The recent Vatican directive that parishes can’t advertise their scheduled traditional Latin Masses was met with widespread mockery on social media. For anyone who has worked in a parish, the idea of a curial bureaucrat in Rome trying to tell Mrs. Jones at St. Joseph parish in Des Moines what she can put in the bulletin is laughable and ridiculous. Heck, some pastors can’t even control what goes in the bulletin!
But behind the mockery is a deep insight into the differences between power and authority, even though in today’s world these two distinct ideas are often muddled. This confusion has led to profound misunderstandings among Catholics as to the nature of authority in the Church.
Unfortunately today, many Church leaders have power behind their commands, but not authority. They know that they can command obedience from most Catholics to their directives, and so they exercise power for their own sakes or for the sake of their ideology, instead of for the common good.
- The German bishops who want to normalize gay marriage might have the power to do so among German Catholics, but they do not have the authority.
- The U.S. bishops who allow pro-abortion politicians like Joe Biden receive Communion might have the power to do so, but they do not have the authority.
- Cardinal Cupich might have the power to abolish ad orientem worship, but he does not have the authority.
- Pope Francis might have the power to abrogate the Latin Mass, but he does not have the authority.
We must always keep in mind this distinction between power and authority. Former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick for decades had the support of high-ranking Church officials, even though many knew of his monstrous misdeeds. Why? Because he had immense power in the Church, even after he was retired and had little to no authority. If Cardinal Cupich bans ad orientem worship, he might not have that authority under Church (or divine) law, but he can make life miserable to any priest who dares disobey. That’s power.
Power comes from below—it is only possible if it has consent (whether forced or given freely) from the people under control. Joseph Stalin had power in the Soviet Union because no one below him dared resist him. Mikhail Gorbachev also had power, until the people of the Soviet Union no longer gave it to him.
Authority, on the other hand, comes from above, ultimately from God. A father or a bishop or even a Catholic monarch has authority in certain spheres given to him by God for the common good of his family, diocese, or kingdom, respectively. Those under authority are obliged to follow the superior’s commands, not because of their consent, but because the authority ultimately comes from the One who has true authority over all.
Due to the Fall, power can become virtually unlimited in this world, through force or influence. What could Stalin not do during his reign? A person with power also usually wants to acquire more power. As Lord Acton noted, “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Being able to tell people what to do can be intoxicating.
Authority, on the other hand, is always limited in scope. Only God has unlimited authority, and He only delegates aspects of his authority to individuals as needed to bring people closer to Him.
And it’s important to note that this limitation applies to everyone with earthly—including ecclesial—authority, for only God Himself has full authority over man, as St. Thomas Aquinas notes, “Man is subject to God simply as regards all things, both internal and external, wherefore he is bound to obey Him in all things. On the other hand, inferiors are not subject to their superiors in all things, but only in certain things and in a particular way” (ST Pt. II-II, Q 105, Art. 5).
Vatican I recognized these limitations in office of the papacy as well. It states,
For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Legitimate papal authority, in other words, is exercised when the pope “religiously guards and faithfully expounds the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.” But it’s an illegitimate exercise of power when he tries to “make known some new doctrine.” Even a pope has limited authority in the Church, although in modern practice he has almost unlimited power. And if a pope has only limited authority, then surely so do bishops and priests as well.
Problems arise when leaders mistake their God-given authority for power. They abuse their authority because they have the power to get away with it. So the abusive father is able to command his children far beyond his authority, because his children are unable to resist him. He has power over them. A bishop decides he can do whatever he wants—reassign priests he doesn’t like, use diocesan funds for private jet trips—because he has the power to do so….
The above comes from a Dec. 30 posting by Eric Sammons in Crisis magazine.
The Vatican cannot manage its own finances, yet wants to micromanage nearly a quarter-million parishes, including what’s in their bulletins about a Mass.
While we shouldn’t mock the Vatican, it’s clear why it’s a subject of mockery.
