The ideological efforts to change Catholic doctrine after the Second Vatican Council were deeply misguided, said Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and a leading interpreter of Benedict XVI.
“Ideology,” he said, “is always a proud attempt to subject the Word of God and the doctrine of the Church to the prejudice of one’s own thoughts, with the aim to obtain a manipulative power over the faithful and their lives.” Theology is different, the cardinal explained, because “theology is the humble reflection on faith that rises up from listening to the Word of God.” For this reason, “any fear that the Council might provoke a breach with the tradition of the Church is not only heretical: it would dismantle the meaning of supernatural mediation.”
Cardinal Mueller spoke at the Pontifical Gregorian University for the Dec. 14 presentation of the Italian edition of the seventh book in a series of Joseph Ratzinger’s complete works. The seventh volume contains all the writings the man who served as Benedict XVI wrote about the Second Vatican Council, including writings when he was an expert advisor to Cardinal Joseph Frings of Cologne.
The complete works are curated by Cardinal Mueller himself. In his remarks, the cardinal said the Second Vatican Council’s wake included a conflict between theology and ideology: “the expected Pentecostal renewal was replaced by the perspective of a ‘Babylonic’ confession of faith and by the attempt to contradict the thought of the theological school.” All of this was “not a work of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit always listens to the Church in love and truth.”
“Defecting from faith and counterfeiting faith, and the division from the Church that follows, are fruits of another spirit that is not the Spirit of God,” he explained.
Cardinal Mueller cited a famous expression of Benedict XVI: his Dec. 22, 2005 Christmas greetings to the Roman Curia, in which he spoke of a “hermeneutic of continuity” to interpret the Catholic faith.
Cardinal Mueller emphasized: “without a hermeneutic of continuity and of reform, the Church would secularize itself, and would turn into something more similar to a humanitarian organization.”
If this would happen, he said, “there would be no reason to be part of the Church.”
Full story at Catholic News Agency.
Very good words from Cardinal Mueller here: “any fear that the Council might provoke a breach with the tradition of the Church is not only heretical: it would dismantle the meaning of supernatural mediation.”
This is clearly along the lines of what I have been saying on the pages.
Also, note the Cardinal’s words: “Defecting from faith and counterfeiting faith, and the division from the Church that follows, are fruits of another spirit that is not the Spirit of God.” AMEN! Thank you CalCath for featuring this article!
“The ideological efforts to change Catholic doctrine after the Second Vatican Council were deeply misguided.” Yes, they were and such words should be directed at those involved – not the faithful. Leadership did this.
“…any fear that the Council might provoke a breach with the tradition of the Church is not only heretical: it would dismantle the meaning of supernatural mediation.”
….and floating out a pastoral council, changing the mass, and subsequently removing the Oath Against Modernism is a presumption on the supernatural. It is to obscure the truth on purpose. To raise the red flag is not heresy; it is DUTY.
Bring back the Oath Against Modernism and you’d have your hermeneutic. Until then, you have doors wide open,…
…doors you all put there.
As far as I’m concerned the above statements directed at the faithful are nothing but, “…a proud attempt to subject the Word of God and the doctrine of the Church to the prejudice of one’s own thoughts, with the aim to obtain a manipulative power over the faithful and their lives.”
Enough of the mind bending and crying heresy at every turn. Look to those who are, even now, promoting DEFINED HERESY. There’s zero need to make stuff up. Own the council as it was written. Own that it is “only” pastoral. Own that there are novelties within it. Own that and you’ll regain the confidence of the sheep you’ve scandalized and are even now attempting to shame. Why? Because they do have Faith in God and that…
… is why they are calling out the dangers of the Vatican II council.
It is ONLY the Supernatural mediation of the Good God that has said, “Enough,” of this misuse of His authority. Enough. Praise His Holy Name! Let the Truth be heard, the fullness of it. Not shaming and shutting up and cowing.
Did you not understand the article? Any fear or idea that Vatican II is a break from Tradition is heresy.
Removing the Oath of Modernism? The heresy of americanism, to which many folks here have fallen into, such as you, is another manifestation of “modernism.” Plus, the contention that there are “novelties” in the Council is bunk. BUNK. I had asked you AMalley to prove your point multiple times concerning this point of yours about the Council, and what you have come up with is straw: you allege something in Nostra Aetate which isn’t even in the text! The Council may have been pastoral, but there are doctrines in it, which re-articulate ancient doctrines of the Church. As usual, it is the voice of the beloved SSPX that is behind the denigration of the Ordinary Form, the legitimate clergy, and the Council. Beware folks. Beware.
Ann Malley, I seriously doubt that “jon” has any idea what “Americanism” (sometimes called the ‘phantom heresy’; condemned by Leo XIII in Testem Benevolentiae [1899]) is, in fact, at all, because in some of his posts this past summer he was flinging it around at people (l was one of them) who believe in the freedom of thought and free expression such as at Cal-Catholic (and he does not: he is a strict autocratic clericalist and wants to canonically excommunicate anyone of divergent ideas—from his own, that is.
