do believe there is apostasy everywhere, in the seminaries, in the universities, among the clergy, the Bishops and even the upper echelons of the hierarchy in Rome and among the Cardinals. But not in the Holy See nor the Successor of Peter, nor that schism is the solution. Our Lady in Fatima continually told us to pray for the Pope and that the consecration would be done, but late.
..
Sam, please identify what you think are the precise errors of the Second Vatican Council or where it contradicts the Syllabus. Yes, I do believe in all the Syllabus stated, and that it was definitive, though not everything it stated is dogma. Hence there were different levels of theological censure and that only underlines my point. Not every truth is dogma, and not every error is heresy, but truth is still truth and error is still error, and all Catholic doctrines must be held with proportionate assent.
..
Yes, the Second Vatican Council for the most part repeated what was previously taught, but also settled some points which were disputed by theologians - Pope Pius XII made reference to this function of the Magisterium in Humani Generis.
..
And an example of this is the sacramentality of episcopal consecration. This is a definitive teaching, as Archbishop Di Noia says above, that all must now hold.
..
Gerard,
..
1. Ecumenism of the return is what is taught in Vatican II and both Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Ottaviani’s Holy Office showed themselves favorable to it provided some Catholic principles were applied. This had been applied by the Church with regard to the Byzantines during Florence and even to some Protestants who were offered a safe conduct to come to Trent for theological discussion. Ecumenism of the return is often a necessary prelude to corporate reunion of separated communities with the Catholic Church
..
2. There is nothing modernist, naturalist or rationalist, in the Second Vatican Council. The Council says several times that he who rejects the Church cannot be saved, that the Church is obliged to preach the Gospel, that the Gospel is literally and historically true etc etc.
..
3. I recommend reading Msgr. Journet’s “The Church of the Incarnate Word”, published in 1954 and available online. The Body or College of Bishops has succeeded to the ordinary place of the Apostles as the Pope has succeeded to the place of Peter. Head and body together form one subject, when exercised in unison, and the body is powerless without its head. This is a very far cry from Gallicanism.
..
Bishop Schneider called for condemnation of the errors in its interpretation, to the left and to the right.
..
For reasons already mentioned, the SSPX position being what it is, it is manifestly inconsistent to accuse the Council of Gallicanism.
..
While I am the last person to minimize the importance of such questions for the Church as a whole, such theological positions nonetheless do not affect every day Catholics to a very large extent. What we need among other things is solid theological formation for priests, complete loyalty to the Holy Father, and a revival in the interior spiritual life of the laity informed by the writings of the Saints, the tradition of the Fathers, and the teaching of the Gospel.
..
Those who keep saying that all has been doom and gloom in the last 50 years really need to read this link about the Catholic Church in Africa.
..
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=7022
..
A similar story of unprecedented growth is true in many places in Asia, as well as the flourishing of religious orders, nuns and priests wherever orthodoxy has been preserved and liberalism has not prevailed. There have been terrible tragedies for the Church before, when a third of Europe was torn from her grasp and left the Kingdom of Heaven to fall to the gates of hell during the Protestant Revolt, but new continents and several hundred thousand souls at around the same time entered her fold. A true reformer is a St.Francis, a false “reformer” is a Martin Luther. The precise difference between the two is their rejection of authority in the Church. Which sort do the SSPX want to be is my question to you, Sam and Gerard?
Gerard, some things you point out are the truth, others are not. The Holy Father has not invented any new doctrines. I don’t deny that the SSPX is more faithful to the Church than many liberals are. The problems in the Church today were not caused by the Popes nor by Vatican Council ll. They were caused by those who have and still misinterpret the Council, this by both traditionalists and modernists. Modernists have done and are still doing the opposite of what the Council says. Traditionalists deny the authority of V2, calling it a break with tradition and yet in practice they follow the Council almost to the letter. Strange but true, to the point of it being funny.
Jason, When exactly did the Holy Father make it quite clear that the SSPX is not in schism or heretical? The Pope made this point clear to the SSPX, that if they do not sign the “Doctrinal Preamble” there would be “catastrophic consequences”. Why would the Holy Father change the Ecclessia Dei Comission to what was formerly called “The Holy Office of the Inquisition”? More than others I desire the reconciliation between Rome and the SSPX. This has been my desire since 1984, the year of the Consecration.
Alphonsus Jr., After what you have said about the Vicar of Christ, Successor of St. Peter, The Pope, you state, “No, Angelo, you definitley don’t occupy the moral high ground.”. The way you have scorned and judged the Holy Father sounds worse than a excommunication. My hope for the excommunication of the said persons is in fact an act of Charity. Excommunication is called a healing balm by the Church. Its a call to someone who has gone astray and is leading others in the same direction to “repent and believe in the Gospel”. Excommunication is a remedy and is not a formal sentence to eternal loss. How I desire the salvation of the said persons, and the confirmation of the truth to those whom they have misled or confused. Those who I named have lied about the truth and many believe them causing grave harm to the Church and to themselves. You call it “The moral high ground” and this is my ultimate intention.
@Angelo You need to learn to follow your own advice regarding following the pope. The pope quite clearly stated that the SSPX is Catholic, not in schism, and not heretical.
Angelo, You’ve caricatured the authority of the Papacy. Pope John 22nd preached heresy publicly from the pulpit. Vatican I states aside from the qualifier of “true hierarchical obedience” it says,“For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. “
Secondly, you’ve caricatured the position of the SSPX. If they are simply adhering to the perennial teaching of the magisterium of the Church, then it’s not their positions that are in conflict with the policies and ideas of the recent Popes. It is the Popes who are in conflict with the perennial Magisterium of the Church. The Pope may not want to admit this, but a good portion of the policies masked as “teachings” since Vatican II has been in opposition to both the teaching of the Church and the structure that supported that teaching.
This is why the SSPX has asked the Pope (since he has the authority, not them) to use the ordinary or extraordinary infalliblity of the papal see to reaffirm the teaching of the pre-conciliar Popes on the issues like ecumenism, modernism, Gallicanism etc. The Popes don’t want to do that. That’s why the constant call for clarifications of Vatican II don’t occur. Bp. Athanasius Schneider requested a “syllabus of errors.” I can guarantee that one won’t be coming from this Pope or any Pope devoted to Vatican II.
If the SSPX were truly schismatic, like the Orthodox, they would not be requesting Rome to settle definitively through the infallible magisterium, the issues that plague the Church today.
Alphonsus Jr., I believe you must look into what schism is and not myself. I understand it because the Church teaches it and I’ve looked into it. Setting aside for now schism and the SSPX. Lets take your position, according to canon law and Baltimore Cathecism #4, you fall under the category of either Material or Formal Schism. Look it up! I don’t think you have a correct understanding of what the office of St. Peter is, how I wish you did!
Gerard, to continue where I left off, I think you should drop the murdering someone in obedience to the Pope, simply because such an argument is ludicrous, becuase the Pope would never ask such a thing of anyone and you well know that. As for the SSPX and the Holy Father’s Magisterium, in the past the SSPX only asked for clarifications with the intention that the Pope tells them what they wanted to hear. This is not obedience to the Authority of the Pope. Its a case of I will obey ONLY if I personaly agree. As for Vatican ll, I read the other day that the greatest adherents to the Council are the SSPX themselves (They did’nt even know it). They are obeying the Council and yet condemning it and yet following it almost to the letter. The Holy Father has been clear that the Council must be read in light of Tradition. Its been said that because of the SSPX situation the modernists are frightened and for good reason.
Gerard, The reason I did’nt answer your question about, if the Pope ordered me to murder someone? Is because the question is rediculous. I am sure you well understand my position, you well know that I am speaking about matters of faith and morals. I previously used as an example that if the Pope were to start predicting the weather he would not be guided by the Holy Ghost according to the office of St. Peter. But when speaking publicly on matters of faith and morals he cannot err, as he is directly guided by the Holy Ghost. Lets say one of the SSPX Bishops is elevated to the Papacy. According to your reasoning do you see that you are proclaiming that then he is automaticaly wrong about everything. And that we all become his judges, condemning him for every thing he says and does. Why is it that the only one in error in this world is the Pope? Again I ask the question why would Pope Benedict XVl the Supreme Pontiff order the SSPX NOT to set up a second magisterium.?
One last post.
Angelo, it’s really amazing and appalling that you’d wish for the excommunication of anybody. We’re talking about eternal damnation here. Why would you wish this on anyone? Is this love? Your wish should rather be that they repent of any (supposed) error, come to the truth, and thus be saved. No, Angelo, you definitely don’t occupy the moral high ground.
Phil Howard, you wrote:
“I still maintain that in matters of faith and morals, we must maintain an attitude of loyalty to the Holy Father, not only to maintain to Tradition but also for us to walk in humility.”
Agreed, insofar as the pope maintains loyalty to the deposit of faith he’s been entrusted to guard, we in turn must maintain loyalty (and not simply an attitude of it) to the Holy Father. We’re not the only ones with duties. A pope has them too. When he betrays his trusteeship, when he renounces his fiduciary duties, it then becomes our duty to resist him to his face (Gal. 2:11). To do otherwise, to be blindly or falsely obedient to a man rather than truly obedient to God, would be to trample and spit on the graves of the thousands of martyrs who have died defending our God-given faith.
The truth is that Vatican II was the most time-bound council in the history of the Church. It was a council swept away by the fashionable idiocy of the moment. Read the documents. They already feel dated. One might more correctly call this council the Hippie Council. Centuries from now, this council will be studied with a wry smile and with thoughts like this: “Those naive fools. How could they possibly have thought they could get into bed with the world and not catch syphilis?”
Alphonsus: I wanted to thank you for your suggested reading. I must admit I am more educated to the position of the SSPX however I still maintain that in matters of faith and morals, we must maintain an attitude of loyalty to the Holy Father, not only to maintain to Tradition but also for us to walk in humility. That being said, I love you brother and long for the time we are all one and can fight this fight for reverence and truth together.
Sam, “This madness will all be over soon.”. I totaly agree! And its happening right before our eyes. If people would read all that the Holy Father has said in the past 7 years, one would see that the great Apostasy is OFFICIALY over. Notwithstanding those who are still heretics and schismatics. The Holy Father Bl. John Paul ll consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on March 25, 1984. Our Lady had told Sister Lucia that the Holy Father would make the Consecration, but it would be late. The sensasionalists expected instant magical things to happen so they reject the Consecration in their dissapointment. It is expected for Fr. Nicholas Gruner to be excommunicated very soon (he’s at the 5th and final step of the process). Mr. Vennari who perfectly fits the mold of a freemason, I hope will also be excommunicated soon. So this mess is in fact officialy over. The successor of St. Peter by his words has assured us of it.
Apoc—and what about the syllabus of errors. Was that definitive enough? Aren’t many of those error taught quite openly at V2 and in the Popes teachings since?
Angelo, you need to look into what schism actually is. Those of the SSPX don’t fit the actual definition of schism. You’re once again stating your position, not the Catholic position.
Regarding your words about the the post-conciliar popes, the overwhelming weight of evidence indicates that instead of gifts to the Church, they’re chastisements of the Church. The pontificate of John Paul II, for example, was catastrophically disastrous. The tragic numbers bear this out.
Start studying.
This thread has become too exhausting. I’m out.
@Apocalypse, the mentality that is problematic is the perverse exaggeration of obedience and the cult of personality surrounding Popes. The Pope is after all is said and done a man. And in only the most stringent of circumstances is he irresistible. In everything else he can be resisted and or rebuked. St.Peter’s behavior that caused the rebuke by St. Paul was about his “not walking uprightly with the Gospel” in some translations it’s “perverted the Gospel.” That was Peter acting as the representative of Christ in his normal capacity. It wan’t infallible and it wasn’t “personal.” Re: the FSSP, I have no beef against them for what they are doing. They can stay out of the fight. But the SSPX is fighting the crisis of faith in the Church directly. People falsely compare them when they have obviously different charisms that God is using. Liturgy is the only outward element they share. They are doing effectively what no one else in the Church can do in an organized and upfront manner. Now, it’s up to the Pope to use St. Peter as the model and acknowledge with humility that Vatican II was an awful, confused chaotic council that inflicted awful confusion and chaos on the Church. It’s time to end the experimenting with sacred things and get back to the mission of the Church, saving souls. It’s the only mission of the Church and the only Church capable of doing it.
