Posted on 05/13/2005 9:57:43 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
Even taking St. Thomas (what was posted here anyway) I see nothing in the text in which he admonishes Priests to do what this priest did. I can't see that.
Wonderful text you posted. This is the most salient part for me:
On the other hand, to pass judgment upon or to rebuke the acts of Bishops does not at all belong to private individuals - that comes within the province only of those higher than they in authority and especially of the Sovereign Pontiff, for to him Christ entrusted the charge of feeding not only His lambs, but His sheep throughout the world. At most, it is allowed in matters of grave complaint to refer the whole case to the Roman Pontiff, and this with prudence and moderation as zeal for the common good requires, not clamorously or abusively, for in this way dissensions and hostilities are bred, or certainly increased."
And even though I suffer from great ignorance, this type of knowledge the Lord just gives you, he implants it in the "is this right or wrong?" part of one's conscience. If it wasn't for those gifts everyone has, uneducated souls like me would be easy pickings.
This kind of drive-by sabotage is pernicious in the extreme.
Darn right I will.
Should we pretend it doesn't exist? Should we pretend Archbishop Levada, close friend and ally of Cardinal Mahony is some great orthodox guy?
Whose side are you on Colleen? Do you care if Satan is making advances in the highest levels of the Church or would you rather make catty remarks towards people who do care?
So you have a problem with St. Catherine of Siena?
Careful gbc, your modernist applications will paint you right into a corner.
This statement is amazing, inasmuch as it continuously changes both in author and in content (never seen the "guilty of the sin of omission" version before), yet is repeatedly cited by persons who must have seen the innumerable variations elsewhere.
If Levada doesn't believe in TRANSUBSTANTIATION, downplays it, shunts it aside, has a problem with, has deemphasized it even in the slightest, or any other euphemism one chooses to employ, then according to Catholic theology, Levada has knowingly rejected a most essential Dogma of the Roman Catholic Faith, and has apostasized from both the Faith and from the Church, and is hence by his own act no longer Catholic.
I don't approve of getting rid of the term, 'transubstantiation', any more than I favor the loss of 'consubstantial' from the Creed. But your conclusions are absolutely false. Pius VI says:
The doctrine of the synod, in that part in which, undertaking to explain the doctrine of faith in the rite of consecration, and disregarding the scholastic questions about the manner in which Christ is in the Eucharist, from which questions it exhorts priests performing the duty of teaching to refrain, it states the doctrines in these two propositions only: 1) after the consecration Christ is truly, really, substantially under the species; 2) then the whole substance of the bread and wine ceases, appearances only remaining; it (the doctrine) absolutely omits any mention of transubstantiation, or conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of faith, and which is contained in the solemn profession of faith; since by an indiscreet and suspicious omission of this sort knowledge is taken away both of an article pertaining to faith, and also of the word consecrated by the Church to protect the profession of it, as if it were a discussion of a merely scholastic question,-dangerous, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, favorable to heretics. (Auctorem Fidei, prop. 29)
Pius VI: dangerous, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, favorable to heretics
You: Levada has knowingly rejected a most essential Dogma of the Roman Catholic Faith, and has apostasized from both the Faith and from the Church, and is hence by his own act no longer Catholic
You see the difference?
As a matter of fact, Levada fully believes in transubstantiation, the Sacrifice of the Mass, etc.
From his 2005 Pastoral Letter on the Year of the Eucharist:
This is the first and in many ways the most important meaning of the Eucharist: as Pope John Paul expresses it in his Encyclical (no. 11), "The Eucharist is indelibly marked by the event of the Lord's passion and death, of which it is not only a reminder but the sacramental re-presentation. It is the sacrifice of the cross perpetuated down the ages." He goes on to remind us, "When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, the memorial of her Lord's death and resurrection, this central event of salvation becomes really present and the work of our redemption is carried out. This sacrifice is so decisive for the salvation of the human race that Jesus Christ offered it and returned to the Father only after he had left us a means of sharing in it as if we had been present there at the cross with Mary and the disciple whom he loved.” ... There is so much to reflect upon, and to act upon, as we contemplate the face of Christ really present with us in the Eucharist. ... The Eucharist offers a remarkable twofold dimension of this encounter with the risen Christ, as we are invited to receive the very Lord of life himself at Mass in Holy Communion, and to contemplate his real presence as an abiding gift to his Church in our Eucharistic adoration outside of Mass. The real presence of Christ in the tabernacles of our Churches is an extension of his love, yet another instance of his response to the desire of every Christian heart, echoing the plea of the disciples on the road to Emmaus: "Stay with us, Lord!" So our Holy Father has indicated that "the presence of Jesus in the tabernacle must be a kind of magnetic pole attracting an ever greater number of souls enamored of him, ready to wait patiently to hear his voice and, as it were, to sense the beating of his heart. O taste and see that the Lord is good!" (Ps 34:8) ... I encourage every parish to provide this devotion, at least once a month, perhaps on the first Friday. I have recommended the above-mentioned "mystagogical catechesis" on the Eucharist for the Easter season in the context of an hour of Eucharistic Adoration in order to provide a model for such devotions; listening to catechetical instruction on the Eucharist in the context of adoration of the Blessed Sacrament seems to me a uniquely appropriate means of fostering a richer understanding of and devotion to the Eucharist in our local church.
