Worse than deja vu all over again: Vatican caves

The Remnant ^ | March 31, 2004 | Thomas Drolesky

[ultima ratio]

The Holy See is the source of the malady in the Church, not the remedy. The problem is that it is no longer fully Catholic. Its offices are comprised of some men who are Catholic and some who are apostates. The Pope himself is heterodox, unclear, inconsistent--and liberal. He is in opposition to his preconciliar predecessors.

The solution is not to remain in the Novus Ordo Church but to return to the Catholic Church--wherever it exists, in pockets of traditional faith around the world. We must be Catholics in faith first, obedient second! If the Holy See will not lead us in orthodoxy, we should not follow it into heterodoxy.

[drstevej]

***“Certainly, we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local traditions: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense.”

--Pope John Paul, while still Bishop of Krakow, as quoted in Mon Ami: Karol Wojtyla. P. 220
***

Amazing statement. Does have a Proddy ring to it.

[Support Free Republic]

Donate Here By Secure Server

[Land of the Irish]

Ping

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

While John Paul II might not be a traditionalist or conservative enough, he is not a liberal, especially a liberal like the late Bernadin.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Wonderful post! Thank you!

[Unam Sanctam]

As usual you display your schismatic views for all to see, using the term "Novus Ordo Church" to refer to the Catholic Church, and actively promoting schism (this is far beyond quietly going to a Tridentine mass) by encouraging others in disobedience to an orthodox Pope, and saying that the Holy See is leading people to heterodoxy. You ought to be ashamed of your lies and the hatred you incite against the Holy Father, who is perfectly orthodox.

[Grey Ghost II]

While John Paul II might not be a traditionalist or conservative enough, he is not a liberal, especially a liberal like the late Bernadin.

He's a liturgical liberal and a doctrinal liberal but not a social liberal.

[Grey Ghost II]

As usual you display your schismatic views for all to see, using the term "Novus Ordo Church"

He could have just said "Lutheran Church". It's all the same these days.

[Dajjal]

According to the CWN.com news story, the new document from Rome dealing with the liturgy will not mandate any disciplinary measures against liturgical abuses. It will merely call for an adherence to existing norms by “proper training” in the liturgy. If true, this is actually worse than Inaestimabile Donum.

Dorlesky bump

[gbcdoj]

He could have just said "Lutheran Church". It's all the same these days.

2. So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church [55], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion [56].

[Viva Christo Rey]

“Certainly, we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local traditions: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense.”

--Pope John Paul, while still Bishop of Krakow, as quoted in Mon Ami: Karol Wojtyla. P. 220

VERSUS

JUAN CARDINAL DE TORQUEMADA [IOANNES DE TURRECREMATA], O.P. (1388-1468)
OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED THEOLOGIAN OF THE COUNCIL OF BASEL/FLORENCE GIVEN BY POPE EUGENIUS IV THE TITLE OF "DEFENDER OF THE FAITH"

"By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent upon its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding something that is against the divine or natural law. by doing so, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church because this body is itself linked to Christ by obedience. In this way, the Pope would, without doubt, fall into schism.... "He would do that if he did not observe that which the Universal Church observes in basing herself on the Tradition of the Apostles, or if he did not observe that which has been ordained for the whole world by the universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See. Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy, as, for example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal customs and rites of the Church. This same holds true for other aspects of the liturgy in a very general fashion, as would be the case of one unwilling to celebrate with priestly vestments, or in consecrated places, or with candles, or if he refused to make the sign of the cross as other priests do, or other similar things which, in a general way, relate to perpetual usage in conformity with the Canons. "By thus separating himself apart, and with obstinacy, from the observance of the universal customs and rites of the Church, the Pope could fall into schism. The conclusion is sound and the premises are not in doubt, since just as the Pope can fall into heresy, so also he can disobey and transgress with obstinacy that which has been established for the common order of the Church. Thus it is that [Pope] Innocent [III] states (De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the church, he ought not to be obeyed...."
(Summa de Ecclesia [1489])

[Viva Christo Rey]

NINETEENTH (DOGMATIC) ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, TRENT (1545-1563)

"Si quis dixerit, receptos et approbatos ecclesiae catholicae ritus in solemni sacramentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos aut contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novus alio per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse: anathema sit." - -Session VII, Canon 13

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the Sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor (a term that includes the Supreme Pastor, the Pope] of the churches to other new ones, let him be anathema."

[Viva Christo Rey]

“Certainly, we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local traditions: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense.”

