The following comes from an Oct. 28 story in the Vatican Insider (La Stampa).
The Australian cardinal George Pell, one of the eight cardinals that Pope Francis has chosen to advise him, agreed to talk about his experience of their historic meeting (October 1-3) with the Holy Father on the understanding that “the only substantial information” available about that gathering is what Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, gave to the media. “Anything that I might say will be peripheral to that”, he said; and “as one of the Pope’s councilors, I see that part of my task is to defend and explain the Holy Father, to support him in his role”.
On that basis, I interviewed him in Rome, October 17, five days after Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior-General of the Society of Saint Pius X, speaking in Kansas City, had launched a harsh attack on Pope Francis. I began by asking him to comment on that attack.
Bishop Fellay has denounced Pope Francis as “a genuine modernist”, and charged that while the Church was “a disaster” before he was elected, he is making it “10,000 times worse”. What do you say to this?
To put it politely, I think that’s absolute rubbish! Francis said he’s a loyal son of the Church, and his record shows that. He’s very, very concerned for the day-to-day life of the people, and for those who are suffering, those not well off and those in difficult situations. He’s a completely faithful exponent of Christ’s teaching and the Church’s tradition.
So people like Fellay have completely misread Pope Francis?
Yes, it is a gigantic misreading! In actual fact, the Lefebvrists – many of them – have misread the situation for decades. It was to Benedict’s great credit that he tried to reconcile with them, but they didn’t respond. Now the Church today accepts the Second Vatican Council. You don’t have to accept every jot and tittle of it, but it is part of Church’s life now, there’s no way around that.
An Argentinean theologian, Father Carlos Galli, recently told me that he sees “the elder brother syndrome” emerging in the Church as Pope Francis goes out more and more to meet the prodigal sons. What do you say to that?
Well I think it is up to us elder-brothers, unlike the elder-brother in the parable, to get behind the father as he goes to meet the prodigal son. It’s our task to help him in that, to defend him.
You and the other seven cardinal advisors had an unprecedented opportunity to sit and discuss with the Pope for three days on matters relating to the governance of the universal Church and the reform of the Roman Curia. What did it feel like being in that meeting?
I think we were all very much aware of the significance of the occasion. Nobody seems to know how long ago it is since a Pope has had such a regular group of advisors outside the Roman Curia, or what you might call a regular consistory.
In the Council of 8 Cardinals, and also in the Council of the Synod of Bishops of which I am also a member, the discussions were substantial, frank and friendly. The Pope didn’t have a great deal to say but he is a very good listener. He asked people to speak freely, he wanted us to speak our mind. He doesn’t like flattery, and I suspect he sees through it quite efficiently. We didn’t waste time; the discussions were useful and substantial, and he didn’t take offense at anything we said.
We are councilors. We are there to offer advice, and he is certainly free to accept, reject or modify it. We all realize this and we appreciate the opportunity that the Holy Father has given to us cardinals from all around the Church. I think all this will be for the long-term benefit of the Church. I don’t think it is good for popes to be isolated. Our terms of reference are brief, not highly developed. We are to talk about the governance of the universal Church and the reform of the Roman Curia. Obviously other things will come up; he mentioned the topic of marriage and family life.
The 8 Cardinals will have another meeting with Pope Francis on December 3-5, and again in February 2014. One gets the impression that the Pope is pushing ahead to reach a rapid conclusion at least on the reform of the Roman Curia. Is that a correct read?
I think that’s a reasonable expectation, whether it will work out like that I don’t know. I think we’ll probably meet every two months, at least until the middle of next year. It’s no secret that the cardinals in the pre-conclave meetings wanted very significant improvements in the life of the Roman Curia, and I believe that Pope Francis is completely committed to that….
To read the entire interview, click here.
This whole bitterness among traditionalists has been fed by their persecution. Benedict XVI began the Healing process. It’s hoped Pope Francis will take on from where he left. Even now there are Bishops who go out of their way to persecute those the Holy Father says have a ‘sensitivity’ to the Church as it was before Vatican II. Bottom Line like Cardinal Pell says, You don’t have to accept every jot and tittle of it,(Vatican II). . The Vatican II council was not a dogmatic council so Catholics do not have to believe anything it said.
Just because a document isn’t dogma doesn’t mean that you can ignore it. It was an ecumenical council, an official exercise of the magisterium, and is therefore binding upon the faithful.
The council fathers and Pope Paul VI never said that the Vatican II was binding on Catholic consciences, so why are you stating that it is binding? Are we missing something here? Who died and left you in charge?
The Vatican II documents are the official teaching of the Catholic Church. To disagree with something in them is a serious matter for a Catholic. There are many dogmatic statements in them which a Catholic is bound to believe under pain of sin. It would be simpler if people just stated what they have a disagreement with. To reject Vatican II entirely is to reject the Catholic Faith.
Anonymous
No, They are teachings of the Church but they bear the same weight as an Encyclical.
They do not bear the Authority of Dogma. The Church Acknowledges that. You can still follow the Old Liturgy, the old Calender, even the old Feasts as the Church has always done prior to the Council. Some priests do not even celebrate the new Mass.
So yes, A Catholic can be a Catholic without even reading Vatican II or knowing anything in it.
I’d be interested to read the official ‘dogmas’ that came out of Vatican II, Anonymous. Especially those that are ‘binding under pain of sin.’ I’d also like to know who precisely has stated as much.
From what I know, the Vatican II documents comprise a part of Catholic Church teaching and by the very nature of their pastoral tone – a novel approach to Church councils in and of itself – are not intended to be approached in a doctrinal manner.
Sadly, the absence of doctrinal clarity is what has led many to confusion on both sides of the modernist versus traditionalist fence.
I would say most Catholics have not read the Vatican II documents. Catholics were supposed to have read them this year, but hey…who obeys the Pope, anyway?
Dogmas and doctrine are in the documents of Vatican II. Two of the documents are Dogmatic Constitutions; one is a Pastoral Constitution and the other, on the liturgy is a Constitution. They have greater authority than a papal encyclical.
You seem to be referring to only one document: Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. In addition to this, Pope Paul VI issued an Apostolic Constitution ordering the use of the new missal declaring it as a law. It is of the highest authority in the Church.
Please read them.
One becomes Catholic at baptism. One can be Catholic, knowing very little and still be pleasing to God by loving God and loving neighbor. Somehow, either by parents or teachers or listening at Mass and discerning, one learns the Faith. However, Pope Benedict XVI declared the Year of Faith because Catholics are ignorant even of the Creed.
Ann Malley, here is the link:
https://www.annusfidei.va/content/novaevangelizatio/en/credo/conciolio-ecumenico-vaticano-ii.html
When Ecumenical Councils teach, they teach from the magisterium. Catholics in good conscience cannot simply ignore teachings of the magisterium. Therefore they are binding doctrine. As I have written, just because something is not declared a dogma of the Church does not permit the faithful to ignore the doctrines thus elaborated.
Life Site News – ‘Papal Theologian: Treating homosexuals with dignity means telling them the truth.’
VATICAN CITY, July 2, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In an interview with LifeSiteNews.com, Papal Theologian Rev. Wojciech Giertych, spoke of the need to treat persons with homosexual inclination with dignity, adding that dignity means telling them the truth. What truth? “Homosexuality is against human nature.” And what is needed is to “pastorally help such people to return to an emotional and moral integrity.” (see video of the interview)
“But the elevation of perversion to the level of a fundamental value that has to be nurtured and nourished and promoted — this is absolutely sick”
Vatican II is not Doctrine.
“Therefore, following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council, this present council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine on divine revelation and how it is handed on, so that by hearing the message of salvation the whole world may believe, by believing it may hope, and by hoping it may love. (1) “Dei Verbum
” Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ,(2*) the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God. ” Lumen Gentium
“Therefore, by presenting certain key points of Church doctrine in a clearer light, this sacred synod wishes to offer guidance and support to those Christians and other men who are trying to preserve the holiness and to foster the natural dignity of the married state and its superlative value.” Gaudium et Spes
Thank you for the response, Anonymous and YFC. I will read the links (rereading and reading anew to cover all bases) and consider your POV. Sadly, what reading I have done of these documents is clouded by the ambiguity of the language used in said pronouncements.
But again, to Cardinal Pell, it is difficult to accept a ‘teaching’ or better still, to really understand something meant to be teaching, when it is all over the map and not clearly defined. Vatican II documents leave me with an aftertaste of the interview between Dawkins and Pell.
