The following is Part IV of a series. Read Part I, Part II, and Part III at the links.
Tradition, Doctrine and Magisterium (Continued)
Ecumenism
The 1928 encyclical Mortalium Animos condemns modern notions of ecumenism. It says the Catholic Church is the one true Church, to which separated Christian ecclesial communities should return. It says Catholics should not participate in prayers, meetings, worship, etc. with non-Catholic Christians.
Vatican II documents teach something else on what the Church is and how it relates to other religions.
The Catholic Church always identified itself as the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ. The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. Today, this has changed: according to Vatican II and the new Catechism, the Church of Christ now “subsists in” the Catholic Church, raising a distinction between the two. Although the dogma “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” has been solemnly proclaimed multiple times by past popes, the new view is that the Church of Christ extends beyond the Catholic Church (imperfectly), due to “elements of the Church” present in other Christian groups. This is peculiar because Pius XII specified that to be a member of the Church, one must (1) be baptized, (2) profess the true faith, and (3) submit to authority.
A major innovation of Vatican II is the idea that other faith communities can be in imperfect or partial communion with the Catholic Church. The past teaching was that you are either inside or outside Christ’s visible Church on Earth. The traditional view was that heretics, schismatics, and non-Christians are not in the Church of Christ, and their religions are obstacles to, not vehicles of, salvation. Now it is said that these religions can have “elements of sanctification.”
Rather than evangelizing, the Roman Catholic Church now dialogues. A document approved by John Paul II says, “Dialogue [is] the meeting of Christians with the believers of other religious traditions so that they can work together in search of the truth and collaborate in works of common interest.” If the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth, why do Catholics need to “seek” truth with adherents of other religions?
Today, Church leaders discourage people from converting to Catholicism, even when they express the desire to do so. The Church leaders say it is not necessary for their salvation to become Catholic. For example, there is evidence that Pope Francis urged the U.K. evangelical “bishop” Tony Palmer not to become Catholic, and then, when he died, the pope ordered a Catholic bishop’s requiem Mass to be said.
In a statement in 2014, Pope Francis said to refugees of different faiths, “Sharing our experience in carrying that cross, to expel the illness within our hearts, which embitters our life: it is important that you do this in your meetings. Those that are Christian, with the Bible, and those that are Muslim, with the Quran. The faith that your parents instilled in you will always help you move on.” This confirms Muslims in their error. Such a view is condemned in the Syllabus of Errors, which among other things condemns the beliefs that “[e]very man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” and “[m]an may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.”
In the 1993 Balamand agreement, the Roman Catholic Church agreed that it will not try to convert the Eastern Orthodox to Catholicism. The Church renounced “proselytism” – “according to which she presented herself as the only one to whom salvation was entrusted” – and agreed not to create new Catholic organizations where they do not already exist.
St. Paul said the pagans worship not gods, but demons. The Vatican II document Nostra Aetate praises pagan religions, but Tradition says they are religions that turn souls away from eternal salvation. John Paul II invited pagans to pray to their “gods” at the 1986 Assisi prayer meeting, even giving them Catholic churches in which to perform their pagan rites. Is this not a violation of the First Commandment?
John Paul II’s 1979 encyclical Redemptor Hominis supported the idea of common prayer with other religions. He said the 1986 interfaith gathering was based on Vatican II teachings. At the Assisi meeting, the Muslim prayer concluded thus: “Allah is He on Whom all depend. He begets not, nor is He begotten. And none is like Him.”
The Church and the Jews
Has doctrine regarding the Jews changed? The traditional Church teaching is that before the coming of Christ, Judaism was the true religion. But since Jews rejected and continue to reject the Messiah, what they now practice is a false religion. The time of the Old Covenant is over; all men are called to be saved according to the New Covenant. For salvation, just like everyone else, Jews must believe in Christ.
Tradition is expressed in the Good Friday prayer in the liturgy:
Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same Lord Jesus Christ, amen.
This prayer was revised by John XXIII and then Benedict XVI, but even their “softened” prayers still call for the conversion of the Jews.
But Nostra Aetate and other post-Vatican II pronouncements contradict traditional doctrine and have suggested that Judaism is still pleasing to God. The Good Friday prayer of the new Mass says nothing about conversion.
The Apostles put a great deal of effort into trying to convert the Jews and convince them of the truth the Jesus is the Christ. Our Lord commanded his disciples to go and baptize all nations, teaching all men to follow all his teachings – but today’s successors to the apostles appear to have aborted this mission when it comes to the Jews.
A BBC News article from a year ago reports:
The Vatican has told Catholics that they should not seek to convert Jews and stressed that the two faiths have a “unique” relationship. It is seen as a new Vatican attempt to distance itself from centuries of Christian-Jewish tension and prejudice. The document released on Thursday is not a doctrinal text, but a “stimulus for the future”, the Vatican says. It builds on the “Nostra aetate” (In Our Time) document which, 50 years ago, redefined Vatican ties with Judaism.
The new document is called “The Gifts and Calling of God are Irrevocable” and was written by the Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations with Jews. It says, “[T]he Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews.” Judaism, it points out, “is not to be considered simply as another religion; the Jews are instead our elder brothers.” Turning to the vexed question of salvation, the document says, “[T]hat the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery.”
Here are some more recent expressions of this post-Vatican II error I came across during my research:
- “The Old Covenant has never been revoked” (Pope John Paul II).
- “The Jewish wait for the Messiah is not in vain” (Pontifical Biblical Commission).
- “To proselytize [Jews] is not an attitude of love, nor is it one of knowledge!” (Cardinal Johannes Willebrands).
- “Campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable to the Catholic Church” (Cardinal William Keeler).
In 2001, Cardinal Walter Kasper said: “The only thing I wish to say is that the document Dominus Iesus does not state that everybody needs to become a Catholic in order to be saved by God. On the contrary, it declares that God’s grace, which is the grace of Jesus Christ according to our faith, is available to all. Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.”
Vatican II, Infallibility, and the Future
Vatican II was not infallible, which suggests to me that where the teachings of Vatican II conflict with those of Tradition and the pre-Vatican II Magisterium, the Vatican II teachings should be rejected. Some have pointed out that modern (i.e., false) ecumenism is a “pastoral program,” not a dogma, and therefore can be criticized and resisted. Along these lines, in 2016, Abp. Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, said, “Nostra Aetate does not have any dogmatic authority, and thus one cannot demand from anyone to recognize this declaration as being dogmatic.”
John XXIII said in the Opening Address that Vatican II was not to be a doctrinal council concerned with defining any articles of Faith, but was to be a “pastoral” council.
Paul VI stated, “There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” Later he added, “Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.”
Cdl. Ratzinger also stated, “There are many accounts of it, which give the impression that from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II. … The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.”
Cdl. Ratzinger added:
The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.
… All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something else without telling people. The one way in which Vatican II can be made plausible is to present it as it is; one part of the unbroken, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her faith.
However, the sad fact is that in the preceding sections, we saw specific examples of how Vatican II documents and their implementation via the words and acts of Church leaders directly contradict Tradition and the Magisterium. Benedict XVI has dedicated a lot of effort to showing a hermeneutic of continuity between Vatican II and what preceded it. But undeniable evidence shows that the Church has changed dramatically since Vatican II and that modern Catholics believe and do things completely differently from Catholics of the past.