Angelo, You claim you believe in absolute obedience to the Pope. I posed to you the question that if the Pope commands you to murder someone, you have to obey it since obedience is absolute. You refuse to answer it. So, going by your stated position, if you don’t murder the person the Pope has commanded you to, then you are schismatic. Because schismatic, according to you is the same as disobedience. So, by not murdering for the Pope, and perhaps even encouraging others not to obey the Pope when he commands them to murder, that is simply schismatics spreading their schism. To be logically consistent. That is your position.
You either need to retract and amend your position on absolute obedience or you must make a claim about the papacy that is nowhere in Catholic teaching, that a Pope is incapable of making an evil command or knowingly obeying an evil command is somehow not sinful. Church History proves that wrong easily.
Regarding the SSPX and your misuse of the word “Magisterium”, well, the answer is no. Recommending someone not do something is far different from claiming Magisterial authority. The SSPX would not bother to ask the Pope to re-affirm the teaching of the Church on the pre-conciliar encyclicals against Modernism, false ecumenism and liberalism if they did not believe in the authority of the Pope. They would also be telling people that the Saturday night vigil does not satisfy the Sunday obligation or that the fasting rules were legitimately changed. No, they understand and are subject to the Magisterium far more clearly than someone who demands absolute obedience and believes murdering for the Pope if he asks it is obligatory and moral.
Apoc—thank you for your thoughtful responses. But I still have problems with your opinions. It is pretty clear to me that the folks at traditioninaction have a very compelling argument for the false sister lucy claim. Additionally, the argument that the 3rd secret involves apostasy at the very top (ie, the Pope) is compelling. Regarding the use of definitive language, what prevents this definitive language from making the proclamation dogmatic. I mean, why insist that doctrine that is not infallible must be accepted? If it is proclaimed definitively, doesn’t it become Dogma? Your argument on this point about Papal intent and definitive language seems to bolster my argument about the lack of need to accept V2 because the language used is non-definitive and the Papal intent was clear from the beginning, the middle, and the end that the Popes were NOT trying to proclaim anything definitive that was not already proclaimed. I suppose you would agree with this. But, I would like your retort to the articles about the articles that I posted about the hermenuetic of rupture. And I guess that just because a lot of theologians before V2 and many saints believed something, I still do not see that it is something that I must also believe. It is so much simpler and seems so much clearer that if we have to believe something, that it should be declared infallible (dogma). And if it is not dogma (if it is capable of being erroneous) than we shouldn’t be forced to believe it. So, you say that when the Pope uses definitive language, even if it is not a dogma/spoken ex cathedra, that it is incapable of being wrong? Can you see what I am saying and why I believe what I believe? Just because something is held by a lot of theologians and traditionally taught doesn’t make it right, does it? I still believe that “the gates of hell will not prevail” quote only means that the Pope will not impose a false Dogma on the Church. That is the only guarantee that I see in that verse. Even if every Pope there ever was disagreed with that, it doesn’t make it wrong. Until they declare ex cathedra that it is wrong, I am not in sin for disagreeing with it.
Sam, it was y whoou mentioned a feature of the current canon law you don’t like, so I pointed out what was the earlier practice of the Church.
My position is that when a Pope is teaching the universal Church and indicates by his language (yes, this includes Encyclicals) that he intends to settle a question definitively, the opposite position can no longer be held without sin. No, this does not include speeches, personal writings as a theologian or even catechisms. This position is that of all traditional Catholic theologians and manualists. These men wrote the textbooks in Catholic seminaries worldwide before the crisis, and were responsible for training excellent priests with a solid theological formation. My favorite 20th century theologian is Fr.Garrigou Lagrange, impeccably orthodox and a Thomist. And yes, I’m a Thomist too with respect to predestination. Tanqueray, Fenton, all these men were good too. And they all teach what I’m telling you with regard to Papal authority. It isn’t that you can just reject whatever you like claiming it is “not infallible”. Jansenists and Gallicans and others condemned by the Apostolic See also rejected the Papal teachings on similar pretenses.
Mother Teresa’s quote has been misunderstood. I know people personally who have met and were very close to Mother Teresa. What she meant was that if her example helps people to better themselves, why should she protest? But never did she say that was enough, she called baptism the “ticket” without which no one entered heaven, and her example has softened several hearts and won many to Jesus Christ. She took to heart the divine message “Whatsoever you do to the least of these, that you do unto Me”
Yes, I do think we are witnessing the days of the great apostasy, but that is not a reason to doubt or disbelieve God’s promises. I don’t believe in a so called fake Sister Lucy, that is another fraud perpetrated by “Tradition in Action”, to try and explain why she didn’t become as bitter as they. By the way, Padre Pio fully submitted to Pope Paul VI and wrote him a very filial letter before his death, which also disprvoes their position. Yes, the enemies of the Church have plotted against her for close to 2 centuries now, and have gained much ground especially during the last, but to think they have succeeded is to call Christ a liar. The hierarchy has been very evil before, Sam, you have a view that the past was perfect, no it was not, there have been very corrupt and evil Popes, and Bishops.
St.Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, says we ought rightly to believe that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff even as a private person becomes a heretic. St.Alphonsus Ligouri, another Doctor, cites him approvingly and agrees with him. Several other Saints and Doctors have expressed the same view, so I am hardly alone in what I say.
I don’t know if you still think I am an “apostate” anymore, but in any case, yes, Sam, I do believe the best of you and your SSPX brethren. I believe you are trying to stay Catholic as best you know how, but have embraced certain erroneous ideas in good faith. I’ll just say this, a thousand groups in all ages have separated from Rome under the most varied of pretenses, Sam, and you know as well as I know that they have never been right. The Holy Roman Church is the Church of St.Peter, he attached his personal prerogatives to that Church, and consecrated and hallowed it with his blood. Against that Church, hell shall not prevail, and it is our faith in the divine promise and our unfailing fidelity to Peter that is also being tested in the current crisis. All the early Fathers teach the same, and that is true Tradition we must hold.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/06/fssp-news.html
Gerard, yes, and your position would reduce the Pope’s universal jurisdiction to a sad joke. A Pope cannot be resisted in what he promulgates for the Church. He can only be rebuked as to his personal actions, like if he lived an immoral life, as many Saints have done, but respectfully and to the face, as St.Paul did.
Since Summorum Pontificuum, the FSSP has trained over 100 priests to say the Extraordinary Form. They are faithful, joyful and obedient and have done a great deal, always grateful to the Holy Father. Not a bad achievement if you ask me, so I don’t accept the idea that one cannot do much good subject to authority. You ask why special permission was given to this fraternity during its founding? It was because the SSPX refused to accept, after originally considering, the regularization proposed on May 13, 1988, and went ahead with episcopal consecrations against the Pope’s will, something forbidden by Pope Pius XII. For similar reasons, when the Greeks as a whole rejected the union proposed at Florence, Rome accepted smaller groups that were totally subject to her.
Look, I won’t make a big deal of canonical irregularities, but what matters most is the mentality. Schism is not in the final analysis a legal technicality, it is a state of mind, a rebellion against the supreme authority, a refusal of fellowship with other Catholics. Unfortunately some individuals seem to have embraced this mentality.
Alphonsus Jr, You have recommended to me some reading, I have read some of those and I found most but not all to be good reading. I would like to recommend some reading also, anything Catholic before V2, there you will find the holy tradition of obedience to the Holy Father. Also “More Catholic than the Pope” an interview with SSPX priests. Here’s a traditional quote, “Where Peter is, there is the Church.”
Gerard, Schism is when one separates himself from the Authority of the Pope. Many schismatics today are denying their schisms, yet by their very own words they are schismatics spreading their schisms. If the SSPX has not set up a second magisterium, why would the Holy Father find it necessary to order them not to do so? The fact that SSPX Bishops tell the people when to obey and when not to obey the Pope, is setting up that second magisterium. One example is, after the Beatification of Bl. John Paul ll, the SSPX Bishops instructed the faithful that they could rightfuly reject John Paul ll as a Beata. And their reason was because the Pope was wrong in Beatifying him. This example certainly sounds like someone is speaking in some sort of a second magisterium. As for your question, if the Pope orders me to murder someone? That question deserves no answer for reasons obvious at least to myself.
Alphonus Jr. Have you ever heard the sayings, “where everone leads, no one leads.” and “too many chiefs, not enough indians.” This is where you stand. God since the days of the Old Testament always gave supreme leaders to the people, like Moses, David, Soloman, and the other Fathers of the OT. These Fathers prefigured the Supreme leader of the New Testament who we call the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff, the successor of St. Peter ect… Christ has chosen for us the Supreme Pontiff as a gift to lead us in the right direction. What do you suppose would be God’s reaction for rejecting this Treasure of the Papacy?
Apos—how do you respond to the syllabus of errors issued by Pius X. Aren’t a lot of those condemned propositions present in V2 and today’s Popes’ teachings?
Apoc—Mother Teresa saying that she wants muslims to be good muslims, buddhists to be good buddhists. Pope JP2 giving communion to non-catholics. Assissi. The introduction of a false sister lucy. It’s highly probable that the Virgin Mary warned of a great apostasy from the top. Pope Paul 6 saying that the smoke of satan entered the sanctuary. Freemasons loving the new popes. Focusing on man rather than God. A bunch of liberal theologians formerly censured become the greatest advisors to the council. And on and on and on. Soon we will all be dead and we will know who was right and who was wrong. I can assure you that St Thomas, if he were with us today, would be disgusted with the hierarchy. How many do you think the elect are? Do you believe in predestination? Are you a Thomist or a Molinist on that issue? The only reason I believe anything that the Church teaches is because it comes form God. But only dogmas are infallible and only can we be totally confident that they are the truth. How can you be so confident that everything that you believe is the truth without the protection of infallibility? The New Testament speaks of a great apostasy in the Church. Don’t you agree that this could be it? I know God is in charge of the Church and is directing it according to His plan. But just because Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church doesn’t mean that the popes will never become apostates. You are reading more into that statement than is contained in it. That is your and other’s opinions about what that promise means. Plus, I’m sure you would agree that we are all supposed to follow our consciences, rightly formed. I am doing that. I don’t doubt that you are doing the same. But God is showing one of us the truth and not the other. God is enlightening one of our intellects on these issue and not the other. This madness will all be over soon.
Apoc—dont you think its your brand of clericalism that led to the child abuse crisis. I do.
Apocalypse—Im just trying to understand your position. Are you saying that a Pope can nevet err in matters of faith in morals in encyclicals, in homilies, in speeches, in everything? Are you saying that the catechism cannot err?
Apocalypse—you quote st catherine of siena on obedience when wasnt she the same saint who criticized the pope for being in france and told him he had to go back to Rome? not the apotheosis of obedience that her quote would seem, at least according to your idea of obedience. And you continue to use non-infallible teachings in your argument. The catechism is not infallible, canon law is not infallible. Give me infallible teachings, or dont give me anything.
@Apocalypse, You’ll notice that definition of Papal Supremacy from Pastor Aeternus says, “true obedience” not “perfect obedience, not “absolute obedience” and certainly not “false obedience.” Re: The FSSP, if they were so wonderfully designed, why did JPII wait till LeFebvre performed the consecrations? No. The FSSP is there to draw people away from the SSPX. The FSSP has never been given a bishop, is treated badly by local ordinaries in all but a few places. Protocol 1411 was a deliberate betrayal of their original agreement. The FSSP are priests interested in caring for their particular flock. They aren’t fighting the crisis in the Church on any other level. The SSPX goes in where local ordinaries have been abusive of their authority and traitors to the tradition and the faith of the Church. They are brought in by the faithful who have been cut off from the faith by the Shepherds themselves. In cases like those one can be subject to the Pope and still morally resist him when he endangers the faith. The recent Popes have done just that as well the bishops, priets and nuns.
Those who keep insisting on a normal mode of obedience are ignoring the crisis in the Church. It’s utterly absurd to demand normal levels of obedience when he have such abnormal actions, statements and abuses by all levels of the Church hierarchy.
The “Traditio Fathers” are among the very worst of persons to get your information from. They will eventually make you as bitter and as schismatic as they, but yes, I’ve read their stuff. This is why I recommend the FSSP, whose theology is solid, and who’ve published excellent answers in traditional circles with regard to some of the questions raised. Another thing, referring to Popes as “JPII” “BXVI” is another extremely impious practice. You should call the Pope respectfully His Holiness, the Holy Father, or the Sovereign Pontiff. St.Catherine of Sienna says,
“He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope.I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him.”