So I would propose that nobody is outright denying or ignoring Vatican II, but rather asking for a clearer, more defined and doctrinal pronouncement of what an admittedly pastoral council really means. It’s like Pope Francis constantly having to be explained, interpreted, etc by those around him. (According to some reports, His Holiness anticipated being misunderstood. I’d venture the same can be said of the Post-VII magisterium.)
Even so, Francis is the Pope. Catholics cannot just ignore him, but having the man speak clearly would be a God sent blessing. Much like having actual doctrinal (that is in binding terms) clarity with regard to Vatican II instead of having to rely on the confusing, inconsistent magisterial teaching Vatican II.
Ambiguity seems to be the norm now – ambiguity which can be turned right or left depending on the cleric presenting it and their preference. That said, if the Anonymous poster above wants to promote listening to the Pope, we are all called upon to ‘make a mess’. Call out that which we see is inconsistent.
So that’s what Traditional minded folks should do specifically because we are not ignoring Vatican II, but rather, quite rightfully asking for some clarity.
Anonymous , I will review the links and consider your POV.
Again, to Cardinal Pell, it is difficult to accept a ‘teaching’ or better still, to really understand something meant to be teaching, when it is not clearly defined. Vatican II documents leave me with an aftertaste of the interview between Dawkins and Pell.
So again, nobody is ignoring Vatican II, but rather asking for a clearer, more defined and doctrinal pronouncement of what an admittedly pastoral council really means. It’s like Pope Francis constantly having to be explained, interpreted, etc by those around him. (According to some reports, His Holiness anticipated being misunderstood. I’d venture the same can be said of the Post-VII magisterium.)
Even so, Francis is the Pope. Catholics cannot just ignore him, but having the man speak clearly would be a God sent blessing. Much like having actual doctrinal (that is in binding terms) clarity with regard to Vatican II instead of having to rely on the confusing, inconsistent magisterial teaching Vatican II.
Ambiguity seems to be the norm now – ambiguity which can be turned right or left depending on the cleric presenting it and their preference. That said, if the Anonymous poster above wants to promote listening to the Pope, we are all called upon to ‘make a mess’. Call out that which we see is inconsistent.
So that’s what Traditional minded folks should do specifically because we are not ignoring Vatican II, but rather, quite rightfully asking for some clarity.
Catholics are only required to belive
1. Bible
2. Catechism of the Catholic Church
3. Dogmatic Statements of Faith-Such as the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Vatican II council did not call itself Dogmatic, it was a pastoral council. No Catholic even the Pope has to beleive it. Its to be seen in the light of the deposit of the faith. That is how the fathers of the council intended it, that is how it is.
It can show us how to pastorally take care of a situation, but its always to be looked at in the light of apostolic tradition.
The Church calls the Vatican II Council an Ecumenical Council. An ecumenical council is the highest teaching of the Church. It is the Pope in union with the bishops of the world, which is infallible.. However, not everything in Vatican II is infallible because it is not necessary for it to be. Matters of discipline, like how often the clergy prays the office, are not infallible, but are to be obeyed. Like all Ecumenical Councils, Vatican II teaches the Truth. It reiterates the deposit of Faith. It reinforces Apostolic Tradition. There are a few documents which were controversial and because of which Vatican II has been smeared. The statements being made by people here do not make sense. Please read the documents. If you find something that you disagree with, pray over it. Search Holy Scripture and the Catechism for the explanation. I know that is a lot more work than just repeating something your read somewhere. I don’t know who started that dogmatic vs. pastoral council bunk, but it is nonsense. Please read the documents so you know what you are talking about. Do you trust EWTN? Here is a link:
https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/VAT-2.HTM
Vatican II is not a required believe of the Catholic Church.
There is nothing in it that is dogmatic . Believe it if you wish, but its not required believe.
Chinua OK I was told the same as you have said. Even from a good priest who is from the NO mass, when I asked about “why alter girls”…he told me why and I said that I didn’t agree and he said “its OK to disagree, its not a sin to not agree with it. ” He gave me some peace, God bless this good and holy priest, he was very devout and holy until his bishop got to him, he pretty much changed his stand on remaining more traditional, he was tired of all the chaos he received, I noticed changes on him, it was a sad time. I still pray for him.
Firstly, there is no room for heresy in the Church of Christ.
“Now the Church TODAY ACCEPTS the Second Vatican Council. You don’t have to accept every jot and tittle of it, but it is part of Church’s life NOW, there’s no way around that.” means nothing.
Secondly,
Gospel According to Saint Luke, Chapter 15:
“[1] Now the publicans and sinners drew near unto him to hear him. [2] And the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying: This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. [3] And he spoke to them this parable, saying: [4] What man of you that hath an hundred sheep: and if he shall lose one of them, doth he not leave the ninety-nine in the desert, and go after that which was lost, until he find it? [5] And when he hath found it, lay it upon his shoulders, rejoicing:”
But,
“… [17] And returning to himself, he said: How many hired servants in my father’s house abound with bread, and I here perish with hunger? [18] I will arise, and will go to my father, and say to him: FATHER, I HAVE SINNED AGAINST HEAVEN, AND BEFORE THEE: [19] I am not worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. [20] And rising up he came to his father. …”
Who are the prodigal sons?
I agree totally with what Chinua Okwonkwo has written. Most traditionalists have been treated like dirt since Vatican II. Had they been treated better, or even if they were really listened to, things would have been much better. It seems dialogue with other religions was stressed, but dialogue with conservative Catholics was taboo. May God reward and bless Pope Benedict for all he did for the traditional Latin Mass and for traditionalists.
Fr. Karl, you are partially correct at best. There should be a pox on both houses. After VII, churches all over the world took up the new liturgy for the Mass. Let’s assume that 98%+ of Americans attend NO Mass on weekends. Let’s also assume that 98% of all Catholics have never attended a Mass in Latin and/or the extraordinary liturgy. I’m not sure, but we might also assume that 80%+ of priests in America have never seen a Latin Mass, much less know how to preside at one. Yet, the “traditionalists continue to spew venom all over the 98%. This road goes in both directions. When I go to a regular form Mass on Sunday, don’t tell me that I have not been to a real Mass. Don’t tell me that only the TLM is a real mass. Don’t condemn those in your parish who don’t want Latin as the everyday Mass. Don’t tell me that a Mass isn’t real unless the Priests has his back to me, faces East and speaks in Latin, etc. If the traditionalist will simply say that their 2% prefer a TLM and let it go at that, they would not feel bad when others push back. Just don’t tell me I’m not a real Catholic because I attend the NO Mass. We sometimes, if we bother to notice, feel put upon as well.
Faithful and priests only know what they’ve been taught, Bob One. You’ve seemingly been taught that the Novus Ordo is the way to go. That it is full and complete and enriching etc. You’ve likely been reared on it. It works for you.
That said, Fr. Karl and others were reared on something very different. Not margarine, but butter. Not skim milk, but raw milk. Not cage raised, but free range. But while the core nutrients are the same, the taste is very different. The experience very different.
Imagine if you’d been raised on farm fresh cream and then were told one day that you’d only get 1% ever again. No milk for you. Imagine if you were used to eating full meals and the next day it was like the Jetsons and you received three pills. They kind of made you full after you swallowed them, but not quite. There was something not right about it, but that’s all you’d ever get from then on.
That’s my experience with the Novus Ordo. And I greatly resent those clerics that keep trying to say that there’s no difference. There is a difference. And it’s not just the idea of preference as there are many who leave the Church for lack of real food.
That said, how unkind would it be for someone who believes they’ve found the ‘food’ to keep that knowledge to themselves. It’s not an attempt to undermine your choices. It’s charity. It’s wanting to share that which is good and wholesome with others. It’s the lamentation that others haven’t had the experience.
No numbers game, Bob One.
I firmly believe that had the “Prayers at the Foot of the Altar” not been summarily removed, the priest sex scandals would have been far less severe because in those prayers the priest celebrant was reminded of just who he is in the salvation plan of God!
May God have mercy on an amoral America!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founding Director
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
No one is saying NO is not a Mass. there are many rites within the Catholic Church, from the Dominican Rite to the Roman Rite in Ordinary and Extraordinary form to the Coptic/Ukranian/Caldean etc. The Ordinary form of the Roman rite is far from the Gold Standard. A Catholic can ignore it completely and still be a Catholic in Good standing.