And in the "Glossary" for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, prepared and written by Archbishop Levada, we find:
TRANSUBSTANTIATION: The scholastic term used to designate the unique change of the Eucharistic bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. "Transubstantiation" indicates that through the consecration of the bread and the wine there occurs the change of the entire substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ, and of the entire substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ--even though the appearances or "species" of bread and wine remain (1376).
Two questions: 1) Is Pope Benedict XVI a heretic? 2) Did the Holy Spirit cease guiding the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope at the time of Vatican II and thereafter?
I know how the story ends so I don't get too worked up about the preceeding details. I keep my head down, try to bring Jesus our Saviour to the people I interact with every day and I refrain from thinking the worst of others (something I had to and still work to overcome). As an aside, I do not believe that B16 is allowing 'satan to make advances in the highest levels of the Church' as you seem to infer.
My remark wasn't catty, just truthful -- you yourself admitted that you would find those [unflattering] articles and post them when you said "darn right I will."
If Levada believes in transubtantiation in theory, why does he allow his priests to use invalid matter? Why does he concelebrate with Lutheran ministers? Why does he avoid use of the word?
That's the scary part. He believes. He knows what happens in a valid consecration. Watch what he does. It's more important that what he says.
You call them unflattering.
I call them the truth. They may be unflattering to Levada but they are the truth. It is my job as a Roman Catholic to defend the Faith, even from apostate bishops.
If you have a problem with it that's very sad.
It is sad to see another traditionalist fall for the liberal myth that the recent Council changed the teaching on the Church.
with the implication that it [the Mystical Body] subsists in other religions as well, FALSE religions - which goes against every grain of Catholic teaching.
I ask you, how is this compatible with the clear statement of the Constitution on the Church, §8?
But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element. For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body.This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.
Your interpretation of "subsists" is derived from the notorious liberation theologian, Leonardo Boff. For his grave error, he was condemned by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and has now apostatized. Ratzinger, writing against him, declares positively and with no ambiguity:
From the council's famous statement, "Haec ecclesia (sc. unica Christi ecclesia)...subsistit in ecclesia Catholica" ("this church (that is, the sole church of Christ)...subsists in the Catholic Church"), he derives a thesis which is exactly the contrary to the authentic meaning of the council text, for he affirms: "In fact it (se. the sole church of Christ) may also be present in other Christian churches" (p. 75). But the council had chosen the word subsistit -subsists-exactly in order to make clear that one sole "subsistence" of the true church exists, whereas outside her visible structure only elementa ecclesiae-elements of the church-exist; these-being elements of the same church -- tend and conduct toward the Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium, 8). The decree on ecumenism expresses the same doctrine (Unitatis Redintegratio, 3-4), and it was restated precisely in the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (No. 1, AAS LXV (1973), pp. 396- 398).Turning upside down the meaning of the council text on the church's subsistence lies at the base of L. Boff's ecclesiological relativism, which is outlined above; a profound misunderstanding of the Catholic faith on the church of God in the world is developed and made explicit. (Notification to Father Leonardo Boff, March 11, 1985)
In light of this, is it any surprise that we should find that, historically, "subsists in" has exactly the opposite interpretation from what you put on it? In fact, it is an even stronger reaffirmation of the identity of the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church:
In another sense substance means a subject or "suppositum," which subsists in the genus of substance. ... It is also called by three names signifying a reality--that is, "a thing of nature," "subsistence," and "hypostasis," according to a threefold consideration of the substance thus named. For, as it exists in itself and not in another, it is called "subsistence"; as we say that those things subsist which exist in themselves, and not in another. (St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, I Q. 29 A. 2)
Bravo!