There are differing grades of theological certainty, and each merits a proportionate censure. Only a direct denial of a dogma is called heresy, but denial of any doctrine is still a mortal sin against faith. There are other levels, like “proximate de fide”, “dogmatic fact” or “theologically certain” etc. Suffice to say that denying none of this is allowed without grave sin.
It is also rash temerity for a lay Christian to dare to accuse the Successor of Peter of heresy or apostasy. Only a future Pope can do this, no one else can judge the Pope’s intentions. Yes, a Bishop can reasonably rebuke a Pope as regards his personal actions, but one can in no way resist what he promulgates for the Church, for what he binds on earth is bound by Christ in heaven. The First Vatican Council most justly anathematizes those who presume to do this.
“Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.”
By the way, regarding ecclesiastical discipline, the 1917 Code of Canon law allows Catholics to receive the sacraments from excommunicated priests under certain conditions.
Here is the Catechism of the Catholic Church #848,
“Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”
Catholic theologians are agreed that explicit faith in at least the two articles mentioned in Heb 11:6 are required. Some think in addition the Trinity and Incarnation must also be explicitly believed, which faith the pagan in truly invincibly ignorance may receive by God’s own internal illumination or by sending of an Angel. This was St.Thomas’ view and is my own as well. But regardless of any extraordinary means God may provide, the Church is obliged “to evangelize all men” as is said above in Pope John Paul II’s Catechism.
This has been a lengthy, but necessary, posting. I pray you recognize your absolute need to be subject to the Pope to remain in the Church, as a member must be subject to the head if it wishes to remain in the body.
No, Gerard, the FSSP is what the SSPX was originally meant to be, a solid group of traditional priests with orthodox doctrine subject to legitimate authorities and founded in the Church. He who gathers not with Peter scatters. Work in full subjection, of mind and heart, to the Holy See, and I’m sure you will do great things for Christ.
What exactly are you worried about?
Girl altar servers?
Salvation outside the Church?
Not being anti-semitic?
Latin Mass?
Lay Eucharistic Ministers?
Receiving in the hand?
Nuns not wearing habits?
None of these things are Gospel-driven, so why are you so bloody upset?
Angelo said the following:
“My position is that true obedience to the Pope can only be absolute obedience.”
Yes, this is your position - not the Catholic position. See my post above on true and false obedience.
You explicitly embrace the very error you accuse us of: Protestantism via private judgment.
“But when Cephas [Peter] was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”
-St. Paul, Galatians 2:11
Angelo, Pope Benedict knows very well that the SSPX has not set up a second Magisterium. What he wants is for them to stop reminding him of how much he is disobeying the Magisterium of the Church. The Pope, while he can invoke the Magisterium is still subject to it. No Pope can undo what has been taught infallibly. The SSPX is not setting themselves up as the authority. They are pleading with the Holy Father to invoke the Magisterium of the Church by reaffirming the doctrines of the Church prior to Vatican II’s excessive policy initiatives that have kept the Churchmen from preaching the Truth of salvation and “confirming the brethren.” You may or may not know people going to the SSPX that are schismatic. It depends on whether you correctly understand schism. I know plenty of people in the Novus Ordo who do not have the faith many priests particularly who hold heresy, are de facto schismatic and don’t mince words about it when you talk to them for a while.
Your position regarding obedience is simply not Catholic. Absolute obedience is given only to God Himself. If the Pope tells you to murder someone, you will obey if you believe in absolute obedience. God will not absolve you of murder for what St. Thomas calls false of servile obedience. What you accuse the modernists rightly of is Pyrrhonism, the belief that nothing is truly knowable. However the Catholic position St. Robt. Bellarmine makes the distinction in claiming people have moral certitude. Absolute certitude is impossible this side of Heaven otherwise, there would be no need for Faith.
Alphonsus, God Bless you brother. For the sake of educating myself more on the SSPX position I will look up those references you qouted.
No, Sam, it applies to every Successor of St.Peter in his See. Clearly, I believe in the traditional doctrine of the Papacy, while you revive the Gallican error. While I won’t descend to your level of throwing around the word “apostate” rashly, I advise you to take thought for your soul, which you put in grave peril, since you clearly have a mentality that is bordering on schism, refusing submission to the Holy Father and the faithful in communion with him. Moreover, I believe in every dogma the Church has ever defined, and in every doctrine she has ever taught, which is why I know your position to be wrong.
Gerard, Pope BXVl ordered the SSPX not to set up a second magisterium. Why would he demand this of the Society? Exactly because that is what they have done. They have made themselves the infallible voice that cannot err. I know several in the SSPX who are plain schismatic. According to these, the Pope is not correct unless they themselves give some sort of authorative approval. My position is that true obedience to the Pope can only be absolute obedience. If the past few Popes are wrong, then it can rightfuly be said that St. Pius V was also wrong, that he caused the destruction of the Church, and that V2 corrected his errors. Maybe all the Popes since St. Peter are heretics. That is what the self proclaimed infallible modernists have declared, no different than some from the SSPX. They have said that St. Pius X was wrong in condemning modernism, which is why St. Pius X must be corrected. All this comes from satan. As St. Paul said, “let us go to Peter.”
Apocalypse—regarding your use of the quotes pertaining to what kind of desire is required, how can someone who is invincbly ignorant have either supernatural faith or charity? How do you define supernatural faith? Ratzingers definition of faith in Intro to Christianity is another example of his apostasy.
Just because a Pope promulgates a rite is no guarantee of its intrinsic value to the faithful. The Novus Ordo in the words of the current Pope was a manufactured liturgy, a banal, on the spot product. Rites in the Church have been abrograted before as stated in Pro Quimum anything less than 200 years old had to go.
The FSSP and ICK are fine for what they do individually, but they are used to drain people away from the SSPX. No SSPX, no FSSP.
The SSPX exists because the bishops and Popes have failed to provide the faith, the practice and the devotions and the protection from error that they are supposed to. The malfeasance of bishops is where things start. The SSPX is simply the faithful calling out for help and a group of good priests will not turn away from the cries for help when the bishop does.
The SSPX is more fiercely loyal to the Holy See than the Holy See cares to admit. They are so loyal they call on the Holy See to stop the nonsensical “auto demolition” of the Church that the Popes have been overseeing for decades.
“If the Faith be in imminent peril, prelates ought to be accused by their subjects, even in public. Thus, St. Paul, who was the subject of St. Peter, called him to task in public because of the impending danger of scandal concerning a point of Faith. As the Glossary to St. Augustine puts it: “St. Peter himself set an example for those who rule, to the effect that if they ever stray from the straight path they are not to feel that anyone is unworthy of correcting them, even if such a person be one of their subjects.”—St. Thomas Aquinas
Apocalpse—what, then, is the purpose of the gift of infallibilty if the popes are always right even without it? its completely asinine to say what you say, because then there would be no need for papal infallibility. There would be no distinction betweem dogma and doctrine. C’mon, open your eyes. The gift of infallibilty is the protection Christ ave to the Popes. That is its purpose. If the pppe does not use that gift, then what they say is not protected. Ergo it is fallible. We do not have to assent to fallible teachings. To require someone to do so as you do is foolish. V2 is fallible. Iys mot a dogmatic council. The folks at tradition in action have better resources for you than I. You may already have visited their site. If not, check it out.
It’s clear to me now that what we’re seeing here from friends like Angelo and Phil Howard isn’t bad will, but only a lack of knowledge concerning the depth and scope of the conciliar catastrophe, and about the SSPX position. I’d therefore like to recommend the following study program:
-Open Letter to Confused Catholics, by Abp. Lefebvre, available online for free via this search:
Open Letter to Confused Catholics SSPX Asia
-The Ottaviani Intervention (available online for free in pdf form)
-The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, by Fr. Gaudron, available online for free via this search:
Catechism of the Crisis in the Church. Chapter I - The Angelus Online
-The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, by Fr. Ralph Wiltgen
-Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Church in the Twentieth Century, by Romano Amerio (peritus at Vatican II)
-One Hundred Years of Modernism: A Genealogy of the Principles of the Second Vatican Council, by Fr. Bourmaud
apocalypse—so desire need not be explicit, but the faith does have to be explicit? is this a dogmatic truth? and yes, unless a pope speak ex cathedra he ca be wrong, hence we are able to resist, reject, criticize. our position on the pope is unbalanced. You can cite as many non-infallible quotes as you want. Bottomline: if it is not infallible, then I do not have to agree. The apostasy is evident in many ways, some subtle and others not so. Assisssi, giving comunion to non-Catholics, and lack of clear teaching on the need to convert from the false religions all evince the apostasy. V2 was the masonic revolution in the church. Read a book called Animus Delendi. The popes been apostate since. Im still trying to figure out for myself what that means for us laymen.
Apocalypse—furthermore, the quote from Pius 9 only applies to Popes who have not shown themselves to be apostates. This is the time of the great apostasy in the church. I would not doubt that you are an apostate and do not have the theological virtue of faith.
“notwithstanding what any pope in the history of the church said”
Bon Dieu! Will you listen to yourself, Sam? You call yourself a traditional Catholic and make a statement like this. It is not at all open to debate, the position you hold is exceedingly dangerous, and condemned by several Popes, two of whom are cited above. It is not at all traditional, the FSSP and the ICK, both fiercely loyal to the Holy See are orthodox in faith and traditional in practice and they don’t just neglect something the Popes of old have taught when it is inconvenient to them. I know there are many SSPX Catholics too who love the Holy Father and pray for him, but the positions of the former on Vatican II and the new Mass are the correct ones, that they are in accord with Tradition.
Anyway, please answer me - what doctrine exactly do I, or does the Church today, hold and teach that you disagree with? Which is it that is erroneous or uncertain, or at odds with Tradition in your opinion?
Here is the part of the Holy Office letter that answers your question.
“However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6).”
apocalypse—what kind of desire and longing is required to be united to the church? I agree that a desire does unite, but it has to be explicit rather than a nebulous, ignorant desire. The person has to know by faith what he desires. He has to know by faith the Trinity and the Creed. He has to know by faith the true Church and the Sacraments. And no, I am not wrong about the papacy. If a teaching is not clearl defined as dogma, it is open for debate, notwithstanding what any pope in the history of the church said.
Alphonsus, thanks for the patristic quotes, but that doesn’t answer my question. The Holy Office under Pope Pius XII wrote this letter, “These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, ‘Mystici Corporis Christi’. For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire ... Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing”
Do you disagree with this?
Precisely what doctrines that the Church teaches today do you disagree with? Is it ecumenism? In that case, I showed the traditional support above for an ecumenism of the return. Is it religious liberty? In that case Pope Leo XIII would answer you distinguishing between liberty that is true and false, and that true liberty is the right to fulfil one’s obligations, which is the same sense of the Second Vatican Council’s definitions. Is it the Mass? It is unCatholic to claim a Mass promulgated by the Pope can be harmful. The ordinary Form of the Roman rite is a true and legitimate Mass, and in any case that can be shown even independent of authority.
The FSSP’s position is exact, it is at once solidly traditional, and moreover completely in harmony with the traditional Catholic doctrine on the assent owed by the faithful to the Magisterium.
For good measure, here is Pope Pius XII on Humani Generis regarding the false conception you seem to have of the Magisterium.
“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”
WHile I continue to pray for reunification and that we would continue to hear God’s voice and change I will not continue to debate. Am I willing to fight for the changes that need to be made Gerard? You bet I will. By my example of reverence to the Holy Eucharist and by fighting on my knees. I hope you are sure you are operating in the same perfect love Jesus operated in when he ” called names.” If because I will not ” call names” you believe I do not care about change you are judging me falsely. There is more in God’s Word about loving your enemy, patience, humility, and praying for your enemies than the couple of examples you cite that our perfect Savior who without a doubt had unblemished motives. Maybe you are not like me. When I try to justify my anger as “righteous indignation” my fleshly carnal nature is often intermingled. Maybe that is not the case with you. I do know that St. Paul said, We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers and spiritual wickedness in high places.” It;s much easier to lash out with carnal weapons such as our tongue. Which happens to be ” a raging fire , who can tame.” I do not doubt that everyone on this site is well meaning and loves the Lord. I would challenge us to fight on our knees and with the example of our life.