So let me apologize to you on his behalf, because his typical Allahu-Akbar is “the SSPX, the SSPX! Aaaughh!”.
Now, were one able to engage in thoughtful dialogue we would discover that “Americanism” as defined by Leo XIII was:
1) •Christian perfection can be obtained by one’s own efforts (aka Pelagianism)
2) •natural virtues are preferred to supernatural virtues (“Protestant ethic”, which led to the concept that social justice is superior to passive habits/virtues such as prayer, contemplation, spiritual formation).
3) •Religious vows are obsolete and conflict with human liberty
4) •traditional evangelization should be replaced with new means
Other “Undemocratic” beliefs, like the Real Presence and the necessity of the Church for salvation, would be treated with silence, because these would offend the Protestant…
sensibilities, smacking of “popery” and hocus-pocus.
So, given these facts, it is clear by contrast that no one posting here at Cal-Catholic is an “Americanist”, least of all Ann Malley, and the peasants can stop gathering tinder for the previously announced heretic burning at 3pm Friday afternoon..
Campion, it is obvious that you HAVEN’T EVEN READ Leo XIII’s Encyclical “Testem Benevolentiae.” If you were to read it you will find AMPLE words condemning the kind of heresy–called “americanism”– that is sadly often expressed here by you and others.
1) One such line from the Encyclical demolishes the thinking that one can depart from the pope and the bishops (a typical narrative by the likes of AMalley and Campion): “if we are to come to any conclusion from the infallible teaching authority of the Church, it should rather be that no one should wish to depart from it, and moreover that the minds of all being leavened and directed thereby, greater security from private error would be enjoyed by all.”
2) Another…
statement is this beauty: “the same the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church’s teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty.”
3) Another teaching from the Encyclical is this which stresses the importance of adhering to the Magisterium: “Yet all this, to be of any solid benefit, nay, to have a real existence and growth, can only be on the condition of recognizing the wisdom and authority of the Church.”
Thank, you, Campion for bringing a dictionary to the table. It’s amazing what a body can do with the intellect given them by God. The very same we are admonished to use when discerning spirits and specious fruits.
But now I know why I was stood up yesterday afternoon ;^)
Folks, especially Campion and AMalley: a fine treatment on the heresy of “americanism” showing how this infects not only progressives, but also the so-called traditionalist Catholics is by Shaun Kenney and can be read at: https://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/p22.htm
You are such a joy, jon.
“…One such line from the Encyclical demolishes the thinking that one can depart from the pope and the bishops.”
Ah, but what to do when the “thinking” of he pope and bishops depart from the Deposit of the Faith? Especially when such “thinking” is floated out in “pastoral” documents that are not clearly proclaimed as binding?
“Archbishop Forte has in fact revealed a “behind the scenes” [moment] from the Synod: “If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried,” said Archbishop Forte, reporting a joke of Pope Francis, “you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions…
You are such a joy, jon.
“…One such line from the Encyclical demolishes the thinking that one can depart from the pope and the bishops.”
Ah, but what to do when the “thinking” of he pope and bishops depart from the Deposit of the Faith? Especially when such “thinking” is floated out in “pastoral” documents that are not clearly proclaimed as binding?
“Archbishop Forte has in fact revealed a “behind the scenes” [moment] from the Synod: “If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried,” said Archbishop Forte, reporting a joke of Pope Francis, “you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions…
Is ambiguity now the magisterium, jon? If it is, then you have no case against me or campion, save for your own rigid interpretations.
Sorry, jon, but you’re replacing Catholic Faith with a game of Simon-Says. The Pope and the Bishops have obligations, too. That is why the wisdom and authority of the Church is that doctrine cannot change.
Enjoy spinning now in your favorite teapot!
Sorry AM, but the more you denigrate the Council the more you condemn your position. There is nothing that a faithful Catholic can object to in any of the documents of the Council. NONE! Even clerics like Burke, Schneider, Cordileone, Sarah support the Council. Guess what: Fulton Sheen thought “Gaudium et spes” to be “brilliant” according to his own memoirs.
The screed referenced by “jon” @ biblicalcatholic.com, by some polemicist (“Shaun Kennedy”) also shows a lack of understanding, appropriately, of what “Americanism” actually was supposed to be. That must be where jon gets his facts on it. Americanism was more than just the pope-idolatry that jon subscribes to.
Sorry Anonymous but you’re wrong. As a matter of fact I got my facts on the heresy of “americanism” from Leo XIII’s Encyclical “Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae”. Notice the quotes I offered above. I advise you to read it as well as realize that the heresy of “americanism” is alive and well among many of the commentariat here.
Americanism was a group of related views among American Catholics, denounced as heresies by the Vatican, because they tended to endorse the separation of church and state and encourage individualistic thinking.