There is a fundamental problem with the Novus Ordo. All you need to do is get to know any of the older Apostolic rites to figure out the Norvus Ordo though Valid has some way to go to heal the visible break from what came before it. Even Pope Benedict XVI said so.
Fr. Karl ~ Both John Paul II and Benedict bent over backwards to reach out to the SSPX and in response were “..treated like dirt.” I’m all for a diversity of practices within the Church , but some “traditionalists” won’t be satisfied until Vatican II is completely reversed and we go back to the “good old days” of the 1950’s, which, in reality, never existed.
Greg: I don’t know your age. But for many of us born in the 1920’2, the 1950’s were quite real. They very much existed.
In those days the bishops could state with conviction that, when asked how many Catholic there were in their dioceses :
“Next Sunday, I shall put out the word to my priests to please take a head count”.
Anton ~ I was born in 1947. The 50’s brought about many good things. It was also a time of great materialism (even in the Church) , skyrocketing divorce rates and infidelity. We shouldn’t idealize it .
I guess we should idealize the 60’s…. perhaps the most destructive generation ever to come about….
C and H: I concede that the 1950’s were not a period of unmitigated bliss for the Catholic Church. The signs of disintegration were already present, but we recognize them only in retrospect. The collapse came with the Vatican council, presumably convened to counteract the forces of dissolution. It made, in my opinion, things much, much worse. We are living with the effects of this ill-fated council to this very day. The mere fact that we are having this discussion proves that there are still many unresolved issues.
The collapse came when Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae against the better judgement of his counselors and the laity. When the laity is issued doctrine without sensus fidelium, it rebels. That is precisely what happenned. Far more Catholics welcomed the reforms of Vatican II than welcomed Humanae Vitae.
If the 50’s were so great, how come they led to the 60’s? You talk like problems just drop upon us, fully formed and full-size. This doesn’t happen.
Good point, Brian. But that said, if Vatican II and the New Springtime was so beautiful why has there been such a mass exodus from the Catholic Church, moral values, and common sense?
John 3:19
I’ve never claimed Vatican II to be “so beautiful”, but it is part of the ordinary magisterium that comprises infalliable Church teachings. It is simply un-Catholic to declare that there is a “pre-” and “post-” councilar church. There is One Church, period.
Ironically, here, objectors repeatedly cite “Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition” as authority, as if oblivious that it is itself post-counciliar, relying on counciliar documents among its most quoted and referenced sources.
As for my opinion on recent history (as if it matters), I’ve recently been listening to old Credence Clearwater and The Band records and marveling that as shortly ago as the early 70’s, young people were glorifying agarian and pastoral lives, not the power, money, bling, and predatory and loveless sex that comprises most party music today.
I also remember the 60’s. Many children of the 60s were searching for genuine authenticity which the Church could have, but did not, offer them, being (perhaps in our shared opinion) too busy with the hip and superficial. But what opportunities for evanglization are we overlooking now while we expend energies to restore older, more attractive, superficialities?
“Older, more attractive, superficialities,” as you call them, Brian, are in reality attracting young people to Tradition. Not necessarily because they offer – despite what you may believe – something that doesn’t really matter with regard to Faith. But rather because they are outward signs of the magnificence and solemnity and beauty of God.
Truth is the best evangelization tool. Respecting the intellect of others without trying to sneak up on them by not looking too Catholic, or too hard, or too anything else would be the order of today in my mind. One can relay Truth in kindness and in all it’s fullness. Our Lady didn’t shrink at Fatima in revealing Hell to children.
Part 2 to Brian:
As a young adult, what I loathed most about the Novus Ordo approach was what came across to me as saccharine, touchy-feely, holding hands emotion based nonsense. I’m of Nordic decent, so perhaps that culturally is why the new springtime had the direct opposite effect on me. I don’t know. But I had a visceral response of – YUCK. And that, unlike in days gone by, the Church now considered me too stupid to grasp basic Truths, to understand right versus wrong, as if my generation were somehow incapable.
And again, nobody is dismissing Vatican II. The post-conciliar versus pre-conciliar terminology is not meant to be anti-Catholic, Brian. It is just an attempt to define that which – sorry – seems to the senses as different as black and white. There was a definite change after VII. If not, think about it, why did they hold the Council in the first place?
Vatican II and the New Springtime are not the same thing.
True, the ‘New Springtime’ is the season of rotted, frost annihilated fruit that followed Vatican II. Or perhaps it was really the season of budding Catholics (the youth) that shriveled in the freezing winds of compromise before they could come to fruit.
Really Greg Smith,, the parishes weren’t near full on Sundays in the 1950’s there weren’t full seminaries and convents, the Church wasn’t a positive moral force capable of moving the culture…. I am so sick of liberals… and everything they do and say
Both John Paul II and Benedict bent over backwards to reach out to the SSPX and in response were “..treated like dirt.”
So should every father seeking to save his sons.
The problem with both JP II and Benedict XVI was dancing around the issue of V II and not saying clearly that its not Dogma, which they know to be the truth. The Institute of Christ the King and the FSSP and other traditionalist orders within the Church live life like Vatican II never happened. The Church lets them. Why not give the same leeway to the SSPX?
Because VII was their baby. And the SSPX will not agree to the requisite gag-order of not speaking out against it even though they could ‘agree’ and then just voice their disagreement anyway. Like just about every other group that is in supposed ‘full union’.
That said, love your post Western Schneider.
..”.An Argentinean theologian, Father Carlos Galli, recently told me that he sees “the elder brother syndrome” emerging in the Church as Pope Francis goes out more and more to meet the prodigal sons. What do you say to that?”
I say the elder brothers should indeed get behind the Father in meeting the Prodigal Son visibly trying to return home. And we do all the time. As for chasing after those who are still whooping it up, spitting on the Father, the elder brother, the way of life, the offer of love and salvation, I say allow them the liberty to keep learning the hard way as that is often the best of blessings.
I mean, many left the Church precisely because they didn’t want to be slapped with a guilt complex for doing their own thing. So where is the logic behind attempting to slap a guilt complex on those who have been trying their entire lives to do the right thing – which is hard.
Can’t we have some balance here?
Cardinal Pell also does a stellar dance-around job of avoiding the issue of the Catholic Church’s state of crisis. He doesn’t address it. Nobody said that the Pope isn’t concerned about the difficulties of people’s day to day lives. The observation is that Pope Francis is a modernist. (Not committing outright heresy is not the criteria that would make one a Traditionalist.)
As for ‘misreading’ for decades, Cardinal Pell seems to misunderstand the fact that no one is denying that Vatican II happened. Again, a simplistic dance-around. Of course Vatican II happened. So did the Crusades. So did the Spanish Inquisition. So did the revolt of Martin Luther.
But what are the Church’s ‘official’ positions on the fruits of these historical facts now? Apology. Side stepping. Celebrating the Protestant Revolt. Anything BUT consistency and Truth.
Cardinal Pell barely addresses SSPX in that piece. And being dismissive seems like the most appropriate response. SSPX is a super fringe group that borders on schismatic, doesn’t represent a sufficient population where exodus would be a threat to the Vatican, and is a constant source of embarrassment, not only by way of scathing criticism, but just a couple of weeks caused an international incident by attempting to hold a funeral mass for a Nazi war criminal.
Sebastian, As Ann Malley stated earlier: This is NOT about numbers. This IS about Truth. You also consider posters on this website a fringe group. There is fascination, sensitivity, mercy and compassion for everything but the fullness of the Truth. Speaking of funerals, many pro-life Catholics were terribly scandalized when they watched the GRANDIOSE funeral of Ted Kennedy who worked to legislate laws that helped to murder thousands of unborn children. He also enabled legislation for same sex unions. Perhaps and hopefully Ted Kennedy repented before his death but the bloody wake of damage done in murdering the unborn cannot be denied. There was never any public statement of apology in reparation for the enormous public scandal he caused. A privately held Mass would have spoken volumes of TEACHING TRUTH, not only to the seriousness of his past sins but also to show the mercy especially if he had gone to confession contritely. Stop judging numbers. Just because a modern trend is popular with the majority, that does not mean it is pleasing to God.
Luke 18:8: I tell you, he will vindicate them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man comes, *will he find faith* on earth?”