Alarmingly, there are those in positions of authority who want to continue “reforming” the Church. What doctrines or traditions will be undermined next – maybe or maybe not on paper, but certainly in practice? Some speculate that Pope Francis wants to end clerical celibacy. Some think it could be rewording the Church’s teaching on homosexuality to make it less judgmental and more welcoming. Others see evidence of a push by the pope for intercommunion with Protestants. Or it could be something else.
One thing is clear: since Vatican II, novelty reigns. Prelates in the highest positions propose changes to what we all presume are unchangeable doctrines. Sometimes their attitude seems to be, “We won’t change the doctrine; we’ll just change the wording or interpretations of a few documents, or change disciplines for pastoral reasons.” But how can doctrine be opposed to practice, and vice versa? That is schizophrenic. And contrary to truth.
Conclusion
My instinct is to avoid criticizing or questioning the hierarchy, to trustingly follow the pope, and accept with docility practices encouraged and teachings pronounced by competent authorities. It is only with great hesitation that I ask questions about these things. I was pushed up against the wall by continuous liturgical abuse, which forced me to investigate the source of these problems and consider how to respond. All I seek is to be united with the Church and her visible head, the Pope.
I don’t want to be distracted by news coming out of Rome and other places of strange teachings and activities in the hierarchy. I want to focus on working out my own salvation and properly living my state in life. Yet aren’t all the baptized called to read the signs of the times? As an individual Catholic, and as the head of a household, I need to figure out how to live the faith in our particular context.
Ignorance is not bliss; it is perilous for a soul. There is no need to fear the truth.
To summarize, what I have come to realize is that my specific personal experiences over the years are not isolated incidents of liturgical abuse and erroneous teaching, but are part of a systemic corruption or alteration of the faith for many in the Catholic Church. This corruption and agitation for change preceded Vatican II (many popes up to Pius XII warned of the evils of modernism inside the Church and of efforts by Freemasons, communists, and other enemies outside the Church), but Vatican II was the spark that caused an explosion of innovation and heterodoxy.
The error of Modernism is now dominant, and its fruits are confusion and apostasy. The strange teachings and bad liturgy I have been exposed to for years in mainstream “Novus Ordo parishes” are not the result of individual priests gone rogue, but the consequence of a Church-wide catastrophe of decades of bad formation, deficient catechesis, an invasion of worldliness, and fads of heterodoxy, all of which have gone unaddressed and uncorrected.
In my view, the solution is straightforward, but that does not mean that it is easy. We must do what Catholics have done during other crises, such as the Arian heresy and times of persecution: pray, hold fast to the traditions we have received, and participate only in faithful worship. Ignore strange doctrines, and avoid liturgies where things offensive to God may take place.
I hope my fidelity to the Church is not in doubt. As for this series of essays, I hope I have my facts straight; I know I may be mistaken in my analysis and conclusions, or I may misunderstand things, and I am open to correction. My sole desire is to live and die as a good Catholic. In our time, there is terrible disorientation and conflict within the Barque of Peter, but that is no reason to abandon ship.
Excellent article and so true about how they now give an erroneous conception of the Catholic Church. It is the one true Church outside of which there is no salvation. Saying that before Vatican II was well-known dogma, but say it today and the leaders of the Church will rain down fire and brimstone on your head for being so “rigid”.
A correction: JPII was not in error when he asserted that the Old Covenant has never been revoked. The very definition of a covenant requires that it be irrevocable. But the Old Covenant (in particular that of Sinai – there are several covenants in the course of the OT) could never be salvific on its own terms because its promised rewards were conditioned upon perfect fulfillment of the Law – the epistles of both Paul and James express the futility of hope in salvation through such obedience, impossible for fallen, concupiscent man. God has bound Himself irrevocably to save those who fulfill the terms of that Sinaitic covenant, while also knowing that no mere human ever will. Christ alone has rendered such obedience and thus opened salvation to all those who, by grace, work out their salvation in conjunction with His saving act. Accordingly, error enters the picture not when one states the fact that the Old Covenant has not been revoked but only when one fallaciously proceeds from that fact to an argument that that same covenant can, in and of itself, be an instrument of salvation.
Though, the reason an unbaptized person cannot be saved via the Old Covenant is because the Old Covenant cannot give sanctifying grace which is necessary for salvation. The only two people to ever perfectly follow the Law were Christ and His Blessed Mother, and both were able to do so only because they had a plenitude of sanctifying grace. Because they were going to heaven they followed the Law perfectly, not the other way around.
I don’t think you at all disagree with this, as you mention the condition of perfect obedience, which is only possible for a person who has first been given the grace of God to demonstrate it, such as the Blessed Virgin. It is for this reason that the Old Covenant finds its fulfillment in Christ, who as the perfect man fulfilled perfect obedience to the Law.
I only mention that because one reading of what you wrote is that there exists an extremely unreachable back door to heaven through the Sinaitic Covenant that God knows no human will ever take, where in fact the Sinaitic Covenant passes through the only door of salvation, which is Christ. I regret I’m not much of a theologian. More knowledgeable souls please correct my errors.
You’re not doing too bad, Matt.
I became a Catholic 46 years ago and have always believed that I am a member of the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ on the rock of Peter. I felt safe in Peter’s bark as long as I did my best to keep the commands of God and His Church. But now I find, as I approach turning 70 next month, that the Church I have always believed in has SUDDENLY LOST ITS MIND! Please, I want to die as a member of Christ’s True Church, but where has it gone??? Will someone please tell me where I can find what is left of the true Church so that I may die in peace? I don’t understand a lot of the arguments and theology I read here, but I do know that something is dreadfully wrong with the Church! I’m basically a pretty simple person to whom God has given a deep faith in His Church. Where can I find what is left of the Church today so that I may die as a true Catholic at the end of the years I have left? Jesus promised He would be with His Church until the end of time. It’s got to be here somewhere.
I relate to your post very much. I became a Catholic 42 years ago and am 69 now and have finally realized this post Vatican 11 Church is increasingly crazy. I resisted efforts by some SSPX members to join them when I was first converted as it seemed like a small sect compared to the universal Catholic Church, but I am now appreciating how that group of Catholics kept the traditional faith alive, but I do not have an SSPX community close to me geographically. Where is the true Catholic Church now? Could it be the SSPX after all? Or some faithful religious order? Even EWTN is now infected by the Francis Church and unwatchable.
There are different covenants. Abrahamic, Davidic, and Mosaic. John Paul II was talking about the Abrahamic covenant. The promises God made to Abraham continue in the Abrahamic covenant. Then there is the famous Mosaic covenant. I think that is what you mean by Sinaitic covenant, but the proper common term in Mosaic covenant, not Sinaitic. Traditionally, the term Old Covenant, has meant the Mosaic covenant. The Mosaic covenant has been revoked and replaced by the New Covenant. The New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant, meaning the Mosaic covenant.
