Posted on 07/08/2002 9:20:41 PM PDT by narses
News has come from Honolulu that the Vatican approved "Hula Masses" for the Catholic Church in Hawaii. Catholics worldwide are shocked by this development, since many see it as an isolated aberration. Yet this latest anomaly is not a quirk in an otherwise flawless "renewal". It is part and parcel of the program for liturgical restructure unleashed upon the world since the Council. Hence, before discussing Hula Masses in particular, it is necessary to examine the spirit of "reform" that has characterized the liturgy over the past thirty years. When placed within the larger context of Vatican II's liturgical revolution, it is obvious that "Hula Masses" are an inevitable result.
Three Decades of Liturgical Iconoclasm
In 1964, the renowned British author Evelyn Waugh, disturbed by the "progressive" course adopted by Vatican II, lamented that proponents of change in the liturgy then being imposed had been "with us in parts of the U.S.A., and northern Europe for a generation. We had looked upon them as harmless cranks who were attempting to devise a charade of 2nd Century habits. We had confidence in the abiding Romanità of our Church. Suddenly we find the cranks in authority." 1
Seventeen years earlier, these "cranks," had been foremost in the mind of Pope Pius XII. In his 1947 encyclical Mediator Dei, he warned against those who nurtured a lust for novelty. With regard to those who wished to reinstate practices of the early church as a pretext for tinkering with established liturgical forms, Pius warned:
"... the desire to restore everything to its ancient custom is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It would be wrong, for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of table, to want black eliminated from liturgical colors, and pictures and statues excluded from our churches; to require crucifixes that do not represent the bitter sufferings of our divine Redeemer." 2
Pius XII further warned about unorthodox liturgical changes being orchestrated by these "cranks" who wanted to move the tabernacle from the center of the altar. In 1956, only six years before the Council, Pius XII stated:
"To separate tabernacle from altar is to separate two things which by their origin and nature should remain united." 3
Today, thanks to the Vatican II revolution, Pius warnings have been flagrantly disregarded by Church authorities. The altar has been replaced by a table. Black has been eliminated from liturgical colors. Pictures and statues have been excluded from many churches. Crucifixes representing the sufferings our Lord have been replaced with the "Cross of the Risen Christ", if not eliminated. In many churches, tabernacle is removed from the altar, thus separating "two things which by their origin and nature should remain untied."
"Safeguard Against Corruption"
Another post-Vatican II victory for these "cranks" was killing off Latin in liturgy to give way to an all vernacular ritual -- despite that "vernacularizing of the Mass was forbidden by the Council of Trent on doctrinal grounds." 4 In fact, Trent hurled terrifying condemnations against anyone who proposed an all-vernacular Mass. Canon IX from Session XX of the dogmatic Council of Trent infallibly and irrevocably states:
"If anyone says ... that the Mass should be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only... let him be anathema." 5
From then until recently, a long line of Popes, faithful to unchangeable doctrine and Catholic patrimony, reiterated the irreplaceable importance of Latin in Liturgy.
Pope Pius VI, in his 1794 letter Auctorum Fidei, called the demand of "expressing the Liturgy in the vernacular language" as "rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it." 6
Pope Pius XI, in his 1922 Apostolic Letter Officiorum Omnium said that the "knowledge and use of this (Latin) language," so intimately bound up with the Churchs life is important "not so much on cultural or literary grounds, but for religious reasons." 7
Later on, Pope Pius XII explained:
"The use of the Latin language prevailing in a great part of the Church affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against corruption." 8
Today, however, this "sign of unity" has been shattered, this "safeguard against corruption" torn down. It matters little that Vatican II, in its vague Constitution on the Liturgy, displays a toothless phrase of false assurance that "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites". 9 In practice, and in the name of the same Council, Latin as liturgical language has all but disappeared from Catholic churches worldwide.
Untrue to Doctrine
The vernacularization of the Mass was not the only problem with post-Vatican II liturgical changes. When the New Rite was first introduced in 1969, Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Vatican's Holy Office, along with a group of Roman theologians, produced a brilliant Critical Study of the New Mass. 10 It warned that new liturgy teems with dangerous errors and represents an attack against infallible Catholic dogma.
Cardinal Ottaviani wrote to Paul VI:
"The Novus Ordo Missae ... represents as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XX of the Council of Trent. The 'canons of the rite definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery." 11
Cardinal Ottaviani was referring to the many theological problems in the original Latin text of the New Rite itself -- this is apart from the abolition of Latin from liturgical language.
From what has been here presented, 12 it is clear that the Vatican II liturgical "reform" has been distinguished by one principle; sheer contempt of the past -- a thumb-nosing to the Popes and Councils of the centuries. The warnings of Pius XII have been disregarded. The Council of Trent's dogmatic teaching condemning an all-vernacular liturgy, and subsequent Papal reiteration of this truth, has been ignored. The Council of Trent's dogmatic principles as to what constitutes the Sacrifice of the Mass have been scorned. The "insurmountable barriers against heresy that might attack the integrity of the mystery" of the Mass have been torn down.