Straw man fallacy. The instructions are that IF a suitable location that isn’t a parish church is impossible to find for the celebration of Mass using the 1962 Missal for groups attached to it, and IF a parish church receives permission from the local ordinary AND from the Congregation for Divine Worship to use the 1962 Missal to celebrate Mass due to the impossibility of finding another location, THEN Mass using the 1962 Missal may be celebrated there, BUT it is not to be advertised nor promoted as part of that parish’s normal schedule of Masses BECAUSE such a Mass is not part of the parish’s ordinary liturgical life: it is a concession to a small group that might consist of people who aren’t parishioners; it’s an exception provided as a pastoral provision for the particular group of people attached to the TLM.
The TLM is not part of the Church’s ordinary liturgical life. Get over it. It’s being phased out. Get over it.
It’s not a power play. It makes sense.
The TLM will be around long after you are gone…
Maybe… in the SSPX. But not in the Catholic Church.
Straw-splitting between power and authority sounds like an excuse for a rebellious attitude, an attitude that resents that authority rests where it does.
The evil one uses that seduction into disobedience across the political spectrum, that much is for certain.
How many there are who use that to rationalize their particular rejection of duty or morals?
Your comment perfectly illustrates an aspect of Eric Sammons’ essay: you appeal directly and only to power. Get over it, you say. The powerful within the Church distorted the writings of Vatican II to profoundly change the Mass; don’t argue, just give up. The fans of the Novus Ordo hold power in parishes and chanceries worldwide; don’t argue, shut up, get over it. Well, we’re not inclined to give up. And we’re certainly not going to shut up.
The pope was right when he said he would probably bring schism to the Church. Those who agree with you will have the buildings and the money, but they’ll do what they’ve done best over the past 50 years: dwindle and die out. In contrast, those who hold fast to the Faith as handed down from the Apostles will do what they, in contrast, have done: grow, thrive, and bring souls to Christ.
The poem Dover Beach is not about faith. You know that, right?
Were you really holding fast to the Faith, you could not have written that comment.
Should you choose schism, you will go to hell. Unless you repent, of course.
Jesus answered [him], “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above…” John 19:11
Is it an exercise of power to say to LGBTs that homosexual genital acts will never be morally acceptable? Don’t argue, just give up. The article makes no sense. Only people who already love the TLM will agree with it. It will persuade nobody. The author is preaching to the schola.
I think this author is confused.
He should not be making a declaration like this, misleading others.
He should not be interpreting Vatican I and using it to mislead.
He should retract this attack on Holy Mother Church.
For many long years, Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco parish church in the Marina district has regularly published congratulations in their church bulletins– as well as public congratulations by pastors, from the pulpit. I used to argue with Fr. Ring and Fr. Westray (two former pastors, now deceased) regarding this. And I also said that Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, and other bad Catholic political leaders should not be allowed at the parish school, speaking to the children, or attending school events. Fr. Ring, in particular, used to scold me for failing to love Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, and other good Catholic parishioners and appreciate and tolerate their points of view.
My comment of Dec. 31st at 9:56pm, was edited. The editors removed quotation marks from words such as “bad Catholics” and “love”– and my last few sentences were omitted, too. So this post looks different than what I originally submitted.
Once, about 20+ years ago, I was fed up with trying to nicely and reasonably talk to the Pastor (now deceased), after Mass, about this situation, as he always was so “impossible” to deal with. So, I submitted a copy of the church bulletin, with a big notice of congratulations to all the parishioners (all Democrats, all bad Catholics) who were winners in the recent elections, to a national Catholic publication– and they published it. The editors got a big kick out of it, and so did readers. An example of a Catholic parish in today’s post-Conciliar world, behaving badly.
This occurred after Gavin Newsom got elected Mayor, in 2003. He was a parishioner, along with Nancy Pelosi, and many other bad Catholics.
To clarify,
Cardinal Cupich did not abolish ad orientem worship
Pope Francis did not abrogate the Latin Mass
The situation with the German bishops and gay marriage is not wanting to normalize it. Stupid word. Has no context at all in Catholicism.