Sad to say ultimately I was sadly disappointed in the discourse shown here. SSPX folks for the sake of your cause please return to humility because the approach I saw here clearly seems to be a reflection of a spirit of division I was also disapointed with my brothers loyal to the Holy Father in that some here stooped to a low discourse and showed a lack of love to our seperated bretheren. Let us all humble ourselves under God’s mighty hand. I am done with the conversation here due to the fact people cannot have civil discourse. You all are my bretheren I will not fight you.God Bless.
Jesus did a lot of name-calling towards the religious leaders of His day I recall. Traditional Catholicism is inherently combative as the Church Militant is supposed to be. What some people see as “anger” and bitterness is also righteous anger in most cases and disdain and disgust and scorn for those that soil the bride of Christ. If Catholics cannot stand confrontation and combat to defend the Church when necessary, there is something wrong in their formation. If you aren’t willing to fight for it, you really don’t believe in it.
Trads and liberals are not interested in a “live and let live” attitude. The liberal ideas, the liberal actions and the liberal theology has to go and the liberals themselves must repent, convert or go as well.
I agree. The liberal Bishops are more anti-Vatican ll than the SSPX. They have contadicted the whole Council, making the Council out to be what they personaly want it to be. The damage in the Church since the Council proves it. Bishop Muller is the total opposite of Bishop DiNoia. Muller comes off proud, arrogant and haughty. He has yet to demonstrate that he wants the SSPX situation resolved. He calls them stupid, calls on the SSPX Bishops to resign and be humble priests. Muller states the SSPX sign the agreement or else they are out of the Church. Unless the Holy Father replaces Muller, the Church will be in grave danger with him as the head of the CDF. I have to admit that I am greatly perturbed.
The dogs are barking!!
“Yes, the faithful are permitted and even commanded to give a reason for their faith, to draw out its consequences, to make applications of it, to deduce parallels and analogies from it. It is thus by use of their reason that the faithful are enabled to suspect and measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine presented to them, by comparing it with a doctrine already defined. If it be not in accord, they can combat it as bad, and justly stigmatize as bad the book or journal which sustains it. They cannot of course define it ex cathedra, but they can lawfully hold it as perverse and declare it such, warn others against it, raise the cry of alarm and strike the first blow against it. The faithful layman can do all this, and has done it at all times with the applause of the Church. Nor in so doing does he make himself the pastor of the flock, nor even its humblest attendant; he simply serves it as a watchdog who gives the alarm. Opportet allatrare canes—“It behooves watchdogs to bark,” very opportunely said a great Spanish Bishop in reference to such occasions.”
(Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism is a Sin, 151-153 - this book was endorsed in 1899 by the Holy See)
I, and 14 cousins throughout the country were raised Novus Ordo Catholics (all born in the early 70s). All have left the church except two. Myself and a proud cafeteria catholic (they used to be called protestants) cousin. By the grace of God, I’ve returned to the Church, but now having three, and soon a 4th kid. I will raise them as Traditionalists, as I know first hand water down catholicism very rarely works, especially in this world. As traditions teaches, I will be held accountable for their training.
By their fruits…
I forgot to mention part of my point concerning the name calling showing a lack of love and humility. That also goes for anyone who continues to call the SSPX folks names. My brothers have left home like the Prodigal why should I call them names. “The love of God draws us to repentance.” and Paul said, ” IF a brother falls restore him back gently lest you also should fall.” Remember God;s mercy triumphs over his judgment. We should reflect that in how we speak to each other. Speaking in love also lends itself well to civil discourse.
Alphonsus: I believe the Church as a whole is the body of Christ on Earth. Jesus is the Lord and Head of the Church. The Pope is the leader of the Church on Earth as directed by Christ. I am concerned that what I am hearing from the folks here is a very protestant tone. Secondly, the name calling does no service to your cause.Calling people heretics, modernists, etc. shows a lack of love and humility. Do you spend as much time and energy praying for the pope, the bishops, etc. as you do in criticizing? As far as your views on reverence of the Holy Mass , I will be honest with you I tend to agree with you on much of what you are saying. If I was thinking on being a part of the SSPX however from the folks here I see no love or humility. It drives me away. The Bible says You will know them by their fruits.” All that I hear is anger. bitterness,and disention. I come from a unique perspective, I am a convert to the Church . I was an Assemblies of God minister and converted to the Church eight years ago. The teaching authority of the church and the fact there is church hierarchy is of utmost importance to me. My last question is other than your belief that the mass in the vernacular is evil, what other points make Vatican 2 heretical? As for me, I love it when I have an opportunity to attend Latin masses. When I cannot attend a Latin mass I never receive communion in the hand. I don’t believe in modern twists in the liturgy and I find songs about blackbirds and songs about “us” as completely out of order for the mass. I love traditional Catholicism. I love the rosary. I am convinced Our Lady brought me into the Church. I could go on. I pray we continue toward a traditional view and eventually lay aside the fads in the liturgy that came after Vatican 2. That being said, my love for traditional Catholicism is the same reason I must pray for these changes while staying loyal to the Holy Father. I’ll say it again: I pray this rift will be mended because we need the wonderful reverence the SSPX has for the mass in the Church as a whole. Please come home.
Angelo, Plainly put, you are wrong. The SSPX is simply engaging in the tradition established by St. Paul. When the Pope walks not uprightly with the Gospel, they resist him to his face. “Though WE or an Angel of Light bring you a different gospel…” you know the rest. Vatican I calls for “true obedience” to the Pope. Not “absolute” obedience. The issue is not obedience at all. Unless first, you address the bizarre, inept and dangerous policies of the last few Popes that allowed the crisis in the Church to completely boil over, there is no point in arguing with someone who calls for irrational obedience to Popes bent on destroying the Church. And another point, who has broken more with tradition? The SSPX or the recent Popes? Deal with the log in the eyes of the Popes before going on about the splinter you may believe in the eyes of the SSPX.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea, collecting the Fathers on “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” (John 10:16)
St. Gregory: But as He came to redeem not only the Jews, but the Gentiles, He adds, And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold.
St. Augustine: The sheep hitherto spoken of are those of the stock of Israel according to the flesh. But there were others of the stock of Israel, according to faith, Gentiles, who were as yet out of the fold; predestinated, but not yet gathered together. They are not of this fold, because they are not of the race of Israel, but they will be of this fold: Them also I must bring.
St. Chrysostom: What wonder that these should hear My voice, and follow Me, when others are waiting to do the same. Both these flocks are dispersed, and without shepherds; for it follows, And they shall hear My voice. And then He foretells their future union: And there shall be one fold and one Shepherd.
St. Gregory: Of two flocks He makes one fold, uniting the Jews and Gentiles in His faith.
@Alphonsus Jr. - you write, “resolve the dissonance between their words and those of St. Thomas”
It’s not that hard to resolve that dissonance in that St. Thomas lived in 13th century and also believed woman’s nature was particularly evil since they bled once a month and didn’t die. We seem to have gotten past that now too.
Also, as you quote, Aquinas was stating that CP was necessary to protect the common good. What the Catechism of the Church and JPII and Benedict have clearly stated is that in today’s world our ability to protect the common good without murdering the offender renders CP virtually unnecessary. That is not in discord with Aquinas’ intent as well.
But, blood thirsty Catholics will always twist and mangle words to eek out an excuse for taking out vengeance which only belongs to God
“The rebellion must come…” -II Thessalonians ii
The rebellion was made up of Bishops at the Council. It was like a new and false epiphany. The Modernists then went out and spread their teachings, not necessarily contained in the Council documents, throughout the world.
Therefore brethren, stand fast and hold to tradition!
No, Sam, you are quite incorrect in this matter, I’m afraid. You’ve almost reduced the Papacy to a Gallican construct. That is what truly concerns me, that you have a distorted understanding of what the Savior meant the Papacy to be. I understand why in good faith you feel the need to do this, but that is where you err, because God does not institute in His Church the need for obedience without also Himself upholding with due guidance the authority concerned.
Here is Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura,
“Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.”
Alphonsus, Chris Ferrara is a good writer on many issues, but I do not agree here. Even Pope Pius XII would disagree with you. Are you familiar with the letter he approved as Supreme Pontiff which explained the true doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus? It may reasonably be presumed that some individuals are in good faith, and so these are not in the same state as the lost, though this does not lessen our obligation to bring them to full communion so that they may actually become members of the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. Christ said, “Other sheep I have too, who are not of this fold. Them too must I bring, that there may be but one fold and one shepherd”. This was very much the attitude of those concerned with restoring the Greeks to the unity of the Catholic fold.
True ecumenism is thus always an ecumenism of the return, like Pope Benedict XVI has instituted with regard to the Anglicans, who when they ask to be received into full communion, were received graciously, but only after being confirmed and ordained this time as true priests and Bishops of the Church, professing all the dogmas of the Catholic Faith and full submission to the Successor of Peter.
There was a good article in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia regarding this, do read at least the first few and last few paragraphs, you might see the point, why even Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Ottaviani, by no means liberals, began to view it with favor under certain conditions.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15132a.htm
Jason, Politics? I am talking about the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ. I am talking, God and his Kingdom on earth. I don’t recall saying that I agreed with Archbishop Marcel Lefevbre 99%. I did say I aggree with most of what he says in the first 7 chapters that I read. As for the SSPX I am a former adherent. I sadly am no longer an adherent, because Lefebvre in 1988 caused a grave wound in our souls. Though the SSPX is more “faithful” to the Church than the “faithful” liberals, they are also in much error. Would you like me to tell you about the grave errors of the SSPX. Because I would like to tell it.
Alphonsus Jr., You have described the liberals in the Church and not the Holy Father and his Magisterium. Anyone who attributes what you say to the Holy Father is in error. The Dogma of Infallibility was defined at the First Vatican Council, as being a sacred truth from the moment Christ made St. Peter the first Pope. The Popes have used the “Ex Cathedra” many times. Only many want the Holy Father to make a whole ceremony each time. I recall the Servant of God Pope Paul Vl using the “Ex Cathedra” without having the parade. He said, “Many today say the Holy Spirit speaks to them, if this spirit of which they claim says anything contrary to the teachings of the Church. I DECLARE it is not the Holy Spirit.” He was using the words from the form from Vatican Council l, “I DECLARE”
Gerard, As much as I admire the SSPX I must say that they themselves have broken much with Tradition. It has been a Tradition to obey the Holy Father ever since Christ made St. Peter the first Pope. The Church has traditionaly taught that the Pope is under the direct guidance of the Holy Ghost when speaking on matters of faith and morals. The SSPX has invalidated this holy tradition and have set themselves up as a new form of a magisterium to judge when the Pope is right and when he’s wrong. It is absolutely ridiculous to invent this new form of a sort of dogma. As for Ecumenism both Bl. John Paul ll and Benedict XVl have said many have erred in putting this holy endeaver into practice. In Ecumenism the Church is only following its Master, Christ said, “I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold, Et Unum Sint.” that they may all be one. This is what ecumenism is all about. Does the SSPX want the Church to break the Tradition of following Our Lord in ALL things?
Joseph:
Catholic teaching has always permitted capital punishment. Thus the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, teaches:
“If a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since ‘a little leaven corrupts the whole lump.’” (Summa Theologiae II-II:64:2)
You mention the teachings of the new Catechism, JP II, and BXVI. To help you resolve the dissonance between their words and those of St. Thomas, I encourage you to read this book:
The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, by Fr. Gaudron
Also search the internet for this essay series:
The New Catechism: Is it Catholic?
Angelo:
Papal infallibility requires not only that a pope teach on faith or morals, but that he invoke infallibility by proclaiming said teaching ex cathedra. Gerald’s words above concerning Pope John 22 are apt.
One of the most salient characteristics of Vatican II and its aftermath is a refusal to speak clearly. Thus post-Vatican II popes have invoked infallibly only, possibly, once or twice. They don’t want to offend people. They want to be in tune with the world. Clear, unequivocal teaching on faith and morals would be most offensive to so very many people today.
Phil Howard:
So you do believe that a pope and the Church are one and the same. This belief is erroneous. Jesus indeed said, “Upon this rock I will build my Church.” This is not a statement of identity, but of distinction. There is the rock, and there is the Church. As Gerald says above, when Pope John 22 was teaching heresy, he was most definitely teaching it apart from the Church. The notorious Pope Alexander VI also lived apart from the Church. Many more examples could be provided.