--"Pope" John Paul, while still Bishop of Krakow, as quoted in Mon Ami: Karol Wojtyla. P. 220

VERSUS

FRANCISCO SUAREZ, S.J. (1548-1617)
CALLED BY POPE PAUL V DOCTOR EXIMIUS ET PIUS (MOST EXALTED AND PIOUS)

"Et hoc secundo modo posset Papa esse schismaticus, si nollet tenere cum toto Ecclesiae corpore unionem et coniunctionem quam debet, ut si tentat et totem Ecclesiam excommunicare, aut si vellet omnes Ecclesiasticas caeremonias apostolica traditione firmatas evertere. (De Charitate, Disputatio XII de Schismate, sectio 1) >p> "And in this second way the Pope could be schismatic, if he were unwilling to be in normal union with the whole body of the Church, as would occur if he attempted to excommunicate the whole Church, or, as both Cajetan and Torquemada observe, if he wished to overturn the rites of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition."

[gbcdoj]

58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] (Pius XII, Mediator Dei)

It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,--or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places. (Council of Trent, Sess. XXII Ch. II)

[ultima ratio]

"As usual you display your schismatic views for all to see, using the term "Novus Ordo Church" to refer to the Catholic Church, and actively promoting schism (this is far beyond quietly going to a Tridentine mass) by encouraging others in disobedience to an orthodox Pope, and saying that the Holy See is leading people to heterodoxy."


1. Is this not a self-proclaimed New Order? Has it anything much to do with the ancient Catholic Church? I don't think so. It has invented a new Mass. It invents new sacramental prayers. It invents new doctrines. It is negligent of the deposit of faith and is slipshod about catechesis. The New Order trashes Tradition, whereas the historical Catholic Church fiercely protected it. I am not imagining any of this. Two thirds of all Catholics--especially among the young--no longer believe in the Real Presence. This is a catastrophic statistic, yet the Novus Ordo Church is not much bothered by it. It does nothing to discourage this erosion, but continues to institute practices which further undermine this distinctly Catholic dogma. This is truly a radical way of leading the faithful--by showing an unprecedented carelessness about the truths of faith. It is revolutionary and blameworthy and unacceptable. It is not truly Catholic.

2. Remember, it was St. Paul who warned us to stick with tradition. We were not even to follow an angel come down from heaven if he seduced the faithful with a new Gospel. Only the ancient faith transmits the fullness of apostolic truth. So the real problem remains with this strangely eccentric pontiff. We must indeed give him every benefit of a doubt and recognize his authority in most situations. But when he veers far from a traditional path, we should never follow him. If he were altogether orthodox as you insist, there would be no problem. But he manifestly isn't. If he prays with animists, should we do likewise--out of charity--and thereby deny the truthfulness of faith in Christ? I don't think so--not if we take the sin of indifferentism seriously. So it goes with much of what he does and says. We should reject such heterodoxy and follow tradition!

3. The Holy See--which is another term for the Vatican apparatus--is no longer fully Catholic. That is a fact, not something I make up. This bureaucracy--which had once been identified with the Catholic Church per se--no longer is fully Catholic. That is to say, it is now comprised in part of men who no longer have the true Catholic faith. Some are disguised Lutherans. Some are humanists with no religion at all. Some are true Catholics. The problem for the faithful is that it is no longer possible to trust such a failed institution. Tradition alone can preserve the faith in the present situation.

[Viva Christo Rey]

POPE PIUS XII:

"The sacred pastors are not the inventors and composers of the Gospel, but merely the authorized guardians and preachers divinely established. Wherefore, we ourselves, and all bishops with us, can and must repat the words of Jesus Christ: "My teaching is not my own, but his who sent me" (John 7:16)....

"Therefore, we are not teachers of a doctrine born of the human mind, but we are in conscience bound to embrace and follow the doctrine which Christ Our Lord taught and which He solemnly commanded His Apostles and their successors to teach (Matthew 28:19-20)." (Encyclical Letter "Ad Sinarum Gentem," October 7, 1954)

[awick]

I don't understand your reasoning. I assume by Novus Ordo Church you are referring to some Tridentine-type Mass. I've got news for you. Jesus never spoke Latin! Peter never spoke Latin. The Apostles never spoke Latin! If anything, by taking your arguments that the Church is moving away from doctrine, it did the same thing when the Tridentine Mass was adopted. The first Mass where Jesus gave us His Body and Blood was not spoken in Latin, but Aramaic. It was what became the Latin Church that one could say moved away from tradition to begin with. So if we are to remain to tradition, then we should all speak Aramiac at Mass.

You also promote schism, which Jesus clearly spoke against by praying to the Father that we all remain one! Yes, the Eucharistic real presence is not believed in by many Catholics this day - and it is truly sad. But let me tell you there is a tide turning with more and more youth turning back to the Church and doctrine. This is not due to a bunch of people yearning for Latin, but for those heeding the call of the Pope to "be not afraid" and encounter Christ.