And they are not trying to institute gay marriage in the Church.
And he does not actually say they did these things but if the reader did not know, he might assume that they did because it is deceptively written.
At least the author gives links to authenticate that they did not happen.
“Cardinal Cupich did not abolish ad orientem worship” Technically this is correct. Permission must be sought first from the Cardinal. If it turns out such permission is categorically refused, then he has de facto abolished ad orientem. Let us hope this is not the case.
“Pope Francis did not abrogate the Latin Mass.” Technically this is true. Permission must be sought first from the hierarchy. As Francis’ objective of unity requires the ubiquitous use of the Novus Ordo, it seems logical to assert that in his heart of hearts he wishes for the abrogation of the TLM, and will act toward this end as long as he is Pope.
I do not think that you are using the term abrogate correctly, in Catholic terms. (Nor did the author.)
The Mass is the Mass. The Church is not going to end the Mass.
This is a matter of which Missal you use.
Permission was given by St. John Paul II for the bishops to allow priests to say Mass according to the 1962 Missal and Pope Benedict XVI gave any priest permission to use the 1962 Missal. Now Pope Francis has gone back to the way St. John Paul II did it with added restrictions.
The confusion of the laity (thinking they are two different Masses) is evident.
It is the same rite.
He does seem to be going back to what has been done in the Church for centuries which is one form of the Roman Rite. The past few decades the Pope made a concession on something and now we see what that has wrought.
I would hope the German bishops could learn the lesson. When you make an exception, people expect it to become the rule.
Remember grade school? “Mrs. Xty let us do it.”
One thing is for sure, that I learned long ago, in the 1960s– you can voice your valid, legitimate complaints, about very serious situations, that may happen, in today’s Church. But really, very few in the clergy, though they may even agree with you– will actually be able to do anything constructive, to fix something wrong. A very hard thing, but one has to realize that. The Catholic Church can be very hard to deal with. One time, years ago, now, an elderly, respected former pastor at SS. Peter and Paul Church (now deceased) surprised me, in fixing a wrong situation. He told me that a few days ago, he went up to the choir loft, to talk to a new organist that he had hired. He was terribly shocked, to find the new organist in a very “intimate” situation, with a male singer. The poor Pastor became enraged, ordered them both out of his church, fired them both on the spot, and told them sternly to never return. I doubled over with laughter. I exclaimed, “Good for you, Father.” What surprising courage. Not nice, though, for that poor, elderly priest to have to handle.
That’s the way to deal with gays in the church
Prayer works.
Yes, prayer “works,” but… I think God considers our prayers in part by looking to see how hard we are already working in the natural order to obtain what we ask for. He knows very well that there are certain things only He can bring to pass. But He measures the earnestness of our prayers by how wholeheartedly we are pursuing what we ask for. Is that expressed clearly in where we put our time and resources? Or are we like the neighbor who asks us to help him shovel the snow from his driveway, but hasn’t done a lick of work himself yet?
Prayer, and the courage to work hard, do your part. God usually works through our hands, in this world. We are His vessels, to do His work. I remember when I was about age five, playing with a little neighbor girl. After we were done playing with some toys, I started to pick up some of them, and clean up the play area. But the neighbor child insisted that we don’t have to pick up our toys, because the angels will do that. That’s their job. She claimed that a priest in Catechism class said that. I told her that was not true. Pretty soon, her mother came, and caught the child in her mischief, and made us pick up all the toys. No, the angels do not magically do our work for us. We must work hard, and pray hard, and persevere.
I am wondering why people have such a hard time with understanding this. Just because the Pope does something you don’t like, doesn’t mean it is wrong. There were people who wanted the Advent vestments changed to light blue. It is not their decision.
I am wondering if people were raised in families where the kids ran the roost.
Why do they think their feelings or preferences are supposed to be considered in this decision?
He decides. You obey. That is the way it works.