As for the SSPX, only priests are members of it. Laity may assist at their Masses, but they’re not members of the SSPX, as it’s a priestly society. By the way, the SSPX isn’t simply about preserving the traditional Mass. Rather, they’re about preserving the deposit of faith embodied in the traditional Mass. They maintain that the Novus Ordo isn’t just aesthetically deficient, but that it reflects fundamental departures from the deposit of faith.
I encourage all readers to go to the SSPX website and read some articles. If you don’t come to agree, at least you’ll gain a more precise knowledge of where they stand.
I also encourage all readers to get Fr. Gaudron’s excellent Catechism of the Crisis in the Church. This is really essential reading for all Catholics today.
I just took a look at the SSPX web-site. They actually have a section devoted to proving why Catholics should support the death penalty. That is unbelievable that they would actually not only support the death penalty, but go so far as to write an argument for it! Obviously in direct opposition to the Catechism, JP II, and the current Pope - the SSPX is no question apostate (and barbarians).
Apocalypse—like always, someone else has stated more coherently what I want to say. Geralds post is right on. We are talking about the difference between infallible utterances from the Pope and non-infallible ones. Even in faith and morals the Pope clearly is not always infallible. So non-infallible statements from him are not only open for debate and criticism but even complete rejection. We still have to exercise our own intellects when processing what the Pope says. It would be nice if the Pope were always right, but he’s not. And this current Pope is so steeped in error and half truth that it’s absurd.
Angelo, You seem to have a caricature of the SSPX and their positions. If they actually did totally ignore the Pope, they would not accept the various “loosenings” of fasting hours or days of obligation. The truth is they do not think them wise, but they recognize the power of the Pope to bind and loose. They do however point out that while Rome may remove the obligation, the traditional fasts are still meritorious and good for discipline. And secondly, you are wrong when you say the Pope is directly guided by the Holy Ghost when he speaks on faith and morals. He like Pope John 22nd can be completely wrong as long as he hasn’t tried to bind the universal Church. Pope John preached from the pulpit heresy about the Beatific Vision and didn’t recant until his deathbed. Just as asking you the time of day is a situation where we can check on you against another clock, so too can we listen to the Holy Father and determine when he’s speaking with the voice of Peter in an irresistible way or when he’s speaking as an individual (like Joseph Ratzinger in his Jesus of Nazareth books) and he can be way off base theologically or logically. And even as Pope he can be wrong on declaring validity or invalidity of ordinations, excommunications or other matters of fact. The ordinary infallible Magisterium of the Church is determined by the Pope teaching what has always been taught everywhere by the Church. So, JPII’s novel “Theology of the Body” can be rightly critiqued for its flaws and failures of logic. Ecumenism is a policy, not an issue of faith and morals, so one can resist, disagree with and even condemn some of the scandals associated with the “ecumenical movement.” One can also rebuke a Pope for failing to clearly defend the Deposit of Faith. St. Pius X wrote that silence would be a failing in his sacred duty as Pope. Well, if it wasn’t possible, he wouldn’t have written about it. So, it is possible and it has happened. Follow Peter when he acts as Peter, not when he denies Our Lord or pretends to be less than Catholic or sinks into the waves because he’s distracted by the changing winds.
God’s Word says to avoid useless debate. I will only say this. When the Pope speaks on issues of faith and morals ex cathedra it is infallible. Anyone who disagrees with that is no different than Martin Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli, etc. I want so badly for the rift to be mended . Someone earlier said SSPX do an excellent job at forming Catholics . I would agree except for what appears to me to be a “protestant ” mentality that we don’t need the Pope.Alphonsus you said “the Pope is distinct from the Church.” That is the bottom line we cannot agree on.To Peter Jesus said, ” Upon this rock I will be build my Church.” The keys to the Kingdom were given to Peter as the first Pope. Are you saying what Jesus instituted is not an integral and vital gift to the CHurch and that we know better? I know we need a return to orthodoxy although I believe it is getting better. but jumping ship is not the answer. I love you folks at SSPX . I love you committment to the utmost reverence for the mass. God give us Catholics with a passion to reverence His presence. My heart grieves at this rift in the body. God please bring healing and restoration to all your Body under the banner of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Give us a deep loyalty to our Eucharistic Christ and help us love our Pope, our Bishops and Priests. Let us hold fast to the truth that has been handed down to us. Where we have gone astray bring us back to walk as closely with you as possible. I may disagree with you folks from the SSPX please know I love you all as my brothers that have left fellowship and I long for your return .
Sam, What if I were to say that I must completely ignore all you say, regardless? That I should not even ask you the time of day? Because of the fact that nothing you say is infallible, as you have no power to define dogma. If things were as you say, then we men must never speak again as we are not infallible, and everything that comes from our mouths are lies because we do not have the power to define dogma. Lets stick to Peter!
Alphonsus Jr. As for obedience and limits, where do we draw the line? Catholics for 2000 yrs. have been doing this, and a great many are now eternaly lost. The Pope does not have to shout “ex cathedra” every time he speaks the truth to us. The traditional teaching of the Church, of which many have departed, teaches that the Pope is directly guided by the Holy Ghost when speaking on matters of faith and morals. Should the Holy Father attempt to start predicting the weather, he would not have God’s assurance of infallibility. He only has it when speaking on matters of Faith and Morals. The disobedience you approve of, traditionaly is called Holy Disobedience. But we better be darn sure that its holy and not from the evil one. Remember that we can easily be deceived, as we do not enjoy the gift of infallibility. We are all fallible, with the exception of the Holy Father when speaking God’s truth. Would it be correct to say? The Pope is wrong, I need not obey, he must obey me because I am right and he has fallen into error, simply because I have made that decision.
@Angelo I quote your post, “The left and the right have one thing in common and thats the rejection of the TRADITION of obedience to Peter.”
This is the injection of politics. Since we are talking religion, let us speak in terms of faithful and unfaithful. Are the SSPX being faithful to the Christ and the Tradition(s) of the Church by what they practice and accept? Are they being faithful to Christ in what they reject?
You’ve said yourself that you agreed with 99% of everything you’ve read in Lefebrve’s book - so in your own estimation, they are being faithful, and that VII’s new “dogmas” are unfaithful.
@ANYONE that supports DiNoia’s position:
If the SSPX is being unfaithful, please list the infallible Catholic Dogma(s) with which they are being unfaithful.
Angelo, to speak slanderously requires, by definition, falsity. Thus, anyone who states only the truth cannot be committing slander.
I’ve used the language of law because you chose the word “slander,” a legal term. In the ethical realm, the better word is the traditional one: calumny. Calumny, like slander, requires falsity. Like slander, if there’s no falsity, there’s no calumny. Thus if the critics of this pope, or any other, don’t speak falsely, they commit no calumny.
The sin of detraction may apply even though one speaks the truth. However, this sin is not committed when matters of public knowledge are involved. For example, the sin of detraction wasn’t committed when the the popes’ (JP II & BXVI) participation in the scandals of Assisi I, II, and III were denounced. Their participation in these scandals were public knowledge, thus their denunciation didn’t constitute detraction.
Regarding obedience, one must distinguish between true and false obedience. As a Spanish proverb says: “Obedience is the servant of faith, not of obedience.” And as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, true obedience is a balance between the twin errors of defect and excess, which are disobedience on one side and false obedience on the other (Summa, IIaIIae, Q104,5 ad 3).
I’ll now provide some examples of true and false obedience.
TRUE OBEDIENCE
God through the Catholic Church has absolute authority over my conscience, BUT in the last resort God meant me to judge, if His hierarchy is departing from His teaching. Obedience to men has limits (Galatians 1:8-9; Acts 5:29).
FALSE OBEDIENCE
The Church is the absolute authority. Obedience has no limits. Thus I must do whatever the hierarchy says, even if, for instance, I’m commanded to worship idols.
TRUE OBEDIENCE
The pope, as the Vicar of Christ, is given by Christ direct authority over the whole Church, BUT he is not infallible in everything he says or does. His infallibility applies only to matters of faith and morals taught ex cathedra.
FALSE OBEDIENCE
The Pope is infallible in everything he says or does.
TRUE OBEDIENCE
Lawful superiors are to be respected as the representatives of Christ, BUT if they gravely depart from the Catholic Faith, I may even rebuke them in public (Galatians 2:11-14).
FALSE OBEDIENCE
I may never criticize any superior under any circumstances.
TRUE OBEDIENCE
I will gladly obey the appointed servants of God, BUT not when I know they are leading men away from God.
FALSE OBEDIENCE
I will obey bishops and priests even when they disobey God by forsaking sacred Tradition.
TRUE OBEDIENCE
I will always respect the Church authorities as such (Jn. 18:23; Acts 23:5), BUT I need not follow Church leaders who violate the traditions of the Faith (Acts 5:29).
FALSE OBEDIENCE
Whoever protests against anything a Church official does or says is Protestant.
Many more examples could be provided.
Finally, consider the following:
Obedience to manifest error is sinful and the obligations to obey ceases once you are commanded to do some evil. Helping to destroy the Church in the name of “obedience” is also sinful. Blind obedience is not, and has never been Catholic (this is because true obedience can never conflict with the will of God; it can’t contradict the Churches’ constant teaching).
“And there is no reason why those who obey God rather than men should be accused of refusing obedience, for if the will of rulers isopposed to the will and the laws of God, these rulers exceed the boundes of their own power and pervert justice, nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null.”
-Pope Leo XIII, Diutumum illud
Angelo—don’t take the quote from scripture too far about he who hears you hears me. You may be interpreting it in a way that gives the pope infallibilty in any of his statements regarding faith and morals. Only in defining dogma is when the Pope can be trusted.
Those commenters that are anti-SSPX while in some cases, I’m sure have good intentions, are severely ignorant of the reality of what the Church teaches as well as the history of the Church. They would absolutely lose their minds if Pope Benedict did what Pope Stephen did and dig up the body of his predecessor, put it on trial, order a deacon to provide answers, desecrate the body and dump it into a river after letting the populace show disrespect for the deceased Pope. Added to that the declaration that his ordinations and decrees were invalid. But both Stephen and Formosus were legitimate “Vicars of Christ” “Sweet Jesus on Earth” “He who hears you hears me” and other titles and pious slogans that are not anywhere near dogmatic truths, that cover these authentic exercises of papal power that were not “guided by the Holy Spirit.” That’s one example, there are plenty more in the history of the Church that leaves no room for romantic sentimentalization of the Church or the Papacy. Stick with the dogmas, the traditions and the moderate rationalism of St. Thomas and any Catholic can see what is going on in Rome is an awful crisis but not an impossible situation.
Apocalype makes that same mistakes that others make of conflating the Church and the pope. Yes we have a pope! but he is a heretic and should be resisted until he becomes Catholic. Only trust dogma. there have been heretical popes in the past. Yes it is dogma that the gates of hell will mot prevail, but the indefectability of Rome only applies to Dogma. that it does not matter if there are errors in v2, it does not define dogmas. The Holy Spirit in deed will always protect the Popes from making errors in dogma. But not in non-infallible teachings where there is no guarantee of protection.
@Carol I quote your email “...I hope the good Abp. will be able to reach some of these willful schismatics about the Lord’s LOVE…”
Since the vast majority of Catholics are in the conciliar church, you should put this zeal for the glory for God towards going after the many diocesan priests that make a mockery of the Mass every single Sunday. May I suggest starting with the elimination of themed Masses, then we (since the bishops can only seem to sit on their thumbs) can get rid of things that cause only 30% of Catholics that believe in the real presence of Christ—such things as eucharistic ministers, communion in the hand, receiving the king of the universe on your feet, or any and everybody up on the alter during the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary.
This would be God’s work and I would both salute you and pray for you.
@Phil I agree with this line: “The voice of the Holy Father is the voice of God on earth.”
Let us remember what was said by Pope Paul VI and remain vigilant to anti-christian changes…
Paul VI said that the smoke of Satan had entered the Church. Paul said this on 29 June 1972 in a sermon for the 9th anniversary of his Coronation he said that, “through some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God”.