When Ted Kennedy received tons of adulation at his funeral even EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo also expressed dismay about the funeral “extravaganza.” On his blog he wrote, “The prayer intercessions at the funeral mass, the endless eulogies, the image of the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston reading prayers, and finally Cardinal McCarrick interring the remains sent an uncontested message: One may defy Church teaching, publicly lead others astray, deprive innocent lives of their rights, and still be seen a good Catholic, even an exemplary one.”
Catherine, I can see why you would hate adulation for Ted Kennedy, and I am not qualified to judge the soul of Erich Priebke, except to say that he remained unrepentant, publicly, at least. A couple of major issues here: 1. The Vatican expressly denied him a church funeral 2. by attempting to grant him one, SSPX chose possibly the most repellant way possible to assert itself on an international stage, and
With SSPX, it really is about numbers. Here. Where the Vatican is concerned. This is a political issue. You have a splinter group that is consistently challenging the authority and legitimacy of the Church, in an official capacity, and a vocal way. Obviously there’s a ton of Canon law about that. It’s the Vatican version of high treason. Numbers really do matter, because SSPX doesn’t represent an appreciable population of Catholics to be a threat to the Church, so there’s not much motivation for the Papacy to appease it.
As far as Truth goes, I don’t see anything wrong with V2, so the only real difference I see there is aesthetic. And culturally, schismatic traditionalists don’t really appeal to me, but I don’t mind them. I suspect there’s a lot of sympathy for SSPX here, though, hence the choice to post this story…
Dear Catherine, a gift:
https://catholiccafeconleche.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/wp_20131019_02520131019182553.jpg
Sorry, Anonymous, but I peaked at Catherine’s gift.
Can you say ADORABLE!!!
Anonymous,
Thank you for the beautiful and very heart touching gift. : ) Look how the precious little baby’s face radiates God’s love ( “I Thirst “) for all of us!
“On 10 September 1946 during the train ride from Calcutta to Darjeeling for her annual retreat, Mother Teresa received her “inspiration,” her “call within a call.” On that day, in a way she would never explain, Jesus’ thirst for love and for souls took hold of her heart and the desire to satiate His thirst became the driving force of her life.”
You are very welcome. I am glad that you like it. Her name is Maria Isabella but her parents call her Bella. She has spina bifida. She received a new procedure of in-utero surgery and is doing well. She still needs lots of physical therapy to help her learn to crawl and eventually walk.
Anonymous,
Thank you for the inspiring story about little Bella. I am so pleased to read that Bella was able to receive that remarkable new procedure and that she is doing well. May God continue to bless Bella and her loving and trusting parents. Her sweet face and smile are priceless. Our daughter was born with hydrocephalus and she also received lots of physical therapy to help her learn to crawl and eventually walk. It certainly looks like Bella is in the *habit* of being loved and that she will have lots of love and support in helping her. Our daughter has brought our entire family so much joy even though there have certainly been trials. There are so many incredible blessings from God when you place your complete trust in Him and most especially during difficult trials. God in his Infinite Wisdom knows how truly special a “special needs” child is. These children are such unique gifts from God because they often place us on the fast track of helping us to view things from a Godlier and sweeter perspective. These special children surely help to strengthen us, shape us, refine us and eventually define us as we strive to always remain faithful to God.
Just precious! now that is the kind of “costume” children should be wearing for All Saints’ Eve (Halloween).
You took the response right out of my mouth, Catherine. Thank you. And thank you, Sebastian, for your posting that elicited such a response.
Sebastien
Since when was the Shepard supposed to ignore the lost sheep?
In Places like France SSPX is the Church, the only Church left. So it is in Catalonia.
When SSPX priests are the only vocations in a diocese, you will be forced to deal with them as a Bishop or Pope.
Especially when you are talking the Elder daughters of the Church.
Even here in the US, the Traditional Orders are building rows and rows of dormitories, whether you like it or not, soon or later you will need to go to them for your sacraments.
That is what the Lord wishes.
All SSPX Sacraments are illicit.
They cannot validly absolve sins in Confession or witness a Catholic marriage.
You can hold that opinion, Anonymous. Other’s do not. And if the Church in France (that is the Novus Ordo) shrivels to the point of severe crisis, what do you propose Catholics to do? Go without confession, marriage, etc?
There is a crisis, Anonymous. It may not be in your backyard. But it is real.
Clergy not in communion with the pope cannot provide valid sacraments, Ann. Is this the appeal to tradition you depend upon the Latin mass to bring? “I have my opinion,you have yours” is hardly traditional, it is separatist and Protestant thinking. It is opposed to Truth.
Don’t suppose that I think surfaces unimportant, they are. Veneer is the difference between brutal exposed concrete or hulking steel beams and an attractive, inviting, building. But when veneer is all, you get Frank Geary or Las Vegas.
I happen to like the “sign of peace”, it reminds me that I am the sorry-faced sap to the sorry-faced sap whose hand I am shaking. I don’t like holding hand for the Our Father, so I don’t. I also didn’t like the rushed and barely-discernible Latin that I strained to hear when I attended the TLM for a couple of years, no matter how good the choir was.
In danger of death, one can receive absolution from non-Catholic priests who have a valid ordination. Ann, look at the list of SSPX chapels on their website. Notice how the word “Catholic” is not in any of their names.
Did not the Pope Emeritus predict an exact situation as this, in which the Church would shrivel to a faithful remnant? Surely when he made this prediction he foresaw certain regions in which the true faith would be challenged. Thus, he who himself tried to reconcile with SSPX, foresaw exactly this situation, and was willing to let his efforts go unless SSPX was willing to acknowledge the teaching authority of the Ecumenical Council.
Brian and YFC and Anonymous: hold faithful to what you believe to be the magisterium. I shall do the same out of fervent belief. If you call me Protestant for it, that is your choice. But remember you are to call Protestants separated brethren. You may also want to keep in mind that as the Anglicans have been ‘received back’ with their traditions in tact, so too that which is Catholic will be received back.
As to the dissident rejection of the ‘Ecumenical Council’, clarify it, and I and many others will be all ears. As to the Pope Emeritus’ predictions of the faithful remnant, it was Christ’s original prediction. No news flash there. That said there is much wrangling in the Novus Ordo as to what precisely to be faithful to – much heterodoxy abounds. Look about you. But that is what happens when what should be sound teaching turns all manner of gray area.
So stay fervent along with that obedience. The tepid are vomited forth. Same thing with the sign of peace. Enjoy it if it works for you. As for the ‘rushed Latin’, I’m sorry that was your only experience. Really sorry about that.
God bless
Also, Sebastien, my original post wasn’t concerned with the SSPX itself, but rather the legitimate issues they raise. So dismiss the SSPX if you wish, Sebastian, and Cardinal Pell, but the reality of the issue won’t go away. Even if Church leadership chooses to ignore them.
Well, SSPX is really just one of the more (or most?) flagrantly rebellious traditionalist factions, right? And issue there is the rebelliousness more than the traditionalism.
Vatican 2 was 50 years ago, and I get the sense that most of the opposition to it is still coming largely from those who were old enough to see it as a negative when it was contemporary, or from enclaves that mostly broke off from the mainstream at that time (I have a whole side of my family who did that… formed an orthodox enclave in a small town, and through home schooling and social isolation have managed to be very successful in handing down the philosophy to subsequent generations).
So the issue is modernism in V2? It’s interesting to me, because I see V2 as still very orthodox. I can see how Modernism might lead to an unraveling (with its inherent irreverence to authority and tradition), but see seeking to freeze a moment in history as untenable. Truth should transcend our momentary trappings. in 1320 or 2013. It must be all-inclusive, but traditionalism is exclusive by nature.
Well said, Sebastian:
“…Truth should transcend our momentary trappings in 1320 or 2013. It must be all-inclusive, but traditionalism is exclusive by nature.”
That is why it is not necessarily the ‘trappings’ of Tradition that are being sought, but rather the teachings/meanings behind those traditions or lack there of. And while the perceived rebelliousness of the SSPX may seem to be an easy mark upon which to pin the difficulties surrounding SSPX/Vatican relations, it seems far more realistic to blame the ambiguity of some VII documents that have allowed for and still allow for a vast inconsistency in the teachings of the Church.
From what I’ve read, the main sticking point from the Society’s perspective regarding reconciliation was maintaining, “…The freedom to accuse and even to correct the promoters of the errors or the innovations of modernism, liberalism, and Vatican II and its aftermath.” This comes from the July 17 letter from Fr. Christian Thouvenot.