No, I'm calling you a modernist for twisting their words. They never intended heretics and apostates to be free from rebuke or be given blind obedience.
The way good Catholics are mocking and judging each other over Levada is more a cause of concern at this moment than the appointment of Levada and his reletive merits or demerits. There are some reasons to be concerned about Levada, and many good reasons to NOT lose that newfound hope we have over the elevation of B16. Lets all stop the recriminations, OK?
And you know this, how? St. Robert Bellarmine, on blind obedience to heretics:
For although the people take no vow of obedience to their pastors or bishops, they are still bound to obey them according to the teaching of St. Paul. So that, willing or not, they have to render them blind obedience and credence in those things which are not obvious to them already. Of course it can happen that a bishop or priest may be a secret heretic, trying to seduce the people and propagate his heresy. But God Himself and the vigilance of other pastors of souls will not permit this to go on for very long before it is properly referred to the judgment of the Holy See. Moreover, even though somewhere, by God's permission, a credulous people should be easily seduced by their pastor, no Catholic would dare say that therefore the people should be discouraged from obeying their prelates, or should themselves become judges of their pastors, and decide on the doctrine that is being preached to them. We know from present experience among the Lutherans that the danger of heresy is far greater by making this kind of concession to human liberty, than it will ever be from the simple obedience of the people. ("Tractatus de obedientia," in Auctarium Bellarminianum, ed. Le Bachelet (Paris, 1913), p. 385)
Just look at your use of the word "apostate". You don't even know what it means (hint: check St. Thomas, the Catholic Encyclopedia, or any catechism) and yet you and some other traditionalists throw it around on these threads. Look at how many traditionalists elevate themselves to judges of the teaching of the Church's ordinary Teaching Authority and clearly don't know what they're talking about: the infamous "subsists", the supposed contradiction of Quanta Cura and the Decree on Religious Liberty, etc.
I call them the truth. They may be unflattering to Levada but they are the truth.
I guess I would wait and see what the 'accused' has to say for himself before I would believe the 'accuser' 100%. Two sides and all that. While I wait around for the involved parties to contact me so that I might mediate and decide the outcome, I'll just go about my regular daily work (which is more than enough to keep me from being preoccupied with deciding which bishops are apostate and which ones are not). ;-)
None of us today are the person we were 40 years ago.
Let it go, and evaluate B16 on his orthodoxy and orthopraxy of 2005, not 1965.
AVOIDING RASH JUDGMENT
TURN your attention upon yourself and beware of judging the deeds of other men, for in judging others a man labors vainly, often makes mistakes, and easily sins; whereas, in judging and taking stock of himself he does something that is always profitable.
We frequently judge that things are as we wish them to be, for through personal feeling true perspective is easily lost.
If God were the sole object of our desire, we should not be disturbed so easily by opposition to our opinions. But often something lurks within or happens from without to draw us along with it.
Many, unawares, seek themselves in the things they do. They seem even to enjoy peace of mind when things happen according to their wish and liking, but if otherwise than they desire, they are soon disturbed and saddened. Differences of feeling and opinion often divide friends and acquaintances, even those who are religious and devout.
An old habit is hard to break, and no one is willing to be led farther than he can see.
If you rely more upon your intelligence or industry than upon the virtue of submission to Jesus Christ, you will hardly, and in any case slowly, become an enlightened man. God wants us to be completely subject to Him and, through ardent love, to rise above all human wisdom.
I know what an apostate is thanks. And if I didn't, I wouldn't ask you. If you didn't have your cut and paste cheat sheet you would be lost.
Mahony, Levada and friends are not secret heretics. They are flaming, out in the open apostates who don't practice what they put in writing. Many modernists are sophisticated heretics. Their writing is vague and deceptive enough to be passable to the untrained mind, yet their behavior reveals who they are. As I said before, watch what they do. It is more important than what they say.
These are not men of God and we have no obligation to obey them when they OPENLY and willingly depart from the Faith.
And guess what? If Mahony suddenly converted to Catholicism and preached the Faith of 2000 years I would obey him. Surprise!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.