Jon, learn what heresy is. Bunk is asking for answers to questions you don’t want to hear.
The Council was pastoral. That which is doctrinal within it is sound, but that admixture of novelty has not only proved problematic, but represents the springboard of what +Mueller is now speaking to. To shame those seeing the open breach is like blaming the children for calling the alarm when there are burglars afoot and the doors to the house have been intentionally left open. (The Oath Against Modernism was abolished in ’67. Hence…
… the interpretation free-for-all.)
You can go on about your beloved scapegoat, the SSPX, but reality is there for all to see. Your obsession with beating others for daring to see is only adds more clarity to the within VII and now AL.
BEWARE is right, jon. Beware of half truths and cover-up. The truth shall set you free, not misdirects to “Americanism” and whatever else you can concoct to keep those who have made mistakes from admitting them so we can all get back to Catholic Faith, not just blind obedience for obedience sake.
“To keep others who have made mistakes from admitting them”?? FYI AMalley the Church DOES NOT ERR in matters of faith and morals. This is DOGMA! You disagree with that, then you are in heresy, sorry to say.
It is impossible to explain in 750 characters the lack of understanding regarding “Americanism”, the historical context of Leo XIII’s apostolic letter, the matter regarding Fr. Isaac Hecker, Cardinal James Gibbons, and those who concoct heresy charges, all of which jon pretends to a level of mastery, Ann Malley. And irrelevant.
As irrelevant as blaming (“Allahu Akbar”!) the SSPX. All a deliberate distraction — from the disastrous aftermath and changes of Vatican II. The Church is imploding and —so, accuse people of “Americanism.”
jon, the Church does not err. But the Church is not the insinuations of the Pope or the opinion of Cardinals and Bishops.
The Church is “imploding” says Campion. Hilarious. See folks, that’s a typical verse from the narrative of their beloved SSPX. Well, CalCath’s featuring this article on Cardinal Mueller’s words effectively addresses the kind of attitude and mentality that has infected those who have been caught under the net the SSPX. The Church may be decreasing in numbers in some places, but is thriving in others. Campion’s and AMalley’s failure to take account of this and many other realities in the Church reveal their agenda: point out the deficiencies of the contemporary Church, relate it to the Ordinary Form, point out how the Extraordinary Form is the only solution, and prop up the beloved SSPX as the exponents of “traditional…
Catholicism.” It’s the same sad old narrative, the same sad old disobedience and heresy. Thank you Cardinal Mueller for speaking about this! And thank you CalCath again for featuring this article.
You mean the implosion you are denying: such as, Rorate Caeli blogspot 12/29/2016 reports on a survey conducted by Datafolha in Brazil that from 2014 to 2016, once-most – Catholic Brazil has now lost 9 million Catholics. Catholics in Brazil, who once comprised over 90% of the population at the time of Vatican II, now are reduced to 50%. Brazil in free fall. One should be shocked. Not jon.
The repeated citation as to why many leave is the sense of an absence of the sacred in the existing, say it, Novus Ordo, Church. Own it.
FAnastasius commits the same kind of error of logic as many folks here: correlation does not mean causation. To blame one of the sacraments of the Church, namely the Mass in the Ordinary Form, for the “implosion” in the Church IS HERESY! Moreover, it is UNPROVEN. That a person who purports to be Catholic should be quick to ascribe blame on the holy, such as a sacrament of the Church, is diabolical. Straight up.
jon, just because you are ascribing to the “religious” solution referenced in CCC 675 that requires apostasy from the Truth does not mean others will go that route. St. John didn’t abandon Our Lady at the foot of the Cross, you know, even though St. Peter and Co were nowhere to be found.
I’m personally grateful that +Mueller is being very clear about where he stands.
As for “thriving”, you may look to numbers, but others look to whether or not the fullness of truth is preached and upheld. So, numbers may skyrocket if His Holiness decides to abolish sin, creating the new heresy of talking about sin, etc. He could baptize all nations by seeding clouds with holy water and making a proclamation. But it wouldn’t work. Only the…
…truth will set you free. That means you, too. No substitutes or beloved scapegoats ;^)
“The truth will set you free.” Indeed. Only Christ can set people free, and Christ speaks to us today through the people He has anointed to lead the Church, the Magisterium. To disagree with that is to commit the heresy I spoke about earlier, that of “americanism.”
No, Jon, that’s not what he was saying. He’s talking about those who carried out their own agenda after the Council that we know as the Nouvus Ordo Mass. Changing the liturgy, elilminating kneelers, gutting the churches of their art, changing the music, allowing taking the host into the hand, etc. etc. were never called for by the Council. You’re really blind to what was right in front of your eyes. Even Mother Angelica loved what was written in Vat II, but she castigated those who later changed everything to suit themselves. Everything that you think is as product of Vat II but which is not. It was done by deviant evildoers who hate God and His Church.