For Sebastian #2:
In truth, the above is wholly reasonable. Or are we forbidden to look back through history and review the motives/outcomes of the Inquisition, the Crusades, or anything for that matter. Why is there such a push to suppress scrutiny? Why, when there are those in supposed full communion who exercise all manner of liturgical abuse and theological deviation?
As to the Latin Mass growing, I was a fallen away Novus Ordo Catholic. My husband a former heathen and my children unbaptized. My husband’s response to the Novus Ordo was to refuse to ever become Catholic. The why – “I could go to a club if I want that kind of interaction.” (This is no slam to NO attendees, just personal experience of the sign of peace and a woman in a white bustier.)
Sebastien 3
That said, the SSPX chapel’s I’ve encountered also have a regular infusion of converts. Many of which are those who love to read and research history. Look beyond the aesthetics, Sebastian, and perhaps even the perceived label of being an isolationist. Ask your family members “Why?!” Your relatives must feel very deeply about their convictions to do what they did. So hold them to the fire to give you more than aesthetics.
Everyone is so hot on the modernist track, “Be not afraid!” “Make a mess!” “Meet your brother where he is!” So why is everyone so seemingly afraid of Catholic Tradition? Why do they rush to brand Latin Mass lovers as Triumphalist (BAD), but seek to rebrand outright heretics as separated brethren (One of the fold)?
God bless
SSPX chapels are not Catholic Churches. Even they do not claim that they are. Did you ever think that Satan was behind the woman wearing the bustier? Do you realize how much effort the demon’s use when someone wants to return to the Church and bring others into it?
Brian S: ” It is simply un-Catholic to declare that there is a “pre-” and “post-” councilar church.” Really? Where did you get that? It is a matter of history that there was a pre-council and there is in fact a post-council Church: now to observe and define differences, that is anathema? Do you hear yourself?
Only in the since that there is was a 20th century church and now there is a 21st century church, Steve. In all cases it is the same Church, protected from error in the same way, by the same Savior, and it’s teachings are true, then as now, as expressed in the documents of the council and in those before and since.
“We believe in ONE holy catholic and apostolic Church.” Thus there is no pre-council Church and another post Council Church.
You believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church led by who precisely?
“…The collapse came when Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae against the better judgment of his counselors and the laity.”
Sounds here as if you believe, in your heart, as if the Church should be led by the court of popular opinion. And then you say that, “…when the laity is issued doctrine without sensus fidelium, it rebels. That is precisely what happened. Far more Catholics welcomed the reforms of Vatican II than welcomed Humanae Vitae.”
Give the people what they want seems to be the philosophy of the day. That said, the sense of the faithful was greatly abraded by the radical pronouncements of VII. That is those faithful who were properly catechized. And the rest just fell away, I suppose, because they couldn’t use birth control.
Goodness sakes ….again. No wonder there are so many that cleave to obey the Church that gives them, or promises to like a carrot, what they want.
Steve: I live in a very liberal parish, in a very liberal diocese. I am frankly “old church” and cannot warm up to the novus ordo no matter how sincerely I try. I am disappointed that Pope Benedict’s motu proprio regarding the Latin rite mass was totally ignored; and if spoken about, the reactions were generally very negative towards it. There are many, including a large segment of people who comment in these pages, who will disagree with you that we are but one church. There is a clear line of demarcation betwen those who grew up before the second council and those who welcomed the relaxed standards of the post-conciliar church.
Anton, you are correct, I think! Those of us who grew up in the 40s and 50s church are different than those who are now coming into the church and don’t know about what it was like back then. The majority of people, in my opinion, who love the church as it is today grew up back in the bad old days. Thank God the Pope opened the windows and let in some fresh air. The current Pope has alluded to the fact that the windows were not open enough and that some people are trying to close them again. He won’t let that happen! Never!
Open the windows to what precisely, Bob One? The Church has always been open to forgiving the sinner.
Bob One: Wasn’t it Pope Paul who said that when we opened the windows to the world, “the smoke of Satan entered the temple”.
You should read Malachi Martin’s book “Windswept House”…
You see, it is not all about us, it is all about God who created us! We exist here only for a hundred years or less, which is infinitesimally small compared to eternity. Earth is our testing ground to reap or lose eternal life with God. We need to be on our best behavior, know, love and worship God reverently, devotedly, and sincerely. We need to talk to God daily even though He does know all of our needs.
Although Catholics weren’t perfect (except forOur Lady) the Roman Catholic Church for the first 1,960 years was God-centered; however, now in the modern church it is man-centered. In everyday life, divine providence has been replaced by human sensibility. God has been rejected by our nation, and we will not be blessed. Man’s will seems to take precedence over God’s will in these modern times. Modern man has grown to accept sin and pump/puff up mankind’s self-esteem at the expense of offending God instead. Many disobey the 10 Commandments and claim offenses to God are nolonger offenses. When did God change? We were taught He was the Alpha and the Omega, unchanging as there was no need to be. God cannot deceive nor be deceived and this is fundamental Roman Catholic Church teaching. The devil on the other hand roaming the earth so freely is the father of all lies. Those living in a state of sanctifying grace see and understand the differences provoked by modernism and these truths. Yes pray the rosary, for many, like Our Lady said, she and the rosary may be our sole refuge.
That the church was “god-centered” for 1960 years, but has been “man-centered” in a unique way since V2 is an extremely broad and unsupportable proposition, and your assertion – heard many times before – should serve to answer Steve Phoenix’s wonder of where the false claims of “pre” and “post” conciliar church come from.
History is not so supporting of your theory, James.
Why do you think this supposedly unsupportable proposition keeps coming up, Brian? Do you believe that anyone who sees the differences between pre and post Vatican II is somehow blind? Or just mean spirited?
As to history, there is a very decidedly different approach to ‘Church.’ That said, if there was no difference, no change, then why was there a Vatican II at all?
I mean, something major had to have happened, Brian, if the Vatican that once condemned the errors of Martin Luther is now planning a 2017 blowout bash.
Good grief.
Brian S. is unflinching in his bizarre claim that he can declare someone “un-Catholic” who states (which is a matter of actual history) that there was a pre-Council and post-Council Church.
There was a different law of worship “then and now” (TLM vs. Novus Ordo Mass); a different moral code (intrinsic morality then vs. situation ethics today); a sense of salvation for faithful Catholics and clearly defined non-believers of “good will” then vs. universal salvation now; and we could go on.
But I am most fascinated by Brian S’s freedom to anathematize people who can see the fundamental differences between the Church prior to 1962 and what came after. Where does he derive the right? No matter: he can.
Finally, as for the claim that the Church has somehow NOT become man-centered since V2, just attend to P Paul VI’s Closing Address at V2, where he pronounced his goal and the goal of the Council: “The religion of the God who became man has met the religion (for such it is) of man who makes himself God. And what happened? Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? … … All this rich teaching is channeled in one direction, the service of mankind.”
The Church prior to V2, which was transcendent-oriented (just look at the church architecture most of us love) became the assembly of man (immanent-oriented: a circular meeting hall), often resulting in the wreckovation of once uplifting edifices, to fulfill the goal of a man-oriented church.
I never declared anyone “un-Catholic”‘, Steve.
When one makes statements in direct contradiction with the Nicean Creed, however, I am confident to call that notion un-catholic.
Would you verify that you do not believe the Roman Catholic Church, visible in the world and headed by Francis I, the Bishop of Rome, to be the Church founded by Christ and the normal means of salvation to the world?
You see, I assume I am talking to Catholics, when I know I am talking to others, I adopt a different tone.
Brian, As to Pope Francis being Pope, yes, he is. And that is why we must pray for him in all charity. And the Church is the Church, Brian, albeit assailed by all that was let in by the open windows.
But Truth will never die, despite those that would mask it, deny it, attempt to redefine it, etc.
What, exactly, is in a document of Vatican II that is heretical, Ann? Without that, all that you have (indeed all you have cited) is that the new liturgy is banal. I don’t disagree with you on that, but it is an unfortunate change in style too often misunderstood as a more basic change. I agreed several posts ago that a preservation of the form of long standing would have been better.
None the less, it is a change in form, not of the essential character. Does confusion on this require blindness or mean-spiritedness? Of course not – did I ever claim otherwise?