On the fact that some Church officials as you claim are apostates, I would have to agree. BUT look at the Bible. Judas Iscariot was one of Jesus' trusted. He saw his miracles with his own eyes and yet he turned away by stealing and ultimately betraying our Savior to death. So, yes, there are probably those who you would call apostates in the Catholic Church just like Judas. BUT I would be willing to bet there are just the same proportion in the Baptist, Lutheran, Orthodox, or your Novus Ordo Church as well.

I do disagree with your challenge of the Pope's authority. You are promoting schism and disobedience which is in contradiction of the first Vatican Council which formally outlined Papal Infallibility. One must have faith that the Holy Spirit is leading the Church as Jesus said he will never abandon his Church. There are those, however, who abandon Jesus and his Church, which is why we sadly have over 28,000 denominations of whom many stress the salvation of their Church members and the damnation of the others.

Bottom line. Don't let people appeal to your emotions, it is the first sign of an illogical statement. If all we do is nitpick the rules and see who is following what then we lose sight of the true dimension JESUS in the Eucharist and we become Pharisees of a sort, the very people who killed Jesus, except we will do it by sowing disunity and disobedience to God and the Church Jesus founded.

[ksen]

We must be Catholics in faith first, obedient second! If the Holy See will not lead us in orthodoxy, we should not follow it into heterodoxy.

How can you be a Catholic without a Pope? Isn't that one of the basic definitions of a Catholic: one who is in communion with the Bishop of Rome?

[ultima ratio]

You don't understand what I say because you don't understand the ancient Mass and what it means. You think it's all about the Latin language. But the language is really a side issue. I am just as harsh in criticizing the Novus Ordo in Latin as I am in criticizing it in English.

The ancient Mass--that which is normally called the Tridentine Mass--is essentially different from the Novus Ordo. It theologically expresses the Catholic faith, not the Protestant faith (as does the Novus Ordo!), because it emphasizes Christ's atonement for our sins through His sacrifice at Calvary. In this sense the old Mass is essentially sacrificial, from start to finish.

The Novus Ordo has deemphasized propitiatory sacrifice, speaking only of a "sacrifice of praise" for our redemption, in the Lutheran manner, celebrating this through the paschal meal--which is really an imitation of the Protestant Lord's Supper. So it is radically different from the old Catholic Mass and has strong Protestant theological congregationalist underpinnings. It deliberately hides the mystery of the Real Presence, for instance, emphasizing throughout the virtual presence of Christ in Scripture and in the Community. This is why nobody kneels anymore to receive Communion; it is why Communion in the hands is favored; it is why the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle has been shunted aside, taken out of the sanctuary's central place of honor. Other reasons will be given by bishops for these changes--but the real reason is to undermine the dogma of the Real Presence.

So do some reading and learn something about these liturgical differences. Attend the old Mass and learn how different its sense of the sacred is from what is being pawned off in the Novus Ordo liturgy today--a concoction invented by a committee of humanists only a mere thirty-five years ago. The ancient Mass worships God; the Novus Ordo celebrates ourselves--which is why the priest now faces the people and not east, symbolic of facing God the Father. These are radically different liturgies in orientation and this difference has nothing to do with mere language.

It's true Jesus probably offered the Last Supper in Aramaic as you say. But we have no way of knowing how this was done exactly. We do have an idea of what the apostles wanted, however, because there is every indication the canon of the ancient Roman Rite goes back to St. Peter himself and was probably first celebrated by early Roman Christians in Latin, not in Greek, as had been originally supposed. It has evolved slowly over the centuries under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, until its canon was finally fixed by the fifth century. So it has been around for a very long time and Pius V even decreed it should remain the Mass of the Church forever. This was a stricture violated by Paul VI--with disastrous consequences.

As for your other charge--I do not promote schism as you say. I strongly deny that I urge disobedience to the Pope. I urge criticism where it is justified, rather than the mere hero worship of celebrity. And I urge Catholics who should know better to be more aware of the shenanigans of important men at the top. There is a very big difference between this and urging schism. I urge this because the evidence is everywhere that we are slowly losing the faith. Catholics should therefore stick closely to the traditions which have come down through the ages and to the faith embodied by these traditions. I would urge young Catholics especially to look warily on those who put forward novelties never before taught, and to take a closer look at old-fashioned notions such as sin and hell and penance. They are not much discussed anymore. I say this because there is a dangerous liberal faction within the Vatican that wishes to impose on the rest of us a new faith that ignores these realities. This must be rejected.

As for sowing disunity--who does this, people like myself, who follow tradition, or those who urge on us doctrines and practices which are radically new and in opposition to the faith Catholics have practiced for the previous two millenia? I would say the latter. The New Mass is a recent concoction--going back only thirty+ years. It is a casual, careless, faith-destroying liturgy which has had disastrous consequences. It was not the doing of traditionalists--it was the doing of the revolutionary New Order.