JPII did subsequently clarify that he was referring to the Abrahamic covenant(s) when he used the term “irrevocable”. This is evidently true as the covenant(s) with Abraham were unipartite in nature – God “bound” Himself by them but did not require anything further of Abraham in return.
The Mosaic covenant, being bipartite in nature, was a completely different matter. This offered blessings for fidelity, but the curses of death, famine, war and pestilence for infidelity. This covenant was capable of being broken by the human parties and the price of breaking it was incurring the covenant curses. We see these being exacted in great detail in the Apocalypse which, at least in part, describes the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple as the consequence of Israel’s infidelity, the incurring of the covenant curses and thus the end of the Mosaic covenant.
Not an entirely accurate article. The question of elements of sanctification is not the same as membership – you are mixing two different issues. As far as membership goes Lumen Gentium reiterates the threefold criteria in #14. As for subsists the CDF has clarified that the meaning of the expression is that the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are identical.
In fact you have even turned around what it says in LG. It does not say the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ but the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. The reason this is important is so many people read the word “in” as if it literally meant one thing “contained inside” another (when the force is really *as*). When it is quoted accurately the absurdity of the “one thing inside another thing” reading becomes apparent. Because far from saying the Church of Christ is the larger entity (as many criticising it claim it means) it would actually be saying the Catholic Church is the larger entity.
I like the content on OnePeterFive but this is a just a sloppy article.
It is a supreme irony that, in the name of making Church teaching more intelligible to modern ears, these doctrines on ecumenism, EENS, etc — once unambiguously understood by one an all — have become perhaps the most confused mishmash of teachings ever to plague the Church.
Indeed. EENS has effectively become a dead letter in the post-Conciliar Church outside traditionalist circles, replaced instead with an “all-religions-are-fairly-equal-and-if-you’re-not-Catholic-but-you-are-a-good-person-you’re-doing-just-fine” attitude. Anyone who dares point out the Church’s traditional teaching is almost always accused (incorrectly) of Feeneyism or “triumphalism”.
Instead, we are told to be friendly with our “Protestant brothers and sisters”, with no directive to evangelize or encourage them to convert to the Faith. Not to mention we have effectively dumbed down Catholicism with our pastors’ and bishops’ wishy-washiness, man-centered liturgy, and overall lack of zeal. Converts like Waugh, for example, could see what was happening during the mid-1960s liturgical changes, and they actively protested that to change the Mass was to change the faith and to discourage conversion. And yet, the mainstream Church has not yet woken up to that reality, even after 50 years.
Whatever you think of Feeney, he was 100% correct on the consequences of the Church abandoning the dogma.
But the intent was not *really* to clarify. The documents are inherently ambiguous, which is apparent, I would argue, to anyone who reads them and applies their intellect, and, especially, knows & contrasts them with the defined teachings and the subjects they touch upon.
According to Cardinal Kasper, and other modernists, this ambiguity was completely *intentional* – a back door to heterodox interpretations after the council. (Cardinal Kasper said, publicly, of course, that the documents often juxtapose the traditional teaching with a novelty, to paraphrase.)
Exactly. I am chagrined that it took me a couple of years to realize that the ambiguity had to be intentional, especially given that I practiced law for over 30 years and should know a purposeful ambiguity when I see it. I fell for the line that it was just misapplication of the documents of V-II that was causing problems. I then started looking at some key documents from the historical Magisterium and began to first be confused and then angered at how things were being altered, sometimes in subtle ways but others not so subtly.
It’s not an easy decision to come to. It goes against our healthy Catholic sensibilities.
But where we part company with the positivists is in acknowledging reality.
Interestingly, the Vatican II document Orientalium Ecclesiarum uses “is” rather than “subsist” in describing the Catholic Church:
“The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites.”
As for Tony Palmer, do we know if he received his orders from an Old Catholic bishop with valid orders? If that is the case, we can dispense with the scare quotes around the word bishop. I was under the impression this was the case, however it is still scandalous he was discouraged from being received into the Catholic Church. How are we to be a “welcoming” Church if we reject those who wish to join us? Perhaps, feeling guilt over not allowing him to be a Catholic in life, Francis treated him as one in death…although giving Francis the benefit of the doubt keeps getting harder and harder as time goes on.
CORRECTION: “Today, this has changed: according to Vatican II and the new Catechism, the Catholic Church now “subsists in” the Church of Christ, raising a distinction between the two. Although the dogma “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” has been solemnly proclaimed multiple times by past popes, the new view is that the Church of Christ extends beyond the Catholic Church (imperfectly), due to “elements of the Church” present in other Christian groups. This is peculiar because Pius XII specified that to be a member of the Church, one must (1) be baptized, (2) profess the true faith, and (3) submit to authority.”
The subsist part has been reversed by the article author. New catechism states clearly:
816 “The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.”267
The Catholic Church essentially CONTAINS the TRUE and ENTIRE Church founded by Christ. To my knowledge, no document belonging to the Magisterium during or since Vatican II has claimed the opposite, that is, the Catholic Church being contained in a larger, more ambiguous, probably full of Protestants, “Church of Christ”. Ecclesiology has certainly been a mixed bag in recent decades but at the highest level, in official pronouncements it has not completely fallen off the rails.
This has been fixed. Thanks.
Sure, but Benedict et al have explained the word is meant to teach the identity of the two not the distinction as the article still claims (CDF 2007). It also mixes up other matters that need to be treated one at a time. The fact there is an acknowledgement of elements belonging to the Church outside the visible structure is not a comment on the requirements for membership.
Sorry, but the “subsistit in” controversy is not so easily settled. Thousands of words have been spent debating it from both sides of the issue. The questions remain valid for discussion.
I should also note that inasmuch as Benedict (then Ratzinger) is at the heart of this controversy, and several others, his credibility in having the final say on whether or not there is something questionable here is somewhat clouded; he isn’t impartial, since he’s at least somewhat responsible.
Mr. Vail is asking these questions because they trouble him in a way his own study has not eased. The subject, in our view, therefore merits further consideration.
I agree it needed clarifying similar to the current dubia. But in this case at least that happened officially (when he was Pope Benedict) from a CDF intervention. Whatever may have been said the Church has affirmed she means it as affirming an identity between the two. We can be grateful that decision was made.
An even better example than Palmer is Archbishop Venables who stated that Bergoglio told him not to convert.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350982?eng=y
And we have Ratzinger stating somewhat recently that EENS was “abandoned” after V2 but in the recently released 1958 talk of his he stated that “nobody” believed it then!!
So we have Church documents, the Magesterium, clearly saying certain things until V2 and now the vested class has, for the garden run Catholic, the media and the non-Catholics, CHANGED the teaching of the Church. Period. I find all this unconscionable. I am admittedly a convert and consequently still read English using the same definitions I find in Webster unlike so many “Catholics” I have come to meet who give quite humorous and gymnastic definitions in the “defense” of the faith…a faith that needs no defense BECAUSE IT IS FRAUDULENT AND SHOULD BE CLEARLY JETTISONED IN FAVOR OF THE PERENNIAL MAGESTERIUM. I’m personally sick of it. I simply cannot twist my mouth into the contortions necessary to be fluent in Catholospeakian.