They are not traditional Catholics.They are liturgical criminals. They are guilty of schism, whether formal or material. They do not want to be Catholics. They do their own thing and disobey the Church and the Lord, himself. They are no different from any other heretical group. They have rejected the request for unity of the Lord they claim to serve. They hold vanity over Truth. In their arrogance, they pronounce that the Catholic Church — one holy Catholic and Apostolic, founded on the Apostles and through which the Lord has chosen to extend his salvific passion to each generation until the end of the world-as, deficient. We must pray and beg God to have mercy on their erring souls.
You are mistaken, Anonymous, for it is precisely the fruit of Our Lord’s salvific passion that will see us and is currently seeing us through this modernist mess of ambiguity.
As to ‘liturgical criminals,’ take up and read about the roots of the new mass. You might then understand that while Our Lord did allow it, He also allows other things that we humans cleave to in our stubbornness to change, improve, assert, etc. Not because He precisely desires it, but rather He desires that we learn by those mistakes that lead to true learning and appreciation for His gifts.
So go forth and quote what you’d like, Anonymous, but it may just turn back upon you.
Ann Malley, I think you are very confused on what the Catholic Church believes. The Catholic Church teaches that modernism is a heresy. As for the roots of the new Mass-it is the Apostles. Don’t believe the bunk about Protestant ministers at Vatican II writing the “new” Mass. It takes a lot longer than two years to understand the Church. Having been exposed to and apparently swallowed so much error will make it take longer. Please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Thank you, Anonymous, for your concern. Not sure where you got the 2 years notion from, but whatever. That said the roots of the modern mass were foisted upon the faithful under the auspices of it having come from the Apostles. Read about it. (Many aspects of the Novus Ordo were already practiced illicitly in Europe and the United States long before VII…. practices that were condemned at the time.)
Outside of my particular journey as an adult Catholic, I was given 12 years of Catholic Parochial school training, and at the best schools CA has to offer. So I’m pretty steeped in all that is VII, or at least I was.
As for the Protestant influences in the New Mass, I have lived it, Anonymous. Reading only confirmed my experience. But you are correct that Modernism is a sin. So ask yourself. How is it that the Syllabus of Errors promulgated by Pope St. Pius X includes many things that are taught and/or allowed in the Church today?
The answer – a modernist spirit has infiltrated the Church.
Ann Malley, since you speak in such vague and general terms, it is difficult to answer. Some priests, some laity may be in error but the Church cannot err. Even if each person in the church has some beliefs that are not in conformity with the teachings of the Church, that is not an indication that the Church has erred. It is an indication that people don’t take the time to educate themselves. The Syllabus of Errors is numbered. Which number do you think is taught by the Church today? As for the practices condemned before Vatican II-the Church has the right and the duty to regulate worship. Did you know that it used to be a mortal sin not to fast and abstain on the Wednesdays and Fridays of Lent? Eventually it was changed to just Fridays. The Church can do that. The Church has not done anything wrong. What they declare bound on earth is declared bound in Heaven.
Thank you, Anonymous, for your response.
Does the regulation of worship in your mind include the complete turn around of the Church’s response to Martin Luther? Does it extend to the confusing exercise of Assisi I, II, and III? Does it also comprise the lack of evangelization to the Jews and, in fact, the complete abandonment of the notion of Jewish conversion to the One True Faith?
I’m not speaking of fasting rules here, Anonymous, as you well know. But relegating, or attempting, to relegate these issues to the vague and/or trivial is a common tactic of those who cannot reconcile that which is irreconcilable.
So while the Church has done nothing wrong – far from it – those fallible men who have been entrusted to guard Her haven’t been very diligent. It’s like a bad father who allows his children to walk all over his wife in a supposed attempt to keep the peace or keep his children home. (Usually it is because he is concerned with his own distractions.)
Anonymous continued:
It reeks of injustice, scandal to the faithful, a lack of true charity, and proper order. In the end, those children end up leaving home anyway and/or just taking advantage while they lose respect and continue sinning.
When the Father acts as the true head of the family, however, and elevates his wife to her proper position, order is restored. It might not be liked. It usually isn’t.
So enjoy the reign of ambivalence and watch your Mother suffer. It’s all allowed under binding and loosing. It’s all very legal in precisely ‘legal’ terms. (You’re covered) But you’ll excuse me if I don’t want to see my Mother torn apart, abused, neglected, weeping, relegated to the corner, set as one among many, etc, etc, etc.
I’ve no stomach for it.
Anonymous: I am appalled at your description of those who disagree with you as “Liturgical Criminals” guilty of schism. These are strong and condemnatory words indeed. The facts are that the second council repudiated Trent and the Counter-Reformation and made peace with the Reformation. The hermeneutics of discontinuity commenced when the council rejected the syllabus of errors compiled by previous popes and tossed them into the ashcan of history, effectively endorsing modernism and its attendant heresies. Whom are you calling liturgical criminals and schismatic?
There’s no hermeneutic of discontinuity, Anton, not really. Rather it is the Vatican approved hermeneutic of ambiguity. Why? Because it’s handy to be gray when you’re wanting to appease left and right and not be guilty of actual – dare I say it – sin. So leave the matter all up to: Who am I to judge? Knowing the Truth is a sure sign of not knowing Truth. And all manner of other nonsense left undefined because we don’t want the safety of anything.
This is not about disagreement. The priests who are suspended who say mass illicitly (illegally) are committing a liturgical crime. It is not condemnatory, it is just a fact. If one refuses to acknowledge the pope or obey the pope or to join in communion with the Church, one is in schism. If one in culpable in schism it is formal. If one is inculpable, it is material. These are just facts not condemnation. Would you please tell me where in the Vatican II documents modernism is endorsed or any other heresy? Where in the documents is Trent repudiated?
Nobody said the documents were heretical, Brian, but rather they take that which was formerly clear and make it obscure. Like ‘religious liberty’ and ‘our relations with the Jews’ for example.
Do not forget that St. Paul warned that there would come a time when some would be pushed out the Synagogue and persecuted by those believing they honor God. This was not just a warning for the Apostles at that time. But for us as well.
So examine what you do and for what reason.
Not sure why my responses to you keep getting blown out of the water but here goes again:
If only your summary as to my points were true, Brian, life would be a lot easier. They are not, however, that cut, dry, and simplistic. Your blinders and those of clerics who are afraid to throw out the stinky, MRSA-ridden bath water, that may not kill the baby thanks to Grace, but that which is very unhealthy for it – precisely – IS the problem.
What I am left with as you term it is communication tactics that communicate nothing but ambiguity and protracted error – the majority of which I must either keep from my children’s hearing, exhaustively explain while giving the benefit of the doubt (do what they ‘say’ they say, not what they actually say, and absolutely NOT what they do) or dive into the mire which I cannot in good conscience do. I am not that strong.
Brian 2: Perhaps you are strong. Perhaps you have the grace to maintain your faith while assailed with, what to me, constitutes an occasion of sin. So if the Popes could get on board with explaining – and I mean really get to the meat – of explaining this ‘tragic’ (manufactured) misunderstanding, I would be all ears.
Like I said, ambiguity is the key here. The documents of VII may not speak outright heresy but they are so gray they leave themselves – pastorally, of course – wide open to misinterpretation. Wide open like the windows that let in the Smoke of Satan. And that’s precisely how a lot of very good intentioned folks are misled into believing all manner of nonsense.
Ann and Steve, don’t waste your time trying to convert Brian to see your points of view. Odds are he, like millions of modernists who grew up in the new order, like it as it is and refuse to change. They are unwilling to research what the Roman Catholic Church before the 1960s was like. The only way to really help people like Brian is to pray for them, because we can’t change them, only the Holy Ghost can open their eyes. They do not see what you see.
Thanks, Bruce. It’s not wasted time though as long as there’s no mud slinging.
Pax
The Church has suffered bad leadership many times, including long periods well before 1960, however much some long for the exceptionality of the present.
Since you concede that V2 endorsed no heresies, you’re left with 1)disagreement with the communication tactics of its successor popes, and 2)regret for the general loss of the Extraordinary form.
I agreed with you about the mass. But by insisting that V2 constituted a great break and change to the Church, you are contributing to the tragic misunderstanding that you blame on the Council and those Popes.
Why do so few of the faithful defend the Church?