The voice of God on Earth own words combined with the visions of Pope Leo XIII, Fatima and Akita tells us something is wrong, and perhaps SSPX is right. By their fruits…
Apocalypse—I think I am completely done trying to debate with people like you. You rant about how disobedience to the Pope makes one in schism, then you say that sspx is not in schism even though they do not obey the pope. I dont think sspx are schismatic either. But I think you, a true theologian, as opposed to me, obviously not a theologian, should take some courses in logic.
Phil Howard, you erroneously conflate the Church and the pope. A pope may be a heretic, yet this fact alone doesn’t mean that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church. This is because a pope is distinct from the Church. And whether any particular pope is indeed a heretic is within only the province of God to judge. But the point here is that a pope and the Church are not, as you suggest, one and the same.
By the way, we’re promised only that the gates of hell will not PREVAIL. We are NOT promised that, until the end, the Church won’t suffer greatly - both from external and internal sources. As the Church mirrors the earthly life of Christ, it’s suffering greatly both from without and from within, and may indeed reach a point where it appears to be dead forever. Yet in the end it shall arise. Hell shall not prevail. But Good Friday must come before Easter Sunday.
Apocalypse asserted:
“both [at the Councils of] Lyons and Florence, Rome tried to bring back the Greek Orthodox to full communion.”
Not true. Rome tried to bring them back to communion. As mentioned in the article cited above (Gnostic Twaddle, by Christopher Ferrara), there’s no such thing as “full communion.” Just as one is either alive or dead, one is either in communion with the Church or one is not. The notions of “partial” and “full” communion are modernist novelties, and are thus to be rejected.
Phil Howard, There are many Catholics like you, and I am one of them. I always quote from a private revelation, “The voice of the Holy Father is the voice of God on earth.” Christ said to the first Pope, St. Peter, “He who hears you hears me, and he who hears me hears the Father in Heaven who sent me.” It is totaly unacceptable to slander the Holy Father. I greatly admire the SSPX, but its a big turnoff when some of them set themselves up as judges of the Pope himself. Christ chose Peter to lead us, and certainly not for us to judge and slander him. If unity is to be achieved we must return to the Tradition of obedience to the Vicar of Christ. The left and the right have one thing in common and thats the rejection of the TRADITION of obedience to Peter.
Well, there ya have it—the *truth*: The Council is a mistake which originated in hell! The conciliar popes, priests and Religious are thus evil, even if (only) some of them are unaware! There’s no holy sacrifice in the NO Mass!
For any of us to call Trads “fellow Catholics” is a misnomer which leads little ones astray—a substantial sin; this is why it cannot be done, yet. (You thus answer your own wonder, Jason—indeed, the SSPX are not IN the Church.) I hope the good Abp. will be able to reach some of these willful schismatics about the Lord’s LOVE, but at this point when there are so many in the world who are laboring mightily and humbly and sometimes in grave danger to come into the Church whom they can clearly see is their own hearth and home on earth, beloved and protective mater et magistra, then seriously, this is where the bulk of our attentions must go NOW, for it fulfills all 3 of Christ’s mandates. Let the SSPX either come back in the way our Rome says, OR let everyone just shake the dust from their feet once and for all.
“What I’ve tried to argue is that all they have to do is to say there’s nothing in the Council that is contrary to Tradition and that every text, or every part of it that is controversial, should be read in context of the Council — and read it in light of the Tradition. It seems to me, despite their difficulties, they should be able to do that.”
I’d like to see him get that very same admission from most of the religious orders in the Church AND most of the bishops heading dioceses.
Administer this statement of Archbishop DiNoia as an oath to the SSPX provided that every bishop and major superior of a religious order and every head of any institution in the Church take the same oath.
I still cannot understand why the SSPX would willingly put itself under the heel of the heretics operating as shepherds in the Church today.
God’s place for them my very well be on the “outside” awaiting a future call for valid priests for a revitalized Catholic Church.
Jason, I read the first 7 Chapters of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s “Open Letter to Confused Catholics” as you recommended. Just about everything he states is the exact truth. Everything I have been fighting for as a Novus Ordo Traditionalst for over 30 years he cites. It causes me to wonder why those in the Church are being hard on the SSPX. The SSPX is only correcting the Heretical Modernism condemned by St. Pius X. I never knew this Letter by Levebre existed, thanks for recommending it. Its time to revive the oath against modernism, by all professed Catholics.
Doesn’t the Archbishop know that Xavier Rynne was the pen name of Malachi Martin, advisor to three popes and later in life an “enemy” of “the fruits of Vatican II?” Has this archbishop read the work of Michael Davies or Martin on the Council? It makes sense to lose your moorings, as the archbishops says, when the local Catholic Mass is nothing more than a Protestant hybrid Mass with altar girls, communion in hand, lay ministers in secular dress, and all of it taking place in churches that look like VFW meeting halls! Sorry, this is NOT Catholic. The SSPX has done much to safeguard Tradition, just as the Orthodox Church is presently doing. We never attend a Novus ordo Mass because, as I said, it is a hybrid Catholic-Protestant Mass.
Sam, by merely saying the gates of hell have prevailed against the Roman Church, you have indeed departed from Catholic truth, and likely fallen into schism as well, and indeed called Jesus Christ a liar, since the indefectibility of the Roman Church is proximate to a dogma of the Catholic Church and is taught in the First Vatican Council and by the Fathers along with the necessity for every local Church throughout the world to always remain in communion with it.
“Gates of hell” refers to errors and heresies and “Church built on Peter” refers to the Church of Rome. The one cannot prevail against the another and to disbelieve this is grossly impious. To deny this obstinately, it would seem, makes one at least subjectively very close to schism as the Greek Orthodox, the Donatists and others throughout history have done, often in the name of protecting the “orthodox” faith they have separated from the communion of the Church. Moreover, a 50 year vacant see would also mean the hierarchy has pretty much disappeared since there is no ordinary jurisdiction among the clergy anymore.
If you are right today, the Greek Orthodox were right in their day. If Catholics were right in simply replying to the Greek Orthodox that the Roman Church is indefectible, sedevacantists are wrong today. I’m more than aware of your erroneous position and the various attempts to justify it, which is why I know they all fail.
You’re also clearly no theologian, and disregarded what I said about the sacramentality of the episcopate. Yet you act as if you were wiser than all theologians combined. You claim there is no Pope, yet each of you sedevacantists acts like his own personal pope with his pet magisterium and his personal anathematizations.
Jason, don’t misunderstand me. I have great respect for the SSPX, and I never said they were schismatic. Firstly, all this discussion of fruits is hardly impartial. Secondly, even if true, what would it prove, that we should abandon the barque of Peter when it is threatened by storms? Here is a report from Catholic culture on Church growth in Africa,
“The explosive growth of the Church in Africa began over a century ago and has accelerated in the past three decades. In 1900, there were 2 million Catholics in Africa; today, there are over 165 million—triple the 1978 figure of 55 million. 14% of Catholics worldwide now live there, nearly half of the children in Catholic elementary schools study there, and 43% of the world’s adult baptisms—over a million a year—take place there. There are more Catholic hospitals in Africa than there are in North and Central America combined.
Between 1998 and 2007, the number of priests increased from 26,026 to 34,658, while the number of women religious grew by over 10,000, from 51,304 to 61,886. Over 14 million African children attend Catholic elementary schools, while another 3.7 million attend Catholic high schools. Since 1978, the number of African seminarians has more than quadrupled from 5,636 to 24,034, and Africa is now the world’s second most vocation-rich continent, bested only by Asia.”
One error can never justify another, nor can two rights make a wrong, and nothing in the world, not even an abominable clown mass, can ever justify schism, I trust you agree. I don’t say the SSPX are schismatic, I know the SSPX does much good today, they can do so much more if and when they are canonically regularized.
Stand immovably firm, Bishop Fellay, because much post-Vatican-II thought is Modernist thought. Don’t cooperate with Modernists. They’re heretics.
To those who would attack or slander the Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Church I am reminded of a few things. First of all, the Word of God says, ” The gates of hell will not prevail against the CHurch.” Anyone who says the Pope is a heretic calls the Word of God a liar. In 2000 years we have had bad popes. Popes who were immoral and incompetent but God has protected the Church in that even our bad Popes seemed to be so busy sinning they did not have time to teach heresy or go against Church dogma. Either God’s Word is true that “the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church ” or God is a liar and his Word is not infallible. If you say the Pope is a heretic I take it you believe you do not believe in the infallibility of GOd’s Word. Secondly I am reminded of a story about Padre Pio. He was being peresecuted and was not allowed to public ministry. One of His supporters wanted to publicly denounce Church leadership in the press in behalf of Padre Pio. Padre Pio rebuked his supporter and said,” How dare you slander your mother?? WHile I do agree I have no tolerance for irreverant masses and the silly ditties that are sung as liturgical worship, and hand holding during the Our Father , etc. I would say we dare not disrespect our Mother Church. We will stand before God one day for every idle word that proceeds from our mouth. I pray SSPX submits to Holy Church and coninues to have a mission of reverence. I would love to see the SSPX folks brought back into the fold. I would rejoice as would all of heaven.
Apocalypse—the catechism isnt an entirely infallible document. neither is lefebrve infallible.
@Scott101 - There are plenty of Catholics who argue the veracity of Famita too. It was a supernatural event - i.e., we don’t HAVE PICTURES OF IT!!!!
I’ve never heard ANYONE fear of replacing the Resurrection with the Holocaust. That is beyond ridiculous!
The discussion about Bp Williamson is so annoying. For learned men they seem to miss the point completely. Bp Williamson was arguing about an historical event, whether gas chambers were used or not. Does holding one opinion over another about gas chambers mean you are anti-semetic.
I know plenty of non-Catholics and Jews that argue that the miracle of Fatima was mass delusion, does this mean they are anti-Catholic?
The whole point is that Traditionalists are rightly fearful that the modern church has replaced the crucifixion of Our Lord as the central action of history with the holocaust narrative of the 6 million, which has a long history even before WW2.
Catholics should rightly be concerned when their Lord is Uncrowned and when He is marginalized in the face of political correctness.
An SSPX reconciliation with Rome will be a long, long, time in coming.
The irregularity is not that of the SSPX, its that of Rome. No amount of rationalization by Archbishop DiNoia, to the contrary, will change the fact that by adopting the precepts of Vatican II, the Church of Rome has simply ended up where Our Most Holy Mother predicted it would. It is suffering the “Great Apostasy” [right now] as was foretold by St.Paul and in numerous Marian Appearances. Not until the Pope and all the Bishops of the world, in concert, obey God’s mandate to “Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Our Blessed Mother will anything positive happen in Rome; neither spiritually nor geopolitically.
Apocalypse—pastoral, non_doctrinal, v2 settled definitively no new dogmas. never was it’s intention to do so.
@ Apocalypse The SSPX is out of communion for invoking Catholicism that converted pagans and produced saints while diocesan priests remain “in communion” that do Halloween Masses, Clown Masses, Masses with pagan religions, gay Masses, or dancing Masses (to name a few)? Along with them are those bishops who are “in communion” who refuse to give communion to somebody kneeling to receive Christ or Bishops that do techno masses?
Are the prolific liturgical abuses done nearly every Sunday in many “in communion” diocesan churches being as aggressively pursued as the “schismatic” SSPX? If not, why not?
The church is in the business of saving souls. I do not have enough fingers and toes to count the number of fallen catholics I know, or we can see the luke warm catholics that are being produced that hardly flinched at the HHS mandate. By their fruits…
Apocalypse-I am not denying any of the infallible dogmas. I am not saying the pope doesnt have juridical authority. I am saying that his personal opinions make him apostate. To not stand up to his heresies is foolishness. Do some research about his heresies. but youre probably a heretic too.
And before people confuse a true understanding of EENS with a neo-Feeneyite misinterpretation, read CCC #846-848.
If that doesn’t convince you, here is Archbishop Lefebvre himself.
“God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.”
Apocalypse-it is not I who has left Catholic truth but the popes and bishops. but the gates of hell have not prevailed against the Church, but only against the pope and bishops who, while still being pope and bisjops, are nonetheless apostates. The minority that still holds the faith arethe wheat surrounded by weedy popes and bishops.
@Angelo—you can get what you are looking for by reading “Open Letter to Confused Catholics” by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. It is eye opening.
“...But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it. Ecclesiam nulla salus (no salvation outside the Church)...”—Archbishop DiNoia
&
“I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints”—Archbishop DiNoia
Huh? Isn’t this doublespeak? How can someone be a saint and a heretic? Cognitive dissonance resolution is the only method of maintaining the hermeneutics of continuity.