We were taught in RCIA {and since then I have found in my own studies in the Magesterium} that Catholic dogma is unchangeable and then we get this set of nonsensical statements even by Popes.
So pardon me when I have very little faith in men even those with the legitimate stature of Cdl Burke and other so-called greats who have played nice during the decades of all of this sham theologizing, “teaching the truth” but not fighting to destroy the lies. IS THERE A MAN LEFT IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?
My decades of experience in the mainline Protestant groups give me the perspective that the Catholic Church is no different in how doctrines are handled compared to them. I see the SAME thing going on in the CC that I have seen in the liberal Prot groups. Francis is right about how close we are to the liberal Lutherans and the rest of the liberal Protestant groups! As an ex-Lutheran, I see Luther’s hand all over common Catholic Church teaching, and not even THAT, but worse, MODERN “Lutheran” gobblygook.
So don’t blame Protestants for laughing in the face of all of us who do our best to tell them what the Church has always taught. Coming from their past experience, they have every “reasonable” right to call us idiots and liars, after all, I’m just a guy and I’m not the Pope! What do I know?
Ditto when we confront other “Catholics”. Good grief, when the local Deacon spouts off soft-sell ambiguous “teaching’ on homosexual families he’s only parroting the POPE. THE POPE.
Will the Real Catholic Church please stand UP?
This is a main thing!
“…teaching the truth but not fighting to destroy the lies…”
As we know THESE words of our Lord:
““Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.” (Matthew 23,23)
Exactly.
So we have “orthodox” bishops and priests who teach Catholic truth and we have those who teach heresy.
What we DON’T have is bishops who are willing to FIGHT {to blows if necessary, whatever it takes to drive the wolf out of the sheep pen} to protect the Truth.
Then, if we see and it is clear what is happening around and IN the Church today (since IIVC), especially the last three years, am I some kind of a pessimist, if I seriously consider the prophetic words of Fulton Sheen and St. Francis of Assisi,… and others, about these times?
https://gloria.tv/article/eFENSYuSFMFn1gNcjSYdHLoHa
https://plus.google.com/+DonQuijotNL/posts/iBpNDWZnpRo
Or other way, why should we keep thinking, that there will be the ‘very’ last times, but ever, later, but not now?
How many apostates we must see, and how many of their heresies and darkest madness we must hear, see, and undergo, until we may say,- those are not of the Catholic Church, or we are not the ones who belongs their church. Whatever church in (of) this world that church may be!
I think a LOT of people are wondering the same thing. To see what the Church has become in the world and to the world gives pause to suspect the impending Apocalypse.
But it might simply be that God has granted us the grace to live at a very turbulent time and to remain steadfast just the same.
I understand you, exactly. A convert myself, I feel sorrow at this: “My instinct is to avoid criticizing or questioning the hierarchy, to trustingly follow the pope, and accept with docility practices encouraged and teachings pronounced by competent authorities.”
I believe the author of this article is right on with his conclusions. I agree with him wholeheartedly. But if there is one thing I learned as a Protestant (one who ‘church shopped’ for years), it is that man, be he pope, prophet, priest, pastor, or pasta-maker is to always be judged according to the words of Jesus Christ. As a Catholic, that same man is to be judged according to the Tradition of the Holy Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the the words/teachings of Jesus Christ . The Roman Catholic Church is the One, True Church. My inclination is to trustingly follow Jesus Christ and “accept with docility practices encouraged and teachings pronounced” by Him and His Church, as taught in and agreement with, Apostolic Tradition.
The novelties that have been introduced into the Church have gotten decades of traction because of the “instinct to avoid criticizing or questioning the hierarchy…” I posit this is not a Catholic instinct. I did not come to this conclusion easily. It has taken a great deal of reading/study of the Apostolic Tradition, the writings of the saints, Scripture, and the Church Fathers. Fidelity to Christ is fidelity to His Church. Fidelity to prelates is not necessarily fidelity to Christ or His Church.
It may not be a Catholic instinct, but from what I have read in reprints of Catholic literature originally published from the late 1800s up to the beginning of the Council, it certainly appears that an (in retrospect) unhealthy ultramontanism crept into the Church following Vatican I. Indeed, most clergy who were writing books for the edification of the faithful in this era wrote with a (sometimes unstated) assumption that the Pope’s charism of infallibility would protect him from theological error at all times, even when not meeting the strict conditions defined by Vatican I.
This attitude certainly was not dangerous when we had men such as St. Pius X on the throne of St. Peter, but I posit it planted an unhealthy sense of trust in the papacy among the laity in the pre-Vatican II era. Consequently, when the chaos of the 1960s hit, the laity were unprepared to root out just what they should have been obeying and what they should have been questioning when told “the Pope says everything must change”.
In Pastor Aeternus we read:
“We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, [12] and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, [13] and that none may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, for none has greater authority, nor can anyone lawfully review its judgment. [14] Therefore, they stray from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an Ecumenical Council, as if to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.”
I certainly cannot “judge” the Pope as I have no authority to do so, but I also have no authority to RE-interpret Magesterial truth or the meaning and content of the Bible. So the answer clearly needs to be found as to what to do when a Pope kisses a Koran or denies the need for conversion to the Catholic faith.
And while I accept that I must give assent to the teaching of a Pope, when does simply popping off about every topic under the sun constitute “teaching” and when is it just the raving of a troubled and confused old socialist?
Am I REALLY to give assent to the misquoting of Jesus in Evangelii Gaudium 161 that places man before GOD? REALLY? Or do I “Akinize” THAT and then give assent to my Akinization? Because THIS is what has half-assedly been done for 50 years, taking highly dubious “teaching” or flatout denial of the faith and making it sound vaguely similar to past teaching and then asserting that THAT is what the text means. But of course, all the while the progressives and “Lutherans” do whatever they want with whatever text they select and the hammer RARELY falls on them.
And now we have what the Pope calls “serene theology” of Kasper being given approval when it is a baldfaced denial of past teaching? Yet…”teaching of the Church never changes”. It is just sickening sophistry.
I’d like to send Dubia to Cardinal Burke and the rest of those who support HIM because we need answers. To be honest, I don’t think they have them or at least won’t publicly state exactly what they think.
I STILL affirm what I was taught. My experience and my Bible are in concert with past Catholic teaching. But they aren’t with many things that go for “Catholic teaching” today.
Well, for all the talk of how Vatican II was supposed to “bring the Church into the modern world”, there sure isn’t anything in the Conciliar documents about how to deal with the phenomenon you just described. The John Paul II effect of the “traveling mouthpiece pope” is simply being taken by Francis to its logical conclusion.
The reality as I see it is this: We simply do not have any real precedent for how to formally deal with the office of the papacy in the soundbite era. Back when popes stayed in the Vatican most of the time and would simply publish their teachings in AAS, it was easy to tell what a pope’s official teachings were. Now, it seems that, as you pointed out, virtually anything a pope says could be claimed by some (read: progressives a la Kasper and Marx) to belong to the ordinary magisterium, while those who insist that the magisterium is limited to only formal papal documents (such as the conservative Novus Ordoists, who I am in no way trying to denigrate, as they are genuinely trying to deal with this situation as best they can) have no real ability to insist that theirs is the only correct position.