Anonymous,
That is a such a good question. I asked a priest that very same question once. The priest said that most likely this epidemic of silence started when lead shepherds and Catholic laity ignored Humanae Vitae. People will remain silent with others if they have chosen to ignore specific teachings too. Their lax consciences tell them, “You can’t speak out because you are presently sinning too.” This priest told me that the majority of people avoid “any” type of confrontation and so, after many years of ignoring Humanae Vitae, the fallout is exactly as predicted.
Years have passed without proper catechizing and teaching of the laity and even more people have become silent and now the Truth is even more distorted, compromised and persecuted. Much of this persecution is coming from within the Church. We are losing our religious freedom because of a great loss of faith and the failure of many to defend what is true. I believe more priests would like to openly defend “all” of the Church’s teachings but they will be persecuted and punished by their very own bishops and pastors, especially if it ruffles the monetary and political correct feathers.
Many Catholics have become little lax frogs who keep adjusting to the rising heat in the boiling pot. They pretend that it’s not really boiling. They have become far too busy with defending other matters that have nothing to do with the eternal salvation of their souls.
The Servant of God, Father John Hardon SJ, said that only heroic Catholics will survive what is to come. Father Hardon also said that it was a great suffering to love others with the Truth who do not love you back.
Beautifully said, Catherine.
God bless you!
Thank you Ann Malley! May God continue to richly bless you!
Bravo! Catherine: You got it exactly right!
So you are saying that no one really believes in the Church enough to defend Her.
What Catherine is saying, I believe, Anonymous, is that so much error has been let to slide that most ‘faithful’ are too comfortable, too confused, too poorly catechized, or too steeped in their own pet mortal sins and other affairs that they have neither the spine nor the basis upon which to correct anything.
Instead, the faithful now tend to defend the hierarchy’s supposed power to change Truth or at least obscure it to such a degree that nobody can judge anything anymore. (The frog can no longer discern that the water is hot because the cold is gone and the warm feels too cozy for the moment. Traditional minded folks are looked upon as party-poopers who want the hierarchy to readjust the hot tub’s temperature so we don’t get fried – literally.)
Clear teaching is rejected as being dogmatic. Truth itself is rejected, branded as harsh, or dismissed as Triumphalism.
Not in the Catholic Church!
I don’t think that is true of those who blog here.
Yes, Anonymous 1, in the Catholic Church. Just look around you. Read. Travel. And then read about what religious leaders are doing and saying.
In order to follow Jesus Christ, and to embrace the whole reality of
the message of salvation, the believer must be attentive to the voice
of Christ teaching, ruling, and sanctifying in a singular fashion
through the office of Peter, the apostle to whom He gave the unique
and universal commission: “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17).
For a priest, who wields the power Christ gave to his apostles, Peter
stands as the center, unifying force, and director of his priestly
ministry. “Simon . . . you in your turn must strengthen your
brothers” (Luke 22:32). Such recognition of the Holy See has always
been the special charism of the Society of Jesus, and the crown of
the Jesuit vocation is its specific loyalty to the Pope.
The concerns of Peter in his unique apostolic service have comprised
the substance of the vocation of Fr. John Hardon, SJ. Fr. Hardon is a
man whose priesthood is shaped by a desire to respond to the needs of
the Universal Church as they manifest themselves in the various
circumstances of the Church in the United States. In all these
circumstances he permits himself to the directed by the successor of
Peter, thus insuring that his priestly vision and activity will be
truly pertinent, truly universal, and truly Christian.
“The hardest thing in the world is to submit our will to the will of
God,” Fr. Hardon reflects.
EWTN website from “Fishers of Men”
Then how do you explain the Jesuit explosion in CA regarding the pro-homosexual movement? How do you explain, Anonymous, that it was a knot of Jesuits that aided the Kennedy clan by inventing the ‘seamless garment’ nonsense that has seen the endorsement of pro-abortion legislation by supposedly ‘Catholic’ politicians. How do you explain the Jesuit heads of universities spitting out the Nancy Pelosis of this world who – received a stellar ‘Catholic’ education?
Get your head out of the clouds of EWTN. Look at the fruits. Fr. Hardon is not alive today, but if he were, doubt he’d be very proud of what is being done in the name of the Jesuit.
Bishop Fellay has denounced Pope Francis as “a genuine modernist”, and charged that while the Church was “a disaster” before he was elected, he is making it “10,000 times worse”. What do you say to this?
WHO CARES WHAT THAT NUT FELLAY HAS TO SAY?!?
He and his lot have been excommunicated, welcomed home, pouted, stomped away, all the while claiming to be holier and wiser than the Roman Catholic Church. Such loons have been part of Church history since day one, and they don’t deserve to be listened to. They want a fan club, lots of attention, and think that about 17 people on the planet will be saved. To heck with ’em…
Actually, Brian S, DID in fact state in a now deleted post, which I copied to word (the exact quote I listed above): “It is simply un-Catholic to declare that there is a “pre-” and “post-” councilar church,” including Brian S mis-spelling of “councilar” (conciliar). This was the premise of my point that in actual historical fact, there was a pre-V2 and post V2 Church. Then he tries to get out the Inquisition knives and allege that I do not hold Pope F and the Church today to be the Church of Christ (which I do, but something really bad happened to it @ V2, which can be demonstrated by facts, and that is the point). By the way, the SSPX hold and honor the Pope and the current modernist-tinged (in many parts, not all) leadership of the Church to be Christ’s successors too.
Oh my God, I firmly believe that Thou art one God in three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe that Thy Divine Son, Jesus Christ, became Man and died for our sins and that He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the Truths which Thy Holy Catholic Church teaches because Thou hast revealed them, who canst neither deceive not be deceived.
Pope Pius XII (1939-1958): “No one is permitted to be idle and lazy while so many evils and dangers impend, and while those who are on the other side are working so hard to destroy the very basis of Catholic religion.”
Listen to St. Vincent Ferrer (1350-1419): “For whoever will proudly dispute or contradict, will always stand without the door. Christ, the master of humility, manifests His truth only to the humble, and hides Himself from the proud.”
Well said, Anonymous. But who is proudly disputing or contradicting? Sadly, there are those Faithful who are ignored for very humbly, very diligently and respectfully seeking true guidance and understanding of that which is disputed – even by Church hierarchy.
Even the Blessed Mother asked, “How shall this be?” Her question was not proud, but rather just that, a logical question.
Lord Jesus, you foretold that your Church would suffer opposition and persecution, even as you did. You declared that, so far from being anxious or worried, we should actually rejoice when the world hates us and says all manner of evil against us, for your Name. Give us the courage we need to resist the onslaught of seductive untruth. Above all, give us the confidence to realize that the trials of this life are a prelude to the glory that waits us, provided we have remained unshaken in our allegiance to you and your spouse, the Holy Catholic Church, of which you are the Teacher and the Guide. Amen.
It is precisely the allegiance to Holy Mother Church, Anonymous, that compels one of good conscience to ask the hard questions…. and stay put until answers are forthcoming. Obedience in all but sin. Thank you for your encouraging posts!
Ann Malley,
Thank you for your logic. According to anonymous, Our Lord must have also been inaccurate when he said He would vomit out the lukewarm. I have not seen “anonymous” use the same voracity of lukewarmness aimed at educating those who have distorted Church teaching on this website. Selective silencing is always telltale.
Hmmmmm.
Are you calling the prayer lukewarm? It is from Fr. Hardon.
Father Hardon SJ never hid the Truth or his love for God. Father Hardon encouraged us greatly by not denying that there was a crisis. Father Hardon also told us to gather evidence. He then warned us to be careful because it could cost someone their life. He said, ” I know this because they murdered my friend.” So anonymous while you sit in the hidden comfort of your room you cannot even muster the necessary courage to give yourself a name such as “Striving” because we might soon learn that your preferred loyalties are to men before they are to God.
Thank you, Catherine. Well stated. But I fear there is such confusion today, the stomachs of the faithful have been so acclimated to that which doesn’t feed, it will truly take an act of God to open eyes and minds.
Forgive the paraphrasing, ‘…there will come a time when those who throw you from the synagogue will believe they are doing it for God.” But not all believe it is on God’s behalf, I am certain.
I’m just coming to the knowledge of Fr. Hardon and would appreciate you leading me to the quote you reference.
Thanks and God bless!