I pray for God to work in this matter, but yes, the Archbishop’s words leave no doubt - one previously disputed topic that was definitively settled in Vatican II was the sacramentality of episcopal consecration. This is then not an optional teaching that can be accepted or refused at whim anymore. Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII would tell you as much regarding Magisterial authority even when not extraordinarily pronounced.
Sam, if the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church built on St.Peter, Jesus Christ lied to us. To refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff and to separate from communion with the Roman Church is the very definition of a schismatic. The Greek Orthodox did it a 1000 years before you and they were as wrong then as you are now.
Alphonsus, Carol is not wrong as far as she goes about the Mass since in any form, in any rite, it is truly the Sacrifice of Christ and cannot be gainsaid. Pope Benedict XVI was speaking about abuses of the liturgy. Moreover, if you’re familiar with Church history, you’ll know that at both Lyons and Florence Rome tried to bring back the Greek Orthodox to full communion.
Tim, I fully empathize with your situation. The SSPX priests are excellent in forming souls in the Catholic faith, but several other groups like the FSSP do that just as well. I hope the Society quickly receives official regularization.
It seems highly unlikely that there will be a near-term reconciliation of the SSPX.
The silver lining here is that, at last, we can expect some clarity on these “developments of doctrine” sprinkled “here and there” through the documents of Vatican II.
I am particularly interested in learning whether or not it is the intention of our Holy Father to bind us authoritatively to the astonishing novelty of baptism of implicit desire.
It is time, at long last, to clarify these “developments of doctrine”.
Faith, hope, and charity require that the faithful know exactly what it is that the Council has innovated, and to which the Church intends to bind them.
Since Carol O. has been allowed to suggest a google search, I’ll try again. Google for this article:
Gnostic Twaddle by Christopher Ferrara
It blows the common “full communion” nonsense out of the water.
Also, Carol O. is apparently unaware that Joseph Ratzinger himself called the Novus Ordo “a fabricated, banal, on-the-spot product of a committee.” See the Preface to the French edition of Klaus Gamber’s book, Reform of the Roman Liturgy.
And for proof that the Novus Ordo is much more than simply a banal fabrication, but is actually sacrilegous and destructive of the faith, see Rev. Anthony Cekada’s recent devastating book published by Philothea Press, Work of Human Hands.
I meant carol
hey catherine, the greatest heretic today is the apostate pope who is leading you into hell. wake up and smell the smoke of satan. google the heresies of benedict 16. to clarify my own position, I dont deny the no is a mass, but so is the greek orthodox liturgy a mass, yet it is evil to go because they are not catholic. neither is this pope a catholic. he espouses heresy and apostasy. if you dont see that then you are an apostate also.
Good interview! If anyone is interested in finding out further why the Trads are a real problem, Google F. John Loughnan on Traditionalists and scroll down to select My Reasons. There you’ll find painstakingly gathered and carefully documented material which is quite shockingly illuminating about today’s greatest heretics. Thus, I’m with John Scotto and Catherine here, and others who’ve said it so well, but suffice it further to say that no one should ever be so Luciferianly foolish (the white knuckles of online Trads have felt my big wooden ruler) to risk calling His Holy Sacrifice the “NO Mass” in my hearing, and/or to call the Council and/or her popes evil or imposters. Jesus is alive and well, and so is His Church, thanks to ecumenical papal documents that are indeed in continuity and make Her more open to life (ask any of the tens of thousands of new converts that have come home—even at the height of egregious scandal).
Angelo, if you go to the SSPX website, you’ll find plenty of articles on how Vatican II is a rupture with tradition. Also go to the SSPX publisher, Angelus Press.
The ignorance and naivete on display on this interview are really breathtaking. Yet this man is going to be the VP of Ecclesia Dei! This interview is a model of the cluelessness of today’s hierarchy. It should be framed and regularly consulted as a reminder of this.
For example, there’s no such thing as “full communion.” The priests of the SSPX either are or are not Catholics. As one can’t be sort of pregnant, one can’t be sort of Catholic. One either is or is not.
So much more about this interview could be mentioned. Stunning.
His Excellency says: “I never experienced the Council as a rupture.”
If one were to take only the following statement from the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium: “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” already that in itself should raise some eyebrows, shouldn’t it? How can it not be experienced as a “rupture” when the statement as clear as daylight is simply ignored?
I am a Dad of 11 children. I have the responsibility to my wonderfull wife and eleven children to get them to Heaven. I need a CATHOLIC School ( home scholled to 6 children)with Priests / Nuns / Teachers that all sing form the same hymn sheet as us. Praticaly no Catholic Bishop in the world can provide what the SSPX provides for my family and the hundreds like it. We love the Papacy and gladly would die for it, the SSPX has taught us to love the Faith, my children know more than what the VII Church ever taught me by the age 25 years! Unite in the Holy Rosary and Our Lady’s Brown Scapular. The fruits is where to look, Our Lord keeps it so simple.
St. Thomas (II-II:85:3), as the, principale sacrificium, the sacrificial intent which, embodied in the spirit of prayer, inspires and animates the external offerings as the body animates the soul, and without which even the most perfect offering has neither worth nor effect before God.
The essential in the liturgy is the sacrificial gift Jesus Christ, the sacrificing priest Jesus Christ, the sacrificial action by Jesus Christ and the sacrificial end or object Jesus Christ. This is what is revealed by the Triune God. The Blessed Trinity is the Mystery.
The answer is the fruit of the sacrifice - no worth - no fruit. Jesus wants to feed us the best fruit, all we have to do is follow the instructions. The same yesterday, today and tomorrow. The fruit after Vatican II speaks for itself. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Lord have mercy. Mother Mary pray for us now and at the hour of our death.
The SSPX has said that Vatican Council ll broke with tradition. That the Council said on certain subjects was a break with tradition. I have yet to hear how Vatican ll broke with tradition. Could the SSPX tell us how tradition was exactly broken. We only hear hear about it! But for myself I would like to hear it explained to the minute detail.
O please you ignorant fools who maintain loyalty to an apostate pope and episcopate. They are apostate anti-Christs! Do the research! They are trying to destroy the Church and spread lies because they are sons of Satan! I pray that God enlightens you poor wretches. Praise Him!
When Cardinal Levada was an Archbishop in California, in his Archdiocese he absolutly prohibited any Latin Masses according to the old Missal. It was a shock to many that he would be chosen by the Holy Father to be the head of the Congregation for the Doctine of the Faith. A greater shock was that he was appointed the head of the Ecclesia Dei Comission. And now his successor is a die hard liberation theology modernist. One who has proven to be a sworn enemy of the SSPX. What is going on? We have the right to ask the Holy Father this question. I believe that Levada and his successor should be made to sign some form of a “Doctrinal Preamble”. The SSPX is more faithful to the Church!
The SSPX teach that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid and that the Sacraments administered by non-SSPX priests are also invalid. They teach that the Pope is in error when he says that the Novus Ordo Mass is valid. The SSPX teach that the faithful do not have to attend Mass on Sunday if they do not have access to an SSPX Mass. These teachings, and many others, go way beyond the mortal sin of schism and into the realm of heresy - as all schisms eventually do. Let us pray that the SSPX submit to the will of the Holy Pontiff, sign the profession of faith he has offered them, and return to the Mystical Body of Christ.
Abp. DiNoia said, “I often say that what Council Fathers intended doesn’t matter because it’s how you apply it today that matters. It’s a living document.” By that same logic, one could argue that it doesn’t matter what Jesus said about [abortion, marriage, etc.], it’s how we decide to apply it today that matters [after all, we are so much more enlightened now…].
That’s just what the progressives in the Church have been doing since Vatican II: “applying” their own agendas to re-shape the Church’s teachings to their liking. Until the Holy See openly acknowledges the Communist infiltration of the Church prior to Vatican II [e.g., Bella Dodd, School of Darkness; Marie Carre, AA-1025; also in U.S. Congressional Record], it will be unable to repair the damage that has been done.
Does the “canon” of Saint Vincent of Lérins still apply[?]: “Magnopere curandum est ut id teneatur quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.” “The very greatest care must be taken that that be held which has been believed everywhere, always, and by everybody.”
Abp. DiNoia said, “I often say that what Council Fathers intended doesn’t matter because it’s how you apply it today that matters. It’s a living document.” By that same logic, one could argue that it doesn’t matter what Jesus said about [abortion, marriage, etc.], it’s how we decide to apply it today that matters [after all, we are so much more enlightened now…].
That’s just what the progressives in the Church have been doing since Vatican II: “applying” their own agendas to re-shape the Church’s teachings to their liking. Until the Holy See openly acknowledges the Communist infiltration of the Church prior to Vatican II [e.g., Bella Dodd, School of Darkness; Marie Carre, AA-1025; also in U.S. Congressional Record], it will be unable to repair the damage that has been done.
Does the “canon” of Saint Vincent of Lérins still apply[?]: “Magnopere curandum est ut id teneatur quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.” “The very greatest care must be taken that that be held which has been believed everywhere, always, and by everybody.”
For those (Mark,Pio) who say they will stay away until Rome has corrected its errors (my paraphrase), I ask “And who will be the judge of that?”
With all due respect, even if I allow that your intentions are good, when was the SSPX (or individual traditionalist Catholics) granted the charism
of infallibility? Since, the logic you employ necessarily rejects the doctrine of the Church being protected by the Holy Spirit - unless you radically redefine what that protection means - then what is left?
Are you any more infallible than the Old Catholics who broke away after the first ecumenical council held at the Vatican? Or the Orthodox who preserve forms by being frozen, doctrinally, somewhere between the 9th and 11th centuries depending on how one reckons?
The logic that guides your view, whatever your intent, leads inexorably to disintegration or degeneration and decay. The Church may be suffering trials but She always has. There have always been heretics, fools, the malign, and the misguided at work in and against Her in one way or another. I don’t say not to speak out, but to defy Popes exercising legitimate authority is not the answer. That way is nothing but glee for the evil one.
In the summer of 1988, shortly after the excommunication of Abp Lefebvre and Bp Castro de Meyer and the four priests they had illicitly consecrated, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger gave a talk to the episcopal conference of Chile that is maybe the most thoughtful commentary anyone has ever made on the whole Lefebvrite situation. The full text is here:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3032&repos=1&subrepos;=&searchid=292734
Ratzinger’s ‘definition’ of the liturgy there is just about perfect:
‘The liturgy is not a festivity; it is not a meeting
for the purpose of having a good time. The liturgy is
what makes the Thrice-holy God present amongst us; it
is the Burning Bush; it is the alliance of God with
man in Jesus Christ, Who has died and risen again.
The grandeur of the liturgy does not rest upon the
fact that it offers an interesting entertainment, but
in rendering tangible the totally Other, Whom we are
not capable of summoning. The essential in the
liturgy is the Mystery, which is realized in the
common ritual of the Church; all the rest diminishes
it. Men experiment with it in lively fashion, and
find themselves deceived, when the Mystery is
transformed into distraction, when the chief actor in
the liturgy is not the living God, but the priest or
the liturgical director.”
That is a long way from the rotten blasphemy put about in the ‘70s and ‘80s - even by priests, God help us - that the purpose of the liturgy is ‘to celebrate community’ (how can a grown man talk like that and keep a straight face?). As Vatican II taught, the purpose of the liturgy is ‘the adoration of the Divine Majesty’ - to worship God.
Vatican 2 is dogmatic? thats new to me every Catholic has to accept Vatican 2 to be in Communion with the church I agree with the SSPX the fruits of the council are not good I’m going to stick with tradition Rome can have its Vatican 2 and Assisi I don’t want any part of it The irregularity is with Rome not SSPX
Fortunately, Archbishop DiNoia hit the nail on the head - even with all his ambiguity: (Third question - Third statement)
“Many of these people (Traditionalist) feel abandoned, like the Church (post Vatican II) left them at the dock with the ship (Braque of Peter).“
I could not agree more. Where are they (Vatican II church) sailing? His statement is the most correct for what has happened in and to the One True Church. And just a note, Our Dear Lord Jesus was resting in the boat because the Apostles DID NOT think - He knew anything of sailing. They did not want his help until things got way out of hand. When the leaders in the Church remember that it is Jesus Christ’s Church - it will be better.