Cd Mueller wrote :“Ideology,is always a proud attempt to subject the Word of God and the doctrine of the Church to the prejudice of one’s own thoughts, with the aim to obtain a manipulative power over the faithful and their lives.” Theology is different, the cardinal explained, because “theology is the humble reflection on faith that rises up from listening to the Word of God.” Those who changed the liturgy were idealogues with an agenda in opposition to tradition
Vatican II never eliminated kneelers, gutted Churches, nor changed the music. BUNK! ANd another thing, the pope and the bishops HAVE EVERY JURISDICTION AND RIGHT to oversee and make amendments to the liturgy of the Church. There is nothing in the Ordinary Form, offered reverently, that is wrong. NONE! To say that there is, is heretical. Mueller would say the same thing.
Whether it is wrong is not the question. The issue is whether it presents a distortion of the faith. That is indisputable when one considers the reflections of the Masonic religion in the manner in which the N.O. is celebrated. See http://www.realnews247.com. The requirement of the Oath Against Modernism needs to be re-implemented.
“Vatican II never eliminated kneelers, gutted Churches, nor changed the music. BUNK!” = WOW! PREPOSTEROUS! Like the Wizard of Oz, jon, the curtain, is being pulled aside, for ALL to see!
continued
continued,
jon, The REAL BUNK, is the orchestrated denial, that does not want Dorothy, IOW the sheep, to honestly understand how thieves plotted and then used, (“The Spirit of Vatican ll”) a Council, to shift, undermine and slowly remove EVERYTHING that is Sacred, Holy and Good. If, you don’t believe this. then you have not witnessed a diocesan approved vixen teaching the very gullible and trusting sheep with these exact words, “Are you aware that you do not really need to have a Tabernacle inside of the church at all.”
It is the Pope who changed the liturgy, and that is his right, as it always has been. Just because Vatican II didn’t directly create the NO does not mean that the Pope was “misguided” when he changed it. He didn’t need the authority of a Council to do so, but he WAS carrying out its mandate to make reforms that returned the laity to a state of active participation instead of a passive – often counterproductive – presence.
Not exactly without qualification: a pope does not have an absolute right to change the liturgy in its essence; or,even in fact to change long-standing “Church customs” (according to S. Peter Damian, cardinal, d. 1072).
However the famed theologian Francisco Suarez (d. 1617), acclaimed a doctor by Pius V, stated that were a pope to change the liturgy it would be an example of schism (his tome, De Fide, cf. 10:6ff).
A pope does not have the absolute right to change the liturgy in its essence, and the contradiction between the “New Mass” and the Traditional Latin Mass is the point in question. They are clearly not the same.
FALSE! The Holy Father and the bishops united to him DO HAVE THE RIGHT to oversee the liturgies of the Church and to direct and even alter it as they see appropriate according to Scripture and the Tradition of the Church. Read it in Canon 838: “The direction of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, according to the norm of law, the diocesan bishop.”
The pope has the authority to change the liturgies of the Church, and many have done so, as history proves. Obscure and out of context quotes of others notwithstanding.
So, jon and Your Fellow Catholic believe that were the pope to issue an edict that henceforth the Eucharist shall be celebrated with bagels and Coca-Cola, he has the absolute authority to do so.
After all, this is what they are saying about the supposed absolute authority of the pope on the liturgy. It is nonsense.
Bagels and coca-cola. Really?
Well bagels in the case of emergency maybe – as they are a form of bread, though levened, which would be a practice of the eastern Churches.
Coca-cola would change the matter of the sacrament, not a change in the liturgy.
No, Your Fellow Catholic and jon, if the pope has absolute authority to change anything in the liturgy, he can change canonical validity as well, and you know well enough that you can eventually rationalize that conclusion.
In fact you have already shown you admit any law can be changed—you are already ready to accept consecrated bagels! Well, pshaw, Watson, it is a small step further to consecrate Coca-Cola.
Yours has become a totally absurdist religion.
It will serve you well FAnastas to read other people’s comments before you comment on it. Note what I had written above: the Magisterium has the right to oversee and even alter the liturgies of the Church “according to Scripture and the Tradition of the Church.” Your pushing your coca-cola and bagels is silly.
It would serve “jon” well to abide by rules of consistency in reasoning:
If a pope is an absolute authority, he can re-define the meaning of scripture and tradition as well, say, such as redefining the permanency of marriage, even though Matt 19:6 is clear on the matter, just as this pope has shamefully done with Amoris Laetitae. A pope like jon’s absolute authority can create new moral imperatives, such as in Laudato Si, that now the Catholic must “protect” the environment, even though no where found in scripture nor tradition.
In short, he, like jon, is a law unto himself, and every law now can be changed at his whim.
Besides, “jon’s” co-“Fellow catholic” is fine with consecrating bagels, with or without raisins, we assume: he only hesitates at using Coca-Cola.