Precisely.
There IS no way at present to deal with what we have in front of us and NONE of the prelates appear to be interested at this point in establishing a WAY. At least they haven’t told US.
I’ve asked the question in the past: “Can you imagine what we would hear if Pope Rod Borgia Al VI had a microphone strapped under his mug all day every day like Bergoglio does?”
In the day of Bergoglio it is hard to deny the legitimacy of the supposed quote by Pope Adrian {#?} that states that there have been MANY Popes who were heretics.
The difference between then and now?
Technology.
I resonate with what you say. The Church seems to be going through its “crucifixion” and, while we cannot force our beloved Church prelates to give faithful witness to the Truth, we are called to do what Mary and St John and the holy women did at the foot of the Cross, to remain faithful ourselves, until our Lady sees fit to manifest the triumph of her Immaculate Heart. The restoration of the Church will come in God’s time, as our Lady has promised.
“Pray constantly, implore tirelessly, and weep bitter tears in the seclusion of your heart, beseeching the Eucharistic Heart of my most holy Son to take pity on His ministers and to end as soon as possible these unhappy times by sending to His Church the Prelate who shall restore the spirit of her priests.” –Our Lady of Good Success to Mother Mariana of Jesus Torres, 1610.
Thank you.
My allegiance is to Jesus Christ and His Church. I remain with Our Blessed Mother and St. John at the foot of the Cross and join my tears to theirs, waiting for Jesus’ Resurrection on the morning of the first day of the week! +
Amen.
If only prelates would have concerned themselves with bringing the modern world into the Church than bring the Church into the modern world.
“Akinization.” Heh. I have to admit, I may have giggled a little at that.
We are quickly reaching (and perhaps well beyond) the point where even the “apologists” are having a difficult time “apologizing” for Francis and his wealth of innovative off the cuff ramblings. It is now: “It must be a mis-translation or mis-interpretation or mis-reporting by the media. We need a copy of the entire transcript to understand the context and to understand exactly what Francis said and meant.” With each explanation, the “explainers” and “defenders” lose a little more of their own credibility. Francis says, and the “apologist” do their very best to reinterpret Francis’ new creation into standard Catholic orthodoxy. I am truly weary of it all. I am not Catholic to be a Socialist, and I have never understood Catholicism to embrace and teach Liberation Theology.
I agree with both these comments and author of article; can we submit to the pope simultaneously in what he says that contradicts this order?
I feel in spite of the machinations of the Evil One these past 50 plus years, as a post Vatican II baby; the gates of hell has not prevailed as many have come to know Christ and His True Church inspite of strenuous efforts on the part of the ‘darnel’. Praise God. The Holy Spirit is at work in those who desire truth. Having myself sat through many a bad homily in a Novus Ordo Mass (I know no other), only to discover most persons were not aware of the nonsense and dismissed the errors.
While some Novus Ordo Catholics see through the fog, in my experience most are led astray and believe and act as their pastors teach. They are nearly as Protestant as the Lutheran’s or Methodists.
There is, I suppose some truth in that. But is the flock culpable?
That is for God to judge.
Amen!
I’m starting to pay attention to the FSSP and SSPX teachings. Although, in my belief, the FSSP gives too much leniency to V2 than they should. And I too am a convert.
I am a member of an FSSP parish. Can recommend! We have to drive 1 1/2 hours to get to Mass but it is worth it.
I am a member of the same parish as RTHEVR, and I have never heard a squishy homily except for the time Fr. “Dan” gave an example of a modernist homily. It reminded me a lot of some NO homilies I’ve heard.
The FSSP is solidly orthodox.
Don’t change it- LEAVE you bastards. We don’t want you- that’s you FRANCIS -and all the other fellow travelers in league with Satan.
They already have left, in fact. Divine Law. A declaration would be handy though, so everyone’s on the same page.
Reading this, along with my new “Chant” CD (Monastic Choir of the Abbey Norte Dame de Fontgombault), was quite a peaceful experience.
Orthodoxy does that. “Oh, yeah, I remember this! This is what I used to call Catholic Faith”. Nothing fancy. Pure, high octane Truth; on the page, in the ear.
Sure have enjoyed your writing Mr. Vail!
Check out the CD, too. “The Assumption”. Just came out. I’m hooked.
“On March 13, for the first time ever, Anglican Choral Evensong will be celebrated at the altar of the Chair of St Peter in St Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican. Permission for this unique occasion was granted by Cardinal Angelo Comastri, Archpriest of St Peter’s Basilica, during a recent meeting with Archbishop David Moxon, the Director of the Anglican Centre in Rome.
Archbishop Moxon will preside at the 3.00pm service, while the preacher will be Archbishop Arthur Roche, the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments at the Vatican. The music will be sung by the Choir of Merton College, Oxford.
The gesture reflects the deepening bonds of affection and trust between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church. It comes just five months after Pope Francis and Archbishop Justin Welby celebrated Vespers together at the Basilica of San Gregorio al Celio to mark the Anglican Centre’s fiftieth anniversary. It also reciprocates the liturgical hospitality of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Dean Robert Willis in welcoming Cardinal George Pell to celebrate Solemn Mass at the High Altar of Canterbury Cathedral on July 7, 2015.
This date has been chosen as the nearest available day to the historic feast day of St Gregory the Great, who has become an unofficial patron of relations between the two churches. St Gregory was the Pope who sent St Augustine to England in 595 to evangelise the Anglo-Saxons and who became the first Archbishop of Canterbury.”
(“First-ever Anglican Evensong in St Peter’s, Rome”, The Anglican Centre in Rome; accessed Feb. 7, 2017)
Whoa! When did part 3 come out! I’m going to a trad mass tomorrow in DC! Its in Chinatown!
St. John XXlll along with Cardinal Ottaviani drew up 9 schemas that were to make up the Council. 5 Have been translated into English. When one reads them it is obvious that Vatican Council ll was to be in line with the Council of Trent and Vatican Council One. The Modernist Council Fathers abolished 8 of the schemas. This is where we get the truth that, “The Council was hijacked”. Had the Council not been hijacked there would have been a true springtime in the Church. But because of the Modernists we got a winter instead. The document “Domine Iesus” written by the then Cardinal Ratzinger at the command of St. John Paul ll, reads as a so called pre-Vatican ll document. It horrified and infuriated the Modernists in the Church, the Protestants and the Jews. Domine Iesus only confirms that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church founded by Christ.
Judaism, it points out, “is not to be considered simply as another religion; the Jews are instead our elder brothers.”
Can someone please tell me what “Judaism” even is? Where is their creed? There is non. Its just like protestants, secularists, musloids, etc. : We are all our own little prophets, our own little Gods. Through our efforts, our power, might we spread our influence, and increase our satisfaction….
My question to those more experienced than me in this (I am a recent revert) is this: is daily mass at a NO parish even worth it? I know the eucharist is the same, but is it corrupting to go to these NO masses. Better wait til sunday for a Trad mass?