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Wake up please. Hopefully, SSPX will stay at the dock and one day get back in the ship. Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on our poor souls. We are nothing without You and Your Mommy. O, Mary conceived without sin pray for us who have recourse to you.
Pio, your statement is schismatic and heretical. SSPX had no business starting its own branch of the Church which had not been in unity with the Pope. What if everyone did that for disagreements?
Until this is settled, the FSSP (Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter) has beautiful Latin Masses in many States with the permission of Diocesan Bishops.
Let us all pray for UNITY within our Church - this means that there is no room for Pride, only Truth.
Pio:Ubi Petrus,ibi Ecclesia.Period.
SSPX is fighting the incursions of modernism into the Church.That is all well and good.But you do not sever your hand from the rest of your body because it occasionally picks your nose.Nor do you cut yourself off from the mystical body because your hyperpuritanism is not method used by
Christ’s Representqative to keep the Church on course.
The Council was under the protection of the Holy Spirit.The heretical misinterpretations are many and manifest.The Society’s only hope is to join with the Holy Father and to follow his direction and strategies in bringing the whole Church to the fulness of faith.Archbishops must follow the Holy Father and do what he says,not cut themselves from the Church
“SSPX is not out of communion with the Church.It is Rome that is no longer Catholic.”
Sadly, that comment by Pio is representative of many SSPXers. Even if communion is officially restored, I suspect half will refuse to come back, and of those who do, many will return to the dissenting group within a decade. Sad, but true. In the end, blessedly, God knows our hearts.
“What did Pope Paul do to address their concerns about the Church after Vatican II .... Indeed, many of the documents are written in vague language. The Vatican also has to take some of the blame for this split.”
Two interesting comments by Joannie. Agreed: Catholics were left to flounder. It was a time of horrendous upheaval for many who were seriously conflicted by the arrival of the NO. These deep wounds cannot be overlooked, nor the hearts of those many who continue to find solace in the Trad liturgy. And, yes, there is a lot of regrettable vague language in the documents. This is reality which cannot be swept under the rug.
At the same time, we Catholics know we must assiduously study our faith and Sacred Scriptures, read the lives of the saints, and have a vibrant prayer life so as to keep ourselves centered on the heart of the Church. These are first things for Catholics. In this endlessly swirling controversy over four decades now, there has emerged the danger of fixating not only on the rite, but on grievances. This grieving fixation may not only become the substance of our faith, it may take us away from our task of being soldiers of Christ: evangelizing the world. Worse, it will rob us of our peace.
We are all fallen, and too often seek the easier paths. The work of actively studying our Catholic faith and Sacred Scripture, reading good Catholic books and stirring up a good prayer life is hard in today’s culture. It is easier for us to replace it - sometimes by adhering to “Catholic” grievances. Screwtape would agree. In the end, we must get ourselves to heaven.
This is a very good article and I hope and pray the SSPX will come back in full communion with the Church. It saddens me to see SSPX’s writing into this article who are really not trying to see what Archbishop Di Noia is trying to say… I have attended Mass in the Novus Ordo and the traditional Mass said by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter – very beautiful and I would say I prefer going to Mass at the Fraternity, it would be a beautiful thing for the SSPX to come back to full union with the Church – but that does not in any way make the Novus Ordo bad nor do I get the attitude I have seen in traditionalist that they are better / know more than the Pope – really the very thought is incredibly arrogant and over the top! God bless to you all and thanks again for this article.
I have been watching closely the developments of the SSPX and Rome. This interview with Archbishop DeNoia has been the best reading on this subject that I have yet to read. I hope he will be giving more interviews in the future, as Archbishop DeNoia knows knows well how to communicate.
Hans Kung and other liberal theologians have argued that the Church is not infallible in its definitions because extra Ecclesiam nulla salus had been defined (three times and not just against heretics, read Cantate Domino)and Vatican II changed this teaching. The ordinary teaching of the magisterium must support the solemn magisterium, not contradict it by a so-called “developement” that changes the “form” of the dogma to render it “meaningless” (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
Congratulations your Grace upon your new appointment. May Almighty God Give you the necessary Graces and Blessings you need for this new apostolate for this group and others of a similar nature. “That All may be One”.We wish you well, Ad Multos Annos!Bishop Kasomo Daniel The Bishop of The Society of St.Peter and Paul Inc.
Very informative article. I pray the SSPX does reunite with the Holy Father. I’m sympathetic to them because after being gone from the church for 30 years, I see the changes after Vatican II and I don’t like them either. One of my pet peeves is the tabernacle being removed from the center and those churches usually looking like a Protestant church. I attend the church I do because they kept the tabernacle in the center and it still looks like a Catholic Church. I do see a positive change with more orthodox bishops whom our current Pope has appointed.
I thought that this dispute had been settled years ago! I find the new litergy devoid of devotion and respect for the sacredness of the Mass. The Mass has become casual, sloppy, and disrespectful! The priest might as well be having a barbecue! No wonder many have left the Church-or simply don’t go to Mass at all! We have gone from one extreme to another!
I pray the SSPX will soon reconcile with the Holy See. The Church needs to stand united as One to face the rising tide of anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-Life, secular humanist, anthiest, and agnostic hordes around the world. The SSPX would be a valuable ally in resisting this Godlessnes. We cannot snipe at each other while surrounded by enemies!
&Pio; - Listen to something from Williamson? Please tell me you’re kidding!
SSPX is not out of communion with the Church. It is Rome that is no longer Catholic. It is telling that in very first answer given by Apb. Noia to the very first question posed he includes the following; “...I have a framework out of which I can talk with them about their problems.”
It is not the SSPX (or traditionalists at large) who have a “problem”. It is Rome that has a problem with Catholicism. Rome hasn’t been Catholic since at least V-2 (and earlier still if one looks at what bishops around the world were already doing at the turn of the 20th century). That is where the “problem” lies. Unless and until Rome returns to Catholicism, the visible church is in eclipse.
Also in the first answer Abp Noia states: “But if you cease to believe that the Holy Spirit is preserving the Church from error, you cut your moorings.” The moorings were cut by the very Archbishops, bishops, and cardinals when the V-2 council happened. (Let us remember, V-2 was a pastorl council, NOT a dogmatic council. The rupture was caused by the ambiguity of parts of the council documents AND BY the actions of the bishops around the world who, either overtly or covertly, by commission or omission, DID NOT refuse the changes perpetrated by the “enlightened” modernists.
Therefore, the visible church is in eclipse. The actual church, the remnant, if you will, SURVIVES and SHALL survive. Our Lord promised us that it would and it shall survive. With due respect, Abp. Noia has it a bit backwards.
I suggest people purchase CDs from Triumph Communications of interviews done with Fr. Malachi Martin and Bishop Williamson to clarify much of the departure from Catholicism that Rome has undergone in the last 75 years.
With an attitude like that bishop di noia will only drive the SSPX away! traditionalists say that if the declaration on religious liberty does not contradict the previous magistarium SHOW us how but don’t just SAY THAT it doesn’t and cannot contradict the pre-conciliar Popes…. But apparently for Di Noia vatican II is inspired by the Holy Spirit may be even more than the Bible itself.
Good luck trying to reconcile ANY traditionalists outside or INSIDE the Church!
Why the Church continues to waste time and resources with the SSPX is absolutely mind-boggling. There is as good a chance with them as there is bringing Future Church back into Communion with the Church. The best thing you can do is just ignore them like you would a little child throwing a tantrum. If you stop paying attention they might actually get bored and come back.
The concluding sentence speaks volumes. Is Archbishop DiNoia categorizing the SSPX as a sect?
Great interview! Thanks!
Terribly unimpressive. Strawman arguments against traditional Catholics and he can’t even get the Williamson issue correct. How about having the courage to come up with a definition of “anti-semitism” instead of using it as a mode of attack? He uses wiggly Vatican II-speak words. Partial communion nonsense. He indicates he promotes religious Indifferentism. Does he ever ask his Jewish friends to convert to Catholicism? If not, he’s the anti-semite, not Williamson. How about his Protestant “saint” friends? Why should they join the one-true-Church established by God when their man-made ones will do the trick just fine? Honestly, if this is what this guy believes, he should just not show up. The SSPX would eat him for breakfast. He can’t be seriously there to do anything other than gum up the works and deal with the PR machine for when the deal doesn’t go through.
I am very, very hopeful now that ++DiNoia is at the helm of negotiations. I admire his goodwill, courage and sympathy for the SSPX. The negotiations to date have beeb overtly adversarial and only +Lefebre persistence and the Holy Father’s desire for unity kept the project going.
“Vatican II is not a departure from Tradition.”
To the extent that aspects of the Council were in accord with Tradition, the SSPX adheres to it and always has.
To the extent that aspects of the Council were ambiguous or unclear, the SSPX has asked for discussions to arrive at the proper Catholic interpretation and application. There is no sectarianism or schism in this.
To the extent that aspects of the Council were novel or militated against the Church’s Tradition, the SSPX abhors and rejects—always has and always will. This is obligatory for all Catholics.
According to a story at CNS by Cindy Wooden on 5/21/2012, German Cardinal Walter Brandmuller and Italian Archbishop Agostino Marchetto said to reporters, “Strangely enough, the two most controversial documents” for the SSPX—those on religious freedom and on relations with non-Christians—“do not have a binding doctrinal content, so one can dialogue about them,” the cardinal said.
“So I don’t understand why our friends in the Society of St. Pius X concentrate almost exclusively on these two texts. And I’m sorry that they do so, because these are the two that are most easy to accept if we consider their canonical nature” as non-binding, he said.
The reason the SSPX focusses on those two non-binding documents is because prelates like Archbishop DiNoia continue to act as if all of VII is some sort of binding touchstone. To wit: “To say they are not binding is sophistry.” Well, he better tell that to Cardinal Brandmuller and Archbishop Marchetto. That kind of confusion is not good for the Church. That is why SSPX is trying valiantly to get this cleared up.
EXCELLENT! Excellent interview, frank and very clarifying for me. Now, let us continue to pray for the SSPX that the Holy Spirit will direct them and guide them through any doubts and fears and slide them into the arms of Holy Mother Church through the intercession of Our Lady, Mother of the Church and St. Joseph, our glorious Protector and Patron.
fr. joe
The main problem I and other people have as how it is like to be a Traditionalist. I am sure they did not originally want to be out of the Church as he puts it, but looking at their point of view, what did Pope Paul do to address their concerns about the the Church after Vatican II. Padre Pio was allowed to say the Tridentine Mass, but the Society of Pius X as well as others were not. In other words their main concern was the Modernist errors (which does exist) error and heresy are not vague words. The Pope himself used the word “heresy” during the year for Priests. Why did not the Bishops and clergy clearly teach what the Council said? Indeed, many of the documents are written in vague language. The Vatican also has to take some of the blame for this split.
Isn’t the problem that both “progressivists” and traditionalists unite in seeing V2 as a rupture, the only difference being that the former see the rupture as good and the latter see it as bad? Persuading the traditionalists that it is in continuity is impossible as long as many “progressivists” (inlcuding many many bishops and even more chanceries) argue uncontradicted that it is rupture.
In my opinion, if SSPX would submit to the Holy Father it would be a blessing if they could come into full communion. The main reason being, even with the Holy Father’s Moto Propio concerning availability of the Latin Mass for the faithful unless you live in an urban area it is still difficult to find Latin masses readily available. The SSPX being in full communion would help with making the Latin mass more available. I know there is a SSPX chapel not to far from me. I accidentally attended there once not realizing the ramifications but if they were in full communion again I would visit there. I also treasure those who have a deep reverence for the mass in general and the Latin mass in particular.While I appreciate their reverence however we must never swerve from loyalty to the Holy Father.
1. The SSPX agrees the Sacrifice is valid in the NO Mass. It’s the overall rite and what is said/missing of our Faith that is the issue. 2. The argument of Archbishop Williamson is bogus: their point is not to defend antisemitism, but to show the horrible allowances given to “catholic” public people without any visible consequences from the bishops, the scandals caused to the world, and yet one bishop is made an example when others helped bring society to ruin. (Of course hatred of any people is wrong. But to not call out and reprimand the bishops of the world for the last 50 years??). Mother of the Clergy, Ora pro nobis!
we pray our Lord to reconcile SSPX with the HolySee
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.