It is just a matter of time getting him, and you, used to the idea. If the pope has absolute authority, he can and will change scripture and tradition to suit his ends, as this pope often has done. You will all come around. Your “faith” founded on your pope-idolatry has led you to this absurdity.
Here FAnastas commits yet another error in logic and argumentation: straw-man, also called red-herring: setting up a false straw-man as the false argument of the other side, then basing it. Not very clever. FAnastas, who said that the pope can do whatever he wills with the liturgy? NO ONE! Even the pontiff is bound by Scripture and Tradition. This is the perennial teaching of the Church. YES, the pontiff has supreme jurisdiction over the liturgy, but in that supreme governance he is at the same time bound by Scripture and Tradition: and there is NOTHING in the Ordinary Form that contradicts either.
I didn’s say I was fine with bagels or raisins, please don’t put words in my mouth! What I said is that bagels are a type of bread, and so in an emergency, might be acceptable. They certainly look more like bread than the hosts most parishes use.
The fruit of the change is proving to be damaging to the Faith. And one should, in honesty, look to those who actually crafted the NO. It wasn’t the Pope. As for carrying out the mandates, think again.
The fallacy that the the NO returned the laity to “active” participation has systematically led them away from the contemplative union of spiritual activity that is integral to growth in Faith. Growth in union with God. It has succeeded in creating a confusion that physical activity and often noise is what is meant by participation. This has deteriorated many a parish to the state of having to “actively” engage people on the level of entertainment and busy jobs instead of feeding them spiritually.
Your implying that the laity…
… represented a “counterproductive” presence at the Traditional mass is, as jon terms it, BUNK.
Correlation, AMalley, does not mean causation. That’s the flaw in your and in many people’s reasoning here. To assert that the Ordinary Form was “damaging to the Faith” is NOT PROVEN. Rather, it is the typical narrative of your beloved SSPX.
All this fake accusation-making is to distract and to scapegoat others for the present collapse occasioned by the suicide of changing its beliefs that occurred to the Church at Vatican II.
Such as, now Catholic reporter Marco Tosatti reports (12/29/2016, English version excerpt, Rorate-Caeli.blogspot) that survey results from once-most-Catholic Brazil from 2014-2016 show a loss of 9 million Catholics. Stunning.
It isn’t the SSPX, it isn’t “Americanism”, it is the failed direction of the “official” church-types(parroting “correlation isn’t causation”, over and over), and their reactionary refusal to admit their error.
The falsehood in your reasoning is you are preemptively jumping to a scenario of correlation and not causation, jon. To assert that the Ordinary Form has proved damaging to the Faith is a valid hypothesis. “By their fruits you shall know them,” we are told.
To refuse honest assessment of the rite as evidenced by the fruits is merely to express your own lack of Faith and fear that causation may indeed be proved. This could also (note: I did not say “is”.) be the reason why there is this attempt to mind-jerk the faithful by floating out that engaging rational discernment is some new heresy. (Again: an ambiguous thread, but no clear proclamation.)
You are really obsessed with your scapegoat, jon.
No it is not valid AMalley. Not only is it an invalid assertion, it is also heretical. What is heretical is not valid. Sorry.
A hypothesis is something that is open to validation, jon. So a valid hypothesis is a valid question. Not a valid conclusion. You’re heresy meter is pegged, too. Might want to get it recalibrated ;^)
Another demonstration of nonsense: the new progressive Catholic mantra, “correlation is not causation.”
In the Rules for the Discernment of Spirits of the 2nd Week (Sp. Exercises of S. Ignatius), #332-336 especially, S. Ignatius insists that one must discern causes connected with outcomes: “If the beginning and middle and end of our thoughts” are good, it is from the “good angel”. The counterpart is if thoughts and actions “terminate in something evil, or distracting, or less good than the soul had formerly proposed”—such as the mass exodus of Catholics, the loss of great Catholic works, the decimation of priestly numbers and religious orders—it is imperative that we evaluate the causes of such outcomes as evil…
Sorry FAnastasiu, but again you’re wrong. I don’t think St. Ignatius will like the fact that you’re irresponsibly using his Rules of Discernment to support the dubious assertion that a sacrament of the Church, the Mass in the Ordinary Form, is responsible for the alleged “evil” in the Church you claim.
“jon” is clearly also an expert on the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, even though he likely has never read the Rules for the Discernment of Spirits, Second Week.
Applying the Rules for the Discernment of Spirits [from the 2nd Week, Sp. Exercises of S. Ignatius, #333ff] to what has developed in the Church since the implementation of Vatican II, it is clear that (quoting S. Ignatius) “something evil, distracting, or less good than the soul had formerly proposed to do,” has infiltrated the Church in the past 5 decades, that something has “weakened the soul” of the Church, or “disquieted it, or destroyed the peace, tranquillity, and quiet which it had before”.