Find a church that has a very respectful and reverent priest(s) and go there for daily Mass. A valid, reverent Mass is always worth it, as our ultimate aim is to be in union with Christ, which worthy reception of the Eucharist brings. The Traditional Mass is beautiful, but that doesn’t mean the Novus Ordo Mass is not valid. We will always experience Masses celebrated to a greater or lesser extent with reverence and proper piety, but life is like that. I have found that Masses earliest in the day are least distracting and more in line with reverence and prayerfulness.
Good morning, honeybadger,
I was a frequent daily Novus Ordo Missae attender until about 8 months or so ago. I was finally moved into ceasing this practice, even with an humble yet fragile priest. Now I attend SSPX or diocesan TLM on Sundays alone as that is my availability. The writ large problem is that essentially every Novus Ordo Mass is illicitly celebrated which causes a block in the Eucharistic grace which would normally flow from the Holy Sacrifice to the people, which is the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas. As Saint Thomas taught, whenever any illicit praxis is occurring by the sacramental priest or the priestly people, the grace is blocked, as if one was not even in attendance. If the laity, any one of them, recognizes any abuse in the canon of the Mass, relating to the rubrics, prayers, etc. of the priest or the people, he is obligated to inform that same priest of the error/errors. If they are not corrected, then one must cease attendance there. This admonition by the laity is in caritas for the soul of the priest and the people. Communion in the hand is an abuse regardless of the indult as the indult was obtained within the construct of a lie, proffered by the minion of Lucifer, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin. A foundational requirement for a nation state to receive the indult was an already established, inculcated praxis of reception in the hand prior to the request made of the Holy See. There simply was no such praxis in play in the U.S.A. nor most of anywhere else but the already corrupt Norwegian states (if my memory serves me on this point). There were other abuses that Joseph Cardinal Bernardin embraced in achieving that indult as well. You can easily research them. I now spend those weekly hours before our Blessed Dominus Deus Sabbaoth and Savior, Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God in adoration, which has allowed for the Peace of Christ to more fully enter my heart. In the midst of the abuses, which are the illicit praxis of the Mass according to its own Novus Ordo canon, contempt is bred in the hearts of the faithful, not the Peace of Christ Jesus. Lastly, I implore your reading of Saint Thomas Aquinas in this regard. I wish I could site the specific area for you but I do not recall. I believe it to be in the Summa Theologiae though. In caritas.
Thanks brother. I have heard of this problem about receiving in the hand. Where can I look to make sure I have my sources? I heard that communion in the hand was never approved and it just took off and no one stopped it. But where can I find this.
Also, alter girls. This can’t be legitimate. Where can I find sources for this abuse so I can back up my complaint with authority?
Hello again honeybadger,
As it relates receiving the Blessed Sacrament in the hand, read the work of Bishop Athanasius Schneider, “Dominus Est”, which speaks to the history of the limited reception of our Lord and our God in the hand in the ancient Church and why it aught not be done now. I don’t recall his speaking about the deceiver and destroyer, Bernardin in his work. Regarding that aspect, I suspect you will find resource here: http://www.traditioninaction.org/index.htm. In caritas.
I respectfully disagree. None of us has the authority to determine for ourselves that the NO Mass is inherently invalid. You might even be correct in your analysis; I don’t purport to know. But unless it comes from a bishop I am bound in faith to obey, your opinion remains just that, your opinion. Again, I mean no disrespect or criticism.
Blessings and peace.
Good morning Frank,
Please be exquisitely careful regarding your language used, ie: “inherently invalid”. The substance of what I have suggested is from the teaching of the Angelic Doctor of Holy Mother Church. I did not speak to “validity”, rather “licity” or legality of the praxis of the Novus Ordo Missae. It is a matter of objective reality, in contradistinction to “opinion”, as you suggest, regarding the praxis of the Mass. If the sacramental priest is not following the proper rubrics and reciting the proper prayers and/or allowing sacrilege to occur by the priestly people, that celebration of the Mass is illicit, not “invalid”. For the Mass to be valid, for the confection of the Transubstantiation to occur in persona Christi, the sacramental priest must invoke “proper matter, proper form, and proper intent”. If he does not, the Mass is also invalid, meaning that the representation of the Singular and bloodless Sacrifice of Calvary simply does not occur. Read the work of Saint Thomas Aquinas in the matter of the licity of the Mass and the loss of grace to the priest and the faithful laity when illicity occurs. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Apologies for the long silence. I was busy with other matters.
I accept with gratitude your fraternal correction of my terminology, which was sloppy on my part. Nevertheless, I remain in disagreement with the notion that we lay faithful have the faculties and more importantly the right to determine whether the celebration of the Mass is either illicit or invalid. I am well familiar with the Angelic Doctor (my patron Saint) and many of his teachings, but cannot purport to be an expert therein, nor can I purport to be capable of determining matters solely within the teaching and judicial authority of the Church. You say it is a matter of objective reality, which ultimately is true. But we differ on our ability as laypersons to determine in this situation what the objective reality is, since it is not, I would propose, merely a matter of looking at a rock and calling it a rock. Your analysis seems to rest on the belief that communion in the hand as practiced in the U.S. is sacrilegious, and that by allowing such to occur even under indult from the Holy See, which you believe to be improperly granted, every Novus Ordo priest in this country is celebrating the Mass illicitly. Fine, as I said before, you may be right. But I don’t know, and I don’t think either or any of us has the capacity to make that judgment. That is what I was trying to say before, albeit inadequately, as I may still be doing here. Nevertheless, thank you again for your reply, and may God bless you and Mary keep you.
Only a future pope or council will be able to decide on whether or not the Nouvs Ordo Missae was invalid. There is also the question of licit and illicit. Let’s not forget to ask ourselves is the Novus Ordo doubtful?
Now if the Novus Ordo is not Sacrificial in nature there is no Mass and therefore no Grace present. Furthermore it is impossible to know for sure if the Novus Ordo is valid since the Sacrificial nature of the Mass is removed or downplayed which raises doubt.
We are not allowed to attend or receive doubtful sacraments. Pope Innocent XI in 1679 condemned the proposition that it is permissible “in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned…. Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders.” (Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Denzinger 1151)
All very interesting but still beyond your authority. In any case, there have been verified Eucharistic miracles involving hosts consecrated in the N.O. Mass, and one of them was even from the archdiocese of Buenos Aires when you-know-who was Archbishop there. With all its faults there really is no evidence to “prove” the NO is either invalid or illicit; rather, there are lengthy, complex and, honestly, tiresome arguments (sorry) that assume things we cannot possibly know, such as whether there are limits on the authority of the Pope to rewrite the sacred Liturgy, or to act contrary to what one or more of his predecessors have said. There are enough possible arguments both ways to fill a good sized bookshelf.
As for me, I do not believe that God would leave 90-plus percent of His flock without a valid and licit Mass to attend if they wish to remain faithful. Inferior, less reverent, often abused, and even dangerous to some, yes, but still valid and licit when celebrated by the rubrics. I must say this, in all charity: If one believes otherwise, is one not in effect calling our Lord a liar? Cf. Matthew xvi 18-19. Does this promise not include the Sacraments? I believe it does, and it must, or it means nothing.
God bless you and yours.