If you are a man, you need to understand what you have authority over and what you do not.
No lay person, no deacon, no priest has the authority here.
To say that the head of a diocese or the Pope does not have the authority is ridiculous. They are not misusing their authority. You just don’t like the decision.
There are channels in the Church for dealing with abuse of authority. Use the proper methods. Don’t confuse the weak of faith on the Internet.
cd, Pope Francis makes lots of mistakes. Accept that, that is the way human beings are. The Pope is not “God.” Do not be a “religious fool.” Some of the wrong things Pope Francis has done, are the Pachamama incident, endorsing gay civil unions, the errors of the “Synod On The Family,” promoting LGBT activists like Fr. James Martin, S.J., and Sister Jeannie Grammick, telling Catholics who are divorced/remarried/no Church annulnents that they can receive Communion, giving Communion to anyone regardless of whether or not they are eligible– and much more. Very grave errors, but he is “excused” because he is the Pope, and because at other times, he states the actual truth on these Catholic teachings. He also states that he “doesn’t like the rules,” and he refuses to follow a lot of things in Canon Law– including Canon 915.
Religious Fool apparently didn’t comprehend cd’s comment. CD did not say that Popes don’t make mistakes. CD DID say, correctly, that “he decides, you obey. That’s the way it works”
Priests who say the TLM without permission, and that includes some famous internet priests, take a step to hell each time they commit a schismatic act with their disobedience.
Disobedience to liturgical rules of Catholic religious authorities, is not in the category of a serious mortal sin, such as the murderers on Death Row have committed. Many great saints were disobedient to their superiors, and received really terrible punishments for it– such as St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila. But disobedience to the rules set by religious authorities, for celebrating Mass, is not at all in the same category as sins that send you straight to Hell. Murder, torture, abortion, or sexual sins, such as at Sodom and Gomorrah, human sex trafficking, and clergy raping youth and children– those kinds of mortal sins will send your soul to Hell. Not disobedience to liturgical rules of Catholic religious authorities.
I do not believe in disobedience, either.
Well, Reply to step, the 8th circle in Dante’s inferno included schismatics. Not that Inferno was a catholic teaching, it probably reflects common thinking of the Church at the time https://davidbruceblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/03/dantes-inferno-canto-28-the-schismatics/
Your ideas of the term “schismatic” are wrong. Dante’s “schismatics” were different.
It is very important to take classes in great works of foreign literature with very good professors, using excellent translations, who can interpret and explain well, the meanings of different words and phrases, and the author’s intentions. Plus, the author’s background, the background to the poem or story, the historical setting, religious meanings, scholars’ interpretations, and many other details
First of all, both priest and faithful owe obedience to Christ and his Church in matters of faith, morals and liturgical discipline.
Neither the priest nor the faithful are lords and masters of the liturgy but must receive it as a gift through which, by actively and consciously participating, they enter into communion with Christ and the Church, and benefit from an increase of grace.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/obedience-to-a-priest-4957
I provide the link because there is too much to put in a comment.
Saying the TLM without permission is not a schismatic act. They should not do it but it does not constitute schism.
It is the sin and crime of schism.
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
It is not a matter of disobedience but rejection.
Disobedience is rejection of authority. Disobedience is refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff, who has authority over the liturgy. Saying the TLM without permission now that the pope has said you can’t do it anymore except under certain specific, strict conditions is a schismatic act and a mortal sin.
no it isnt and never will be but only to modernist liberals it will
cton, you are correct. Priests should always obey their bishops– or religious superiors, if in a religious order. However, to say the old Latin Mass without permission, is not “schismatic,” nor a mortal sin that can “send you to Hell,” either. It is more akin to the religious disobedience of priests and nuns like St.John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila, very fine Saints, disobedient for a very holy reason. St. John of the Cross was badly abused by his superiors, for his disobedience. In today’s era, many very good Jesuits, like Fr. Joseph Fessio, have been punished wrongly by their superiors, for disobedience– because they were faithful to Christ, and their superiors were unfaithful to Him. And Mother Angelica and her nuns sometimes tragically clashed with the local bishop of Birmingham, in disobedience, and he was cruel in punishing them.