Then, S. Ignatius says, “these things are a clear sign” that matters “ are proceeding from the evil spirit, the enemy of our progress and eternal salvation.” (#333)
It is clear to committed Catholics that something has gone off the rails in the Church, that the mantra of “correlation-is-not-causation” is gravely mistaken thinking.
S. Ignatius insists on comparing outcomes with causes: It is fundamentally important to discern where a choice has “gone wrong”, to “consider the series of good thoughts, how they arose,” and ” how the evil one finally he drew him to his wicked designs.” (#334)
The mass exodus of Catholics, the loss of great Catholic works, the decimation of priestly numbers and religious orders, the atrophy of the Church worldwide–even once-Catholic Brazil now only 50% Catholic—to deny this is the work of an evil entity and so we delude ourselves that don’t…
..know “how we got here”, when the drumbeat for 50 years has been the revolution of Vatican II? Really? It is beyond lunacy, but instead deliberate blindness.
To point to the evil in the Church as coming from one of her own sacraments is evil. If you are going to use Ignatius’ Discernment of Spirits, discern that assertion first, for it can only come from a spirit that is not of the Spirit of God, as Mueller says.
A confusing article to me. The title seems to contradict what the body of the article discusses. This is what the elite do, like in California state initiatives, give us a proposition title that we think is an acceptable, but buried down in the muck of the proposal is the opposite effect like Proposition 58.
It may be possible, that errant modern prelates, as well as our current Holy Father– may tragically be listening to and following, “another spirit,” contradicting the true teachings of Christ– not the Holy Spirit!– in regard to our true Catholic Faith and Morals! Pope Francis, and the errant prelates, all need correction! And yes– the Church is HOLY, it is of God– it is not to be confused with a modern, Godless, superficial, worldly, SECULAR humanitarian organization! Pope Benedict also recognized the true place of our beautiful, ancient, Latin Tridentine Mass!
If that’s the case LMaria (that Benedict recognized the true place of the Tridentine Mass), how come he never offered it PUBLICLY! It was always the Ordinary Form that Benedict offered in the sight of the world! The way to go is a reverent OF. That’s the future of the Church!
Jon,your post brought to mind one thing that has always puzzled me. I believe Card. Bergoglio came in second in the vote that put Card. Ratzinger into the chair of Peter. Benedict XVI must have known the likelihood that Bergoglio would become pope, and with that the undoing of his (Benedict’s) legacy. So why resign?
Dan– I am sure you will remember, Pope Benedict resigned due to poor health, his doctor’s statement that he should no longer travel, and his doctor’s advice, to resign, and go into retirement, due to his extremely frail health.
jon, calm down! I am referring to Pope Benedict’s excellent “Summorum Pontificum,” and heartfelt acknowledgement, of the significance of the beautiful, holy, Latin Tridentine Mass– our Church’s Mass, for over 1500 years!
No LM: You need to calm down. Cardinal Mueller is referring to Catholics who disobey, who denigrate the Council, who belittle the Ordinary Form, who denigrate the anointed shepherds of the Church as the ones following “another spirit” that is not the Spirit of God.
Vielen Dank Cardinal Müller für Ihre Dienst zu unsere Katolisch Kirche.
This may not be the best place to pose this question, but what is wrong with taking the host in the hand? Surely, the earliest Christians did it. Why is this considered wrong?
Vince Ryan– The Sacred Host is the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ! It is very, very HOLY!! A person must not simply, casually “grab” Our Lord, with their bare hands– the way that they casually “grab” other mundane, secular items, of the world! It is far too scandalous, to behave in this manner! Instead– when the Lord comes to us, it is very proper to kneel reverently at the altar rail (or else, drop to your knees in adoration, if no altar rail!) as the priest comes to place the King of Kings on our tongues, in a most holy manner! Then, one returns reverently and silently to one’s pew, to kneel and make prayers of thanksgiving. Holy Communion is a VERY GREAT Sacrament!! It is of Heaven– not of this world!
I’ve never seen people “grab” holy communion. Did Jesus expect people to kneel in front of him? No. Standing is very reverent. Kneeling causes lots of problems in the pews when some people go to holy communion and other people do not. Jesus enjoyed sitting down with sinners like the tax collector, and he was criticized for doing it. Right?
You need to develop a sense of the HOLINESS of God!! Would you not immediately be inspired to drop to your knees and kneel reverently, and bow your head– if Christ came to you, in a vision?? — Christ is the holy Son of God Himself! He is not some ordinary, crummy, secular thing you touch, grab, or put your hands all over, in a vulgar, secular manner— as though the Sacred Host were some meaningless toy, or object to touch or grab!
Taking communion in the hand is not considered wrong. It is, after all, what Jesus himself commanded.