First, my brother, who would give you the authority to say exactly what my authority is? Secondly, who are you to say I am calling God a liar? I did not raise the argument of validity, however I did bring into question doubt. That being said we can in no way make claims on miracles for validity. Are you kidding me here? Maybe you should look at the Holy Gospel according to Saint Matthew:
Matt 7:22-23 22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.
Matt 24:24 24 For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.
I mean if God uses a Protestant, a Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Hindu etc. to perform a miracle then most definitely, without a reasonable doubt, God makes full approval of these heretical religions? Honestly I’m not sure you know what you’re talking about
The Universal Church has accepted the Novus Ordo as the ordinary form of liturgy of the Latin Rite. This removes any doubt in a general sense (not necessarily in a particular one) and certainly disqualifies this liturgy as an authentic expression of the Church as merely a “probable opinion.”
We are forced to walk a very fine line here. We can see the spiritual detriment caused by the NO. We can see the range of offerings, as well. I doubt you’d argue that had the NO always been offered in its purest form (ad orientem, in Latin, with chant, etc.) that we would have suffered the massive deficit to the faith that has followed in the wake of its far more heterodox interpretation. It would still have been problematic, and arguably damaging, but not nearly to this extent.
So in determining the essence of the thing, it seems we need to compare apples to apples. The best NO compared to the best TLM leaves no doubt which is superior. But in such qualitative discussions, it does seem that we have to concede the point that the best NO *is* a thing that exists, and therefore we cannot simply categorize the NO as always and everywhere a circus of liturgical abuse.
Nothing would make me happier than to see it go away for good, but I think we do ourselves a disservice when we undermine our own arguments through a lest than completely fair treatment of the subject.
Good job Benjamin J. Vail, OFS.
To me there is only one way to go: continuously denounce Vatican II as utterly misguided and most probably the work of the devil. What is needed now is a Council of Trent II to reestablish and recommit to the historic truths of the Catholic Church. No other solution will do. Let us pray that this will come to pass soon but probably not without a widespread, dramatic and intense chastisement.
Great article. What Francis is doing to the 6th Commandment, John Paul II did to the 1st.
Benjamin, my thoughts exactly! I’ve made certain changes in my life such as attending only the TLM and forming a Catholic men’s group. The question is now: how do we convince the other conservatives who are blinded to the crisis? How do we tell good priests, who continue their Novus Ordo business-as-usual, that it’s time to stop, think and rethink their position? Once a person comes to these realisations then they feel the drive to evangelise upon them, albeit in this hostile climate.
Well done, Comrade: you have reached the inevitable conclusion after some study that what passes for the Catholic Faith now is a false religion, a veritable cuckoo in the Catholic nest which cannot bear its antithesis – the Traditional Catholic Faith (and there is no other!).
1. Vatican II must be declared a false Council. There are historical precedents.
2. The entire works of all post-Conciliar Popes are poisoned by the Vatican II well and all their works must be withdrawn from the Acta Sedis; declared null and void.
3. I myself would declare Bergoglio to be an anti-Pope and all his works anathema.
4. The Novus Ordo must be abrogated entirely and the forms of all the Sacraments returned to the status quo ante pertaining BEFORE Pius XII’s Holy Week amendments.
5. I think there is a case to conditionally re-ordain all priests ordained under the new rite.
I’m not sure about No. 5, as the power to loose & bind Christ gave His Apostles would probably cover new rites, even if those rites were not pleasing to Him. Being the Son of God He knew that this power would not always be used for the good of His followers but that eventually He would bring about His Will irrespective. We need an Imperfect Council to tell us what we already know, i.e. not to follow PF because of his heresies, blasphemies, etc. & another conclave to elect a Traditional Pope of much younger age than PF in order to accomplish what has to be done – the complete restoration of the CC, the immediate consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary & the revealing of the full text of the Third Secret. The Modernist/Sodomites that have brought us to ruin must be excommunicated at once & seminaries overhauled.
How long before the four Cardinals will speak to us again? Why aren’t ALL religious orders speaking publicly against this Papacy. They may find they lose the vote of the laity when order is finally restored. Once trust is lost it remains lost & there hasn’t been any effort on their part or of our prelates to nurture our trust by showing the necessary courage & determination to follow Christ rather than a tyrannical despot.
“Why aren’t ALL religious orders speaking publicly against this Papacy. ”
Ana, you have come late to Tradition. The religious orders were rotten many, many years ago: for instance, the liturgical disaster came from experiments conducted by the Benedictines in the 1920s.
They are all suborned.
No, I haven’t come late to Tradition. I was born into Tradition & being a lot older than yourself know that they harboured homosexuals & lesbians. My brother’s best friend was molested by his cousin, a Carmelite priest, & wasn’t the only teenager to receive his attention. But in those days our parents (particularly fathers) didn’t want to believe that a ‘holy’ priest would be capable of doing such a thing & nothing was done about it until the Child Abuse Scandal in the CC set the media alight with complaints from former victims.
Times are changing as a result & victims, parents of young victims & priests who have found courage in the outing of paedophiles & their enablers are coming forward, e.g. Fr. John Gallagher of Palm Beach who has been suspended for alerting the police to an Indian priest who was sent to his Diocese (with the knowledge of Bishop Barbarito & Card. O’Malley) where he continued to groom & molest youngsters. See story @torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.com.es & other websites. Nothing has changed at episcopal level but it is good to read that – Pope: troubled by ‘rigid’ religious orders that attract vocations : News Headlines | Catholic Culture https://shar.es/19sZ2U Edward Pentin @ EdwardPentin & Bergoglio is at peace with Vatican corruption but worries over young and traditional vocations @voxcantor.blogspot.com.es. If true then the SSPX & Traditional Orders should be making their voices heard on this subject. If the Pope doesn’t like Tradition he must explain why then the rush is on to regularise the SSPX? But then he doesn’t like answering direct questions as in the Dubia.
The current confusion [is there, really?] regarding the “Document That Must Not Be Named”, to wit, Amoris Laetitia and its ensuing “Dubia Controversy”, is nothing new.
The culprit behind the Everlasting Confusion is the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, or rather, the Modernists that staffed it. Through this Council, which praise be to Jesus was not dogmatic and only pastoral, [in which wise it can be overturned by a more perfect Council] the proud head of Lucifer was able to resurface from the shadows he slithered from.
The problem with Lumen Gentium, published to the Latin Church [Latins] and its use of “subsistit in” becomes evident when one realises that in another Document, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, written to the Eastern Catholic Churches [Greeks], the words “subsistit in” doesn’t exist. Instead, “est in” us used, being “is in”. To wit, the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.
So, we have to ask: why do the Latins have to make do with an ambiguous term, whereas the Greeks make do with the definitive Catholic term?
The aforementioned problem becomes even more pronounced when one reads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s (CDF) response to questions raised regarding the terminology used in the Latins term. The CDF said:
“In number 8 of the Constitution Lumen Gentium “subsistence” means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.
It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church , on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.
Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.”
So, they claim that Catholic doctrine can correctly affirm [which it doesn’t, incidentally] that the Church of Christ is present in the Protestant sects, but then later say that “subsists” can only be applied to the Catholic Church alone.
So, pray tell, which is it?