SSPX was said to be doing schismatic acts by celebrating the TLM without permission.
No, the schismatic act was consecration of bishops without the permission of the Pope.
The Church does not consider the SSPX to be in formal schism. Formal.
The Church has done much to get the SSPX back into the fold but the SSPX won’t do it.
On Jan. 21, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of the four SSPX bishops.
That does not mean that they are right with the Church.
They have never come back to the Church
Unless I’m mistaken, the purpose of what the pope has done is to say that the church should only be celebrating Mass using the missal that came out of Vatican II’s call for liturgical reform. No going back and resurrecting the old Mass before the council. I agree with that. Any priest or bishop who is trying to promote and expand the celebration of the TLM is going against the council and now against the pope. There are clear implications for schism.
And some call the extreme changes of Vatican II, wrought by liberal Church intellectuals of the day, “schismatic.” Plus, the Novus Ordo Mass that was devised, bears no resemblance to the Vatican II document on the liturgy, “Sacrosanctum Concilium.” Many scholars weigh in on all of this, all the time. A great many of today’s leading Catholic scholars do not agree with many things Pope Francis has done and said. History will bear the truth, later.
How can the decisions of an ecumenical council in union with the pope, guided by the Holy Spirit, be schismatic. You make no sense.
The situation is much broader than you think. Don’t be overly-simplistic, easily manipulated– get more information and read more widely on the subject, from excellent, valid, reliable, trustworthy, objective Catholic scholars. Churchmen in positions of power can do things that may– or may not– truly be of God. One cannot be a “fool for religion.” You know, if you haven’t got much time for reading, right now– Mother Angelica’s EWTN has some pretty good speakers and scholars, and you might watch Raymond Arroyo and his “Papal Posse,” on “World Over Live” on Thursday evenings. They are good at their reporting, and never descend into unreliable, biased, unbalanced, eccentric, fanatical, extreme, crackpot fringe ideas. They are reliable.
Raymond Arroyo is why I stopped watching EWTN. I could no longer trust him.
Read the VII documents. Read the papal documents. Read the Catechism. Read the docs from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
EWTN has had a lot of people fall.
The devil has a lot of temptations.
I think Catholic news reporters like Edward Pentin and Tracy Sabol (host of EWTN News Nightly– an excellent Catholic news show!) are excellent Catholic news sources, too. And I agree with Abp. Vigano. I think he is fabulous.
Unlike ct at 5:56, I have a deep respect for the Papal Posse at EWTN. They are thoughtful and express themselves clearly and more to the point, I find their analyses intellectually and spiritually compelling. And this from one who has read the documents ct urges us to read. I know not what ct means by “EWTN has had a lot of people fall.” Does he/she mean that listening to EWTN results in a loss of faith? Or something else? EWTN has bolstered my faith, so I would like to know more.
No I mean the scandals.
I used to like EWTN and was so grateful for it even after the scandals.
I do not know the Papal Posse.
I am glad for anything that bolsters anyone’s faith and I do not mean to denigrate the station.
I just lost confidence in it.
The Vigano thing is the reason.
“And SOME call the extreme changes of Vatican II, wrought by liberal Church intellectuals of the day, “schismatic.”” Reply to the Council does not say who it is that takes this position. Perhaps he/she doesn’t. That Reply to the Council is saying that the Novus Ordo as practiced today bears insufficient resemblance to the text of Sacrosanctum Concilium, is a fact obvious to anyone who has read the document, and in fact some practices run contrary to the document. So the situation is a bit slippery when one has to decide who is obedient to the Council.
I’m not sure what happened to the reform of the reform from Pope Benedict XVI papacy.
” Any priest or bishop who is trying to promote and expand the celebration of the TLM is going against the council.” Then Benedict XVI went against the Council.