The Apostles were ordained priests who were ordained on Holy Thursday, the night before the Last Supper. Perhaps some early Christian laypeople took Communion in the hand, but is there any real evidence that that happened? Also, back then more people were excommunicated for the more serious offenses. Some people were and are taking Communion for sacrilegious purposes — such as Satanic cults. That is one reason Communion on the tongue was and is offered most of the time in other countries, and here too.. Communion in the hand was supposed to be an exception — mainly for Americans — but exceptions often become far too common.
“The Apostles were ordained priests who were ordained on Holy Thursday, the night before the Last Supper.” Holy Thursday celebrates the Last Supper. Where do the Twelve Apostles say they are priests? Nowhere. Elders and supervisors were not Catholic priests.
The Eastern Rite Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox do not take Communion in the hand. It is done by intinction, and the priest is the one who puts both the Sacred Host and Sacred Blood in the Communicants mouth. He dips the Sacred Host (a small cube) into the Sacred Blood with a spoon and turns it over in the person’s wide open mouth. They do not receive in the hand at all to my knowledge.
Vince,
From the Catechism Explained by Fr. Spirago page 603 We kneel at the altar rail and receive the Holy Sacrament of the Altar to show reverence and to avoid abuse: ” when the priest advances to give the communicant the sacred Host, let him raise his head, close his eyes, open his mouth, and put his tongue forward as far as the underlip ; then let him swallow the Host as soon as possible, and after a few moments pause return reverently to his place.
What’s wrong with chewing holy communion? Jesus and the Twelve Apostles did it.
Anonymous– the Catechism used to teach that we are to reverently receive Holy Communion and swallow it– swallowing it whole is preferred– to avoid human vulgarity! You need to develop a sense of the HOLINESS of God! Holy Communion, the Blessed Sacrament– is truly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Who died o a Cross– for all of our sins!
Vince Ryan– there are still a few churches that have intact altar rails, and offer reverent Vatican II Masses– with devout communicants kneeling at the altar rail, for reception of Holy Communion.
Getting back to this news story, please pray that Cardinal Mueller is permitted to continue to lead the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Pope has called for a study of women and the diaconate. Cardinal Mueller has already written a book that addressed the subject, Priesthood and Diaconate (Ignatius Press, 2002). (Not surprisingly, deaconesses in the early Church were not deacons. So, proponents of women’s ordination should not get their hopes up nor should others be overly concerned about such.)
Bless you, Deacon Craig Anderson! My prayers are the same as yours, on this subject– it is a big worry! Instead of worldly, secular feminism– we need our Church’s true teachings, on the sacred roles of CATHOLIC men and women! God created each gender, with a place for each, in His creation! The Role Model for women is the Blessed Mother, and the Role Model for men, is Jesus, her Divine Son. Those Role Models are the best in all the universe! We need to see Catholic wives and mothers joining traditional Catholic groups, such as the Legion of Mary! To seek evil, egotistical, secular, worldly power, as feminists do– is totally un-Christian! Christ told us, “My Kingdom is not of this world.”
Thanks, “Deacon,” but there is not much chance that Cardinal Mueller will stay on in his CDF position. You see, Pope Francis (pray for him) is misguided and avoids any strong personality that is guided by Catholic “rules.” Francis wants the kind of free-flowing Church that really is Protestant in nature: if it feels good (to your conscience) then do it. The Catholicism of the Catechism, of strict adherence to Christ’s teachings is gone.
No, this does not mean that the Holy Ghost is helpless. God wins in the end. Bur, for now, there are many, many good and holy men that will be ignored and many, many mediocre, or evil, men, that will be elevated. The institutional Church is largely over in its Traditional form and is being…
Right on! With lex orandi, lex credendi in mind, one cannot think that all those innovations re the setting of the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary in homes, parks, mountain tops et al contributed to the lack of beilf, Faith now, could one?
Thought so.
So now we are being told by Modernist “Catholics” that the traditional Latin Mass has been wrong for hundreds of years? Things keep getting curiouser and curiouser in the modern Catholic church!
I see a lot of misguided un-informed, uneducated liberals trying to portray themselves as church theologians here of which they are none of the kind and have no credibility.
If anyone wants to know the truth, Pray the Rosary frequently as God provides grace and insight to those that due. Read the scriptures from a firmly traditional Roman Catholic Bible, the Douay-Rheims, not the protestant bibles galore, and read old Roman Catholic catechisms and religious books like the “Catechism of the Council of Trent”, Fr. Spirago’s “The Catechism Explained”, old Canon Law, and Father James Meagher’s “How Christ said the First Mass”. V2 opened the doors for complete changes, which every vailid Holy Father from St Peter up through Pope Pius…
. . . held to the truth, tradition that was passed on to them from their forebearers. These holy and saintly pontiffs defended and preserved the faith and traditions being very careful not to make changes to it. Yes over the centuries as saints and martyrs were born, died, and canonized, these pontiffs did approve of their feast days and Holy Mother the Church through the guidance of the Holy Ghost did select Introit, Common, Epistle, Gospel, Secret, Communion, and Post-Communion prayers for their feast day Holy Latin Masses; however there were no changes to the prayers instituted by Christ in the Canon of the Mass. Any other changes outside of the Canon of the Mass were small additions, not removals or rewritings of Christ’s prayers.