Father Hardon fought against the crisis in the Church. He left us a lot of writings to help us fight against the crisis in the Church. Cardinal Burke is our spiritual guide. And Ann Malley, no one threw you out of the synagogue. You left of your own volition. So to justify yourself you demean those who stay to fight the good fight. And yes, we are willing to be derided by you and we sincerely hope you see the Light. And yes, Catherine, we are here in God’s Church and being strengthened by the Sacrament and the merits of the Sacrament which those who attend false parishes do not receive. You are not doing this person and her children any favors by supporting her in her rebellion against the Church.
Ann Malley,
The quote that I mentioned is not written in any article but it will certainly remain in the hearts of the Catholics who traveled to meet with Father Hardon in Duarte, Ca. Father Hardon SJ gave a retreat at Santa Teresita in Duarte and after the retreat he met privately with a small group of Catholics to gather information about the corruption within the Church. I was one of the Catholics in the room who personally heard Father Hardon give us the serious warning to be very careful and the statement about his friend (Father Alfred Kunz) being murdered. Father Hardon was gathering information and evidence to bring back to the Vatican. Father Hardon said that the seminaries had become “infested” with homosexuals. He said that many of these young men entered with good intentions but they were seduced into acting out and that this problem was widespread. This was before the scandals became public.
Father Hardon SJ told parents to home school. The Catholic schools were not safe because of the error being taught. Father John Hardon was also responsible for arranging thousands of Catholics to receive the sacrament of Confirmation in Mexico. Father Hardon knew that the children needed to have this important sacrament at a younger age instead of waiting till they were older. He wanted younger children to have the mark of the Christian soldier in order to fight off the onslaught of false teachings and the issues that young people are now faced with in this world. Father Hardon was instrumental in contacting the bishops in Mexico who generously provided the sacrament to parents who did not want their children’s faith harmed in Confirmation programs that are not good. Father Hardon with the help of The Holy Spirit opened the door for thousands of the faithful to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation.
cont.
Taken from Wikipedia
“Father Alfred Joseph Kunz, (April 15, 1931 – March 4, 1998), was a Catholic priest who was found with his throat slit in his Roman Catholic church in Dane, Wisconsin.[1] The still-unsolved murder investigation has been described as the most expensive and time-consuming investigation in Dane County’s history.[2]
Kunz, though he continued to say the Latin Mass, also said the Mass in English and was in communion with his diocesan bishop. “Father Kunz was a well-known expert in canon law, so he knew how to walk the lines,” Bill Brophy, a spokesman for the Madison, Wisconsin Catholic Diocese said shortly after his murder.[3] Kunz was pastor at the church for 32 years before his death.[4]”
Anonymous, thank you. My family and I are fighting the good fight. In the words of the Pope which we both acknowledge, who are you to judge? You do not walk in my shoes, Anonymous, or in the shoes of those who, in your mind, have left the fight.
How, precisely, do you think you came about having any access to the Latin mass in the first place other than by the sacrifice, and scary-risk taking, conscience following actions of a brave, grace led few? Think, for the love of God. And for heaven’s sake stop grasping for victim status when it was you, precisely, who adopted the righteous upper-hand tone.
If it appeared I demeaned you, I apologize. But with the vast amount of folks who post as Anonymous, it is rather difficult to discern at times the hidden twists behind posts.
That said, if you concur that there is indeed a CRISIS in the church, then there is no question as to the fruit of the Sacraments my family and I receive. The Church Herself supplies in time of crisis. That is one reason why the issues surrounding the SSPX are still debated among Church leadership.
As for Catherine, back off with regards to her influence on me. She has been nothing but supportive, informative, and logical. She also has a NAME. You on the other hand have come across as presuming some apparent status of holiness that leaves discussion impossible.
Ann Malley, You are confused. It is a fact that the Church gives faculties to any priest in an emergency. That means, if a priest is in a diocese where he does not have faculties (vacation or travel) and SOMEONE IS AT RISK OF DEATH, he may hear their confession and absolve them of their sins. It does not mean because some people in the Church do not listen to the Church or make up their own doctrine or misunderstand the Church’s teaching, that any suspended priest has faculties. SSPX is in a grey area and not in formal schism but all the priests are suspended and all sacraments are illicit. Some-because of the nature of the sacrament-like baptism- or because the ordination of the suspended priest- like Holy Eucharist-are valid. I just saw another post that you wrote claiming that whatever someone does is OK as long as it is not against their conscience and claimed it was in the catechism. Progressives do that to justify their rebellion against the Church, also. You are no different that gay people who want to marry, abortionists and women who get “ordained.” It is not the Catholic faith. I am not judging you. I am concerned about your soul and those of your family. You are very confused as to the teaching of the Church and you should take the time to learn it.
Anonymous, by your very words, “You are no different that(n) gay people who want to marry, abortionists and women who get “ordained,” you prove my point. And you have completely missed mine. For all your posts, you come off as the Triumphalist rather than the true Traditionalist.
As to following one’s conscience, Anonymous, I’m doing nothing but using the defense that is proclaimed in the modern church to justify all manner of nonsense. It is to show inconsistency. Even so, I am led by conscience to not trash the SSPX because gray area means precisely that. Or are you somehow privy to black and white while the remainder of us wallow away in darkness?
If you actually read what I’ve posted, you would know that I do not believe that ‘anything’ is justifiable on the basis of conscience alone.
That said, my postings regarding the SSPX, especially on this particular article, have been directed at the examination of the issues that they bring up. It is you who has turned it around to attack mode – for the sake of my soul, perhaps, but your methods do not help. Neither does your continued Anonymous moniker.
Anonymous continued:
Honestly, how fair is that Anonymous, that you track my posts on other threads and seemingly, with righteous fury, put together a so called ‘knowledge’ of what I do or do not know. While I, conversely, am left attacked by you, albeit prayed for by you, and derided as to my inferior understanding of one of many nameless Anonymous anybodies.
Your understanding of the faith is not exclusive nor all encompassing. You are no Cardinal Burke. Or Cardinal Hoyos. Or Pope Benedict. Even if you take Cardinal Burke as your leader. But again I ask you, and please answer the question if you can, how is it and by what vehicle did you attain access to the Latin Mass?
That is my main point with you. Cease and desist throwing others under the bus who paved the way for your supposed full communion in the Latin Mass. That, precisely, is what you are doing. As for making things up, I challenge you to come up with a list of that which the SSPX has made up that is novel or not Catholic. That might get you to do a little reading/learning of your own.
One needs to make union with God through our Lord Jesus Christ the highest priority in one’s life.
The Epistle of St. James Chapter 2 : [14] What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? [15] And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food: [16] And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? [17] So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. [18] But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. [19] Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. [20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?…Douay- Rheims Catholic Bible
Thank you, Catherine. Don’t you just love the Douay-Rheims!
“But I fear there is such confusion today, the stomachs of the faithful have been so acclimated to that which doesn’t feed, it will truly take an act of God to open eyes and minds.”
Anne Malley it WILL truly take a powerful act of God to open eyes and minds. God has been so merciful to all of us. On a smaller mustard seed scaled but positive note it took the Permissive Will of God and a responding act of faith and grace for the website California Catholic Daily to become an evangelizing tool for teaching the full Truth. How does one explain the unique mystery of how God opens the heart and the mind of each particular individual other than a cooperation with Grace, Truth and Trust. Thank you to CCD for providing a network that reaches out to many hearts and minds.
Well said again, Catherine. “….cooperation with Grace, Truth and Trust.” I am so grateful and bewildered for the graces that my family has received. Such blessings.
I am grateful to CCD for the opportunity to express the beauty of it all.
God bless.
Catherine – thank you for all the info. I was one of those scandalized children. I attended 12 years of prestigious Catholic school in the Bay Area. Again, thank you for your logic and even temper.
God bless!
Fr. Kenneth Baker, a fellow Jesuit and theologian who had known Fr. Hardon for more than 30 years, characterized the best-selling author as a “beacon of light in a stormy sea, a great defender of the Magisterium. His teaching, his writing, his spiritual guidance for hundreds, rather thousands of people, make him one of the most important priests of this century.
“He was a true scholar in the Jesuit tradition, always doing research, writing books, teaching. He was a true missionary in every sense of the word, always helping every Catholic regardless of rank, including two Popes — Paul VI and John Paul II — and numerous bishops, priests, religious, and laity.”
That interview didn’t age well. I suspect he’d give a very different answer as to just how much he believes Pope Francis is a faithful follower of the Church.