Yes, he did. Summorum Pontificum was an error in judgment, and it was bad liturgical theology to assert that the Roman Rite could have unreformed and reformed forms celebrated simultaneously as the official, authorized liturgy of the Roman Church. Pope Francis is fixing that error.
Glad you agree.
“Glad you agree.” error, thank you for your forthright criticism of Pope Benedict. I do not agree, alas, that Pope Benedict was in error, and he hardly needs me to defend him. His Summorum Pontificum came after much reflection, numerous consultations, and prayer.
He wrote “As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.”
In addition, the pontiff states ” Immediately after the Second Vatican Council it was presumed that requests for the use of the 1962 Missal would be limited to the older generation which had grown up with it, but in the meantime it has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them.
As to the “bad liturgical theology,” you are talking about one of the sharpest minds in the Church. You might pull your punches a little.
Ct do you think the Church started anew with the Council? ie did all that came before it must be abrogated? If you do then you believe there has been a rupture and the Church has since changed its teachings. If you do not then nothing that came before the Council should be abrogated
Of course the Church did not start anew with the Council. Have you read the documents? I do not believe there was a rupture at all but continuity. What happened was the changes in the Mass (the Missal). When a new Missal comes out, the old one stops being used.
I do not the word abrogated is correct for this.
The prayers after Mass were abrogated. A few years ago, some parishioners wanted to pray the St. Michael Prayer after Mass. (no one does the whole series of 3 Hail Marys, Hail Holy Queen, prayer for the conversion of Russia (now for sinners) and the Church and then the Prayer to St. Michael- I can still pray them by myself, though) The priest left before that prayer began. Then when bishops started adding the St. Michael prayer after Mass, the priests can lead it.
In case you don’t know it:
Let us pray. O God, our refuge and our strength, look down with mercy upon the people who cry to Thee; and by the intercession of the glorious and immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God, of St. Joseph her spouse, of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and of all the saints, in Thy mercy and goodness hear our prayers for the conversion of sinners, and for the liberty and exaltation of the Holy Mother the Church. Through the same Christ Our Lord. Amen.
Things can be abrogated. It does not take an Ecumenical Council. Lay people aren’t the ones who decide these things.
ct– Don’t you know that EWTN did not cause Church scandals? EWTN was betrayed by a cleric who presented a program on their TV network– who turned out to be guilty of sex crimes on youth and children.
In my comment of Jan. 4th at 7:59pm, I meant to say, that EWTN was betrayed, unfortunately, by a number of clerics, who presented programs, and had to be terminated.
The church didn’t change its teachings but it did decree to reform its liturgy. That means that the new liturgy replaces the old. Not a change in faith, but a change in the form of the liturgy. Simple. The old liturgy was superseded.
To simple and ct: how we pray (ie the mass) effects what we believe. Yes, the Church changed what it teaches, Nosta Aetate is prime exampe. and yes I have read it. Look at the Church in Germany, I am willing to bet that if the same crowd is still in control we will see gay nupitials. If that happens the Church we will be a lie and will cease to be the one founded by Christ. There is nothing more to say to each other; we are in 2 different Churches; the schism is already here and has been for while.
Since “bohemond” believes that “schism is already here and has been here for awhile,” note that the division was being done by those who have been using sacrilegiously the beautiful Mass of Pope St. John XXIII as a weapon to divide, as a statement against Vatican II and the Mass of Paul VI, and against the Pope. Therefore, people like “bohemond” should pray and fast that the Pope’s “Traditionis custodes” work its good effect for the unity upon the Church. People like “bohemond” should repent of their divisiveness, because otherwise their divisiveness will ultimately lead to their separation from the Church. And people, remember, “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.”