So how do you explain the fact that in Scripture, the words “mysterium fidei” were never uttered by Our Lord at the Last Supper? If we’re going to stick to the words of Christ’s prayers (and I agree we should), then you are arguing in favor of the way that the Canon in the Ordinary Form has been revised: the Magisterium removed the “mysterium fidei” from the Institution Narrative (rightly so), thereby making it more in conjunction with the words and prayers of Our Lord in the Last Supper.
This is a “primitivist” argument (“The words ‘mysterium fidei’ were not uttered at the Last Supper”), so claiming the NO to be more like the ancient, lost “pure” liturgy, but not so the TLM—-an assertion jon doesn’t necessarily know to be true (Dei Verbum,V2 #9: some tradition is not solely contained in the Scriptures: “Consequently it is not from SS alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything that has been revealed.”). jon is likely only posing it to be quarrelsome, at which he excels.
But in point of fact, James has every right to believe with certainty that the tradition of the Latin Mass derives fully and completely from the first Holy Thursday, including “mysterium fidei”. Not all true Catholic…
..doctrine and belief is contained in scripture alone, and the TLM—we used to believe until Vatican II–was, and is, the perfect liturgy instituted by Christ from the “Upper Room” in 33AD.
Yes, Anonymous! The problem is that most people could not read nor write, until recent times, historically– and there was no printing press, nor mass-marketed books, in the time of Christ! In the time of Christ, it was common to only have a few important and valuable texts, preserved on scrolls such as the texts of the Old Testament. People commonly memorized sacred teachings and traditions, and passed them down, from one generation to the next. Even texts of the New Testament– were not written down until much later, after events occurred. Continued…
FALSE! The norm of the faith is Scripture. We have the words of institution in the Canon from Scripture. The origin of “mysterium fidei” is not from Scripture. Its pedigree is elsewhere. Read up on it please. The Magisterium is very right to re-locate the phrase apart from the Institution Narrative for it is not based on Scripture. This is Catholicism 101 folks.
P.S. jon is totally ridiculous. All well-catechized, devout Catholics used to know, that the basis our holy Faith is NOT solely in Sacred Scripture– but also, in our Church’s holy Tradition!
One can go to the Vatican II Catechism, and start reading on page 29, under the heading– “Article 2, The Transmission of Divine Revelation,” — keep on reading, page after page– and soon, one will understand, all about our Church’s Sacred Tradition. Best to grow up with that understanding, and good catechesis!
LM has swerved into a tangent here. If the Canon of the Mass is to recall Our Lord’s words from the Last Supper for the Institution Narrative, it makes eminent sense for the Church to go to SCRIPTURE so as to quote Him precisely. It is NOT in Scripture, nor in Tradition for that matter, that Our Lord said the words “mysterium fidei” (or whatever its equivalent is in Aramaic or Hebrew) at the Last Supper. PERIOD!
On the very first day of the first Novus Ordo Missae, in our parish church, in 1969– everyone and his dog in the parish, knew for sure– this Mass was NOT A HISTORICAL REVISION OF THE HOLY MASS, to return to its supposed more ancient, original, authentic, pure form. Everyone and his dog knew– 1960’s ecumenism, and that’s the end of it!
On the very first day, of the Novus Ordo Missae in our parish in 1969– everyone and his dog knew for sure– this was NOT A HISTORICAL REVISION OF THE HOLY MASS, to return to its supposed more pure, original, authentic form! God help us! Everyone laughed, including well-catechized, well-dressed Catholic school-children! This was clearly a product of the 1960’s era, full of ecumenism and new, modernist trends!
The 1500+-year-old, very ancient Latin Tridentine Mass, is very great, and all the world should have tremendous respect for it! It is unknown, the origin of the words “mysterium” fidei,” in the
Canon of the Tridentine Mass (a part of the Consecration of the Wine)– yet, this Mass is a tremendous thing, extremely HOLY, and of the greatest significance, to our Church– and should be given utmost respect, by all! Many things regarding our Faith cannot be intellectually discerned, they are of God, and far above our understanding — we must take these things on Faith.
When young, I recall interesting and informative conversations with people of my hometown, who attended Orthodox churches, not in communion with our Church. Immigrants of these Orthodox churches, were the dominant nationalities and religions of our town. They had liturgies that were similar to ours, and similar, yet slightly different beliefs, about the Canon of the Mass– and Transubstantiation. For them, the epiclesis was very important, in their Divine Liturgies. (No word space here, to explain! Sorry!) And their liturgies were very ancient, some pre-dating ours!