Are the Protestants part of the True Church, or not?
The answer needs clarification in order to clarify Lumen Gentium!
The actual language that should have been used is not:
“Haec Ecclesia, in hoc mundo ut societas constituta et ordinata, subsistit in Ecclesia catholica…”
But: “Haec Ecclesia, in hoc mundo ut societas constituta et ordinata, est in Ecclesia catholica….”
By changing just one word, they can include the Protestants within the True Church, which then progresses into what we see today – denial for the need to convert the Protestants to the Catholic Faith. Intelligent Catholics have enough brains to be able to take these things to their logical conclusion, which is why we protest at the novelties going on.
As for the Jews, to say they don’t need to convert is an injustice not only to Christ and the Church, but to the Jews. They were the chosen people, given the Mosaic Covenant, given the Decalogue, the Law, the Temple, the Priests. It was they who beheld the Shekinah of the Lord, who were rescued from Egypt. It was to them that Christ came, so that the Law of Moses may be fulfilled, which it was.
Excluding them from the saving Covenant of Jesus Christ, Who is their prophesied Messiah, and deliberately deceiving them is monstrous to the Mission of the Church. All the first Christians were Jews, and the Apostles actively worked to convert the Jews.
I believe the Jews should be at the forefront of the missions, so that they may receive the fulfilment of their heritage: Jesus Christ. And to say that the Jews are saved, but we are not sure how without Jesus Christ just goes to show the idiocy of the Vatican nowadays. However, that wretched document [The Gifts etc.,] isn’t even Magisterial, so we need not observe it, Deo gratias.
If salvation is from the Jews, should not salvation be given to the Jews?
Thank you so much. I have been banging on about all this for years.
There is no other Church but the Catholic Church. JPII was a modernist conservative that would never have been canonised in any other period of history. Though I have no doubt he found salvation, that’s NOT why we canonise saints!
When Christ said, “many will come in my name and say I am He”, that’s what he meant. When they come as “The New Baptist Church of Christ”, they say we come in the name of Christ. But at the very same statement, because they claim to be forming a church, they are claiming themselves to be the “body of Christ.” In His name, and later, with His body.
There is only one God! He has but one body! There is and can be no other1 End of story!
It’s beginning to look as though Michael Davies was wrong to suggest that Abp Lefebvre may have been raised up by God to save the priesthood – the way things are going, he may have been raised up by God to save the Roman Rite.
The present Church is nothing more than a counterfeit set up by the evil one to make the people lose the Faith. There are very few competent theologians left in the world who can teach. In the seminaries, you are taught from all the theologians who made
Vatican II. What Vatican II tries to do is promote an inside revelation which is something the Church has always rejected. The Church has always taught that if you do not stay with the defined truth, which is the ordinary and the extra ordinary teaching of the Church, you cease to be Catholic. What Vatican II is saying is that what all the people believed all the time and everywhere was a mistake. Many would feel what I am stating goes against the clear majority of the Church, this is only one generation. Let’s consider what was believed by all Catholic for nearly 2000 years.
The Spirit of the council lead to thebirth of the Norvus Ordo and in effect to the beginning of a new Church. The modern Catholic Church has been effectively protestanized, poisoned by protestant and modernist errors which are attacking from within. The Church has always taught that the truth cannot change. The very root of the problem today in the Church is the mistaken concept of tradition. Tradition is complete. Dogma does not know change only defining. The only thing the Popes can do is deepen the understanding of tradition by defining terms that were not yet clear enough.
When the Church speaks about the new aspects of doctrinethis goes directly against the Dogmatic definition of infallibility. The Church states that there are some people who cannot get along with the teachings of Vatican II because some of these aspects are new. Pope Pius IX defined the infallibility of the Pope and the limits to this infallibility. He said that the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter to reveal a new doctrine with his revelation but that he was to defend the deposit of faith that has been handed down from the Apostles. He is to guard this in a holy way and to explain this in a faithful way.
There cannot be contradiction within the Magesterium. The Second Vatican Council itself made clear that it did not want to define doctrine. A council that does not want to define any doctrine, a council that is not interested in clearing up terms that are doubtful, a council that does not want to teach but rather only speak about practical advice for pastoral purposes, a council that has been declared a pastoral council by John XXIII who started it and by Paul VI who finished it, such a council cannot claim the necessary inspiration by the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost has been granted to the Catholic Church to define doctrine and to clear up questions of theology. The Holy Ghost has not been granted as an absolute and infallible help to the Catholic Church for practical pastoral advice.
In Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI said that the purpose of a council is to define things and not to make them ambiguous. Auctorem fidei
was referred to as dogmatic by Pope Gregory XVI in Quo Graviora and solemn by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi. A
dogma saying something 1500 years ago says the same thing today. The Pope is bound to what his predecessors teach and define. Auctorem fidei was not written just to the bishops but for every single faithful Catholic.
Vatican I defines that whoever says that man needs to arrive at everything true and good out of his own effort and in constant progress (ANATHEMA).
Vatican I states that we have two sources of the faith, Divine Revelation written down and the unwritten tradition coming right out of the Divine mouth of Our Lord, having been heard by the Apostles until the last Apostle died. This is the definition of tradition.
Vatican II, Dei Verbum, chpt. 2: dares to oppose this definition by saying there is progress to tradition and that this progress can be
arrived at by the study of the bible and by the faithful contemplating what they have heard in their heart, and that this progress of tradition comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience.
The truth cannot change. If anyone states that the truth changes according to the times he ceases to be Catholic. Now this is true for most of the Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and even the Pope. The Church has fallen into what is called material heresy. Material heresy is just simply not declared as opposed to formal heresy which is declared. Material heresy is heresy which is the outcome of ignorance and accompanied by no obstinacy of the will. Formal heresy is a deliberate denial or doubt of a revealed truth.
Our Lord Jesus Christ said my words are everlasting. Heaven and earth shall pass but my words will remain. How can the truth change? When Christ said, I am the truth. He is not speaking about the human nature of Himself. He is speaking about the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. The truth cannot change because God cannot change. It is impossible for anything perfect to change. Only God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost is perfect. God is infinitely simple and infinitely perfect, this cannot change. If this were to change than there would be something God did not have yet or something He was missing that He had. This would be an improvement and because God cannot change than the truth cannot change.
What troubles me very much is the conclusion that the Church has either taught error in the past, or teaches it now. That conclusion is logically inescapable (e.g. EENS cannot be both true and not true) – and blows a hole in the whole idea of an infallible magisterium. The only other possible conclusion is that the post-conciliar Church is not the true Church, and that the ‘real ‘Catholic Church somehow still subsists in those who hold the faith as taught before the pontificate of Paul VI. Sedevacantism in its various forms seems to be so completely the province of swivel-eyed cranks that one can hardly sign up to it; yet what IS one to think or believe? I have not been to Mass for decades, because I am among those who sincerely believe that the Novus Ordo Missae is heretical. I, and many of my acquaintance who think the same way, feel that we have abandoned by our mother the Church . Not a pleasant feeling.
If this writer spent more energy on actually trying to imitate Christ and less on arguing dogma & sowing division, more people would be converted. Talk is cheap.