And people like jon will constantly make excuses for a corrupt hierarchy and criminals like McCarrick. Jon is too proud to admit that the divisiveness, was started long ago by corrupt prelates like Bernandin who promoted communion in the hand, by those who engaged in the physical destruction parishes by ripping out the high altars, tearing down of statues replacing them felt banners and posters with feel good sayings. By a revolutionary spirit in the Church that did everything it could to destroy Catholic identity and patrimony, and encourage endless dialogue with non-believers rather than seeking their conversion. This is the legacy that jon and other modernist promote, the Church in the West is dying out due to the poison of dialogue with the world and it can be measured by nearly every relevant statistic, from mass attendance, vocations, conversions, baptisms, Catholic marriages, everyone of them will show a decline. But jon is worried about divisiveness so called because a small number of traditionalist adhere to the TLM.
“bohemond’s” error is plain in his comment. I challenge him/her to quote the date and time I have “made excuses” for whatever corruption he perceives in the Church. Go ahead “bohemond”, quote me. Also, communion in the hand did not cause division in the Church. How ludicrous. Be honest “bohemond”, your insistence on a particular liturgical style and image of the Church is what is causing you and people like you to suffer through the Pope’s corrective called “Traditionis custodes.” Have not doubt, the disobedience of folks like “bohemond” is what is causing the present division.
People, let me quote to you a portion of “Nostra Aetate” which people like bohemond here objects to: “The Church regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, the Church proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ ‘the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.” If you are left scratching your head why anyone would object to the truth and magnanimity in that document, I know. Those people simply do not know what they’re talking about, like “bohemond” here.
So “bohemond” and to the people who share his/her predicament–the Church will never go back to the insular and closed mentality which bred awful things like anti-semitism among some members of the Church prior to Vatican II. That’s why people like the beloved SSPX and possibly “bohemond” here don’t like Vatican II documents like “Nostra Aetate” –it’s too friendly to the Jews. That kind of mentality (anti-semitism and bigotry) is resident in many people from the beloved SSPX, and sadly in others who are devoted to the TLM. Vatican II thrust the Church at the center of the world, to shine Christ’s Light.
As a relevant aside, I was doing a little reading this week on the history of liturgical reform, and found a long piece by an early member at econe, the community from which SSPX formed, and it seems there was quite a lot of division among them with regard to which liturgy ought to be celebrated, and that no liturgy was taught at the seminary. It seems that the most conservative members already thought that the mass of John already incorporated too many of the reforms of the calendar and use of the vernacular in certain situations and such. Others were OK with some of the reforms after Vatican II. It just goes to my point in other contexts that the liturgical reform movement that was canonized by Paul VI could not possibly have been a surprise to the Council fathers, and that the mass of 1962 is just as arbitrary as the masses following Vatican II and they were just as arbitrary as the mass after the Council of Trent.
Well jon is very predictable, everyone on site know jon will defend this hierarchy no matter what they do or say. The selling out of the Faithful underground Chinese Catholic Church by the criminal McCarrick is one example he makes excuses. He demands we obey this corrupt homosexual cabal no matter what crimes they commit or coverup
It is disobedience that is predictable, because it is from the Evil One. Much more astonishingly fresh and ever youthful is obedience to God and His Church, in matters particularly of faith and morals (and liturgical discipline).
bohemond, Saints Robert Bellarmine and John Henry Newman would have condemned your attitude which says, “I will not obey in matters of faith, morals, or discipline, a hierarchy that is corrupt.” In the quote below, St. John H. Newman writes:
“No good can come from disobedience. [The pope’s] facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may be biased. [The pope] may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when the pope speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience.” —St. John Henry Newman
Be warned.
This entire article is an exercise in pedantry, among other things. It is yet another way to provide those petulant Catholics who do not like “Traditionis custodes” a way to “resist” or “dissent.” People, just because you lot didn’t like a particular Papal decision (ie “Traditionis custodes”) which the Pope promulgated in the normal exercise of his power, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the moral authority. That’s pedantic. Pope Francis has every power and authority to do whatever he can to preserve the health and the unity of the Body of Christ. It is his responsibility (and yet another concept there) to act. And he acted correctly, based on the kind of reaction folks like you have been exhibiting since July 16, 2021.