In fact, the entire liturgical "renewal" could be called the "Revenge of the Modernists." Its principles and practices boldly mock Pope St. Pius X, who warned in his great anti-modernist encyclical Pascendi:
"For Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the Second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those who dare, after the impious fashions of heretics, to deride ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind or to endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church." 13
Today, we face a hierarchy that is absolutely revolutionary in its thinking, its designs, its practices. Since these Church leaders think nothing of rejecting the wisdom of the centuries, of cutting themselves loose from the moorings of Sacred Tradition, of disregard for dogmatic pronouncements, of boldly going where no Churchman had gone before, into the forbidden pastures of novelty, and since we are currently in the grip of a generation of prelates who have been formed according to these revolutionary principles, it is no surprise that we are now in a liturgical free-fall where brash innovation is the hallmark and "Anything Goes" is the theme.
Hula Masses
On January 7, 1999, the Associated Press reported that the Vatican gave permission for "Hula" and other Native Hawaiian "sacred gestures" to be performed during Roman Catholic services. 14
Over the past few years, Hula dance has made its way into the liturgy throughout the Hawaiian Islands. But last year, a Maui woman who was offended by hula dancing during Mass, complained to the diocese. She then took her complaint to Rome.
Rome temporarily supported the traditional ban. In June, a diocesan spokesman told parish priests that the Vatican said "there should be no dance of any kind in the churches of the Diocese of Honolulu."
That touched a nerve among Hawaiians and inhabitants of the Pacific region. The Dominion, a New Zealand newspaper, blasted the Vaticans rulings stating that "already there is whispered talk of schism between the Catholic church in Hawaii and the Vatican." The newspaper then praised Honolulu bishop Francis Di Lorenzo who was quoted as having no quarrel with "properly done" Hula within the Mass. It was obvious that Di Lorenzo was about to take the matter in hand.
The Dominion cried,
"Surely all of us in the South Pacific ought to rally around, support the good bishop in his crusade to break the northern hemisphere cultural mold and get some undulating hips in front of the altar. The Hawaiians need our support, and they need it now." 15
In September, Bishop Di Lorenzo, whose 1994 installation ceremony included hula dancing in Church, 16 traveled to Rome to appeal the Vatican's decision. During this time, the Dec. 8th Honolulu Advertiser fired its own salvo against traditional Catholic directives:
"Clearly, if the church is to continue to be relevant in an increasingly cynical age, it cannot keep itself at a distance from the people it serves by sending down orders that deny an important part of the culture."
After months of negotiation, the Vatican finally allowed "Hula" and "sacred gestures" to be performed within liturgy. A triumphant Bishop Di Lorenzo issued diocesan guidelines for these "sacred gestures" that took effect January 3rd.
It All Depends on How You Define "Dance"
Bishop Di Lorenzo has stated that the traditional ban on dancing in church is still in force. He gets around this, however, by a bold and straightforward abuse of language. He has simply redefined dancing.
Honolulus diocesan newspaper is careful to report that what has been approved is not "dancing" but "sacred gestures" defined as "movements that express praise, thanksgiving, adoration and petition and penitence. It is considered a form of praying with ones whole being ... a natural expression of prayer among Hawaiis indigenous people ..." 17
Yet, Hula dancing has its roots as an expression prayer in the native Hawaiian pagan religions. What Di Lorenzo is saying, then, is that its O.K. to do Hula dancing in church, as long as you don't call it dancing -- in the same way that pro-abortionists proclaim it O.K. for a woman to kill the baby in her womb, so long as you don't call it a baby. Di Lorenzos transparent legalisms are neither original nor clever. It is blatant dishonesty dead-aimed at those "born yesterday".
Worst still, these new Hula guidelines encourage children to get into the act. Di Lorenzos document, Sacred Gestures in the Liturgy-- Norms for the Diocese of Honolulu states:
"Participation through gestures and posture should be strongly encouraged in Masses with children with due regard for age and local custom." 18
As we witness this travesty unfold, our hearts cannot but break for the Maui woman who brought the complaint to Rome in the first place -- with the mistaken notion that today's Vatican is a bastion of traditional Catholicism that would offer immediate and unconditional support against pagan aberrations. This poor woman now sees the very abuses she decried established as "Vatican-approved" practice, and even foisted upon young children. It is not unlike the disturbing story of Kevin Untener's rise to the episcopacy.
In the fall of 1980, Catholic writer and activist Randy Engel, along with a group of concerned Catholics, sent a documented dossier to Rome reporting on seminary rector, Fr. Kevin Untener, who had been showing pornographic films -- both heterosexual and homosexual -- to his seminarians. Not long after they lodged this complaint, the Vatican elevated Untener to the episcopacy and appointed him Bishop of Saginaw, Michigan, where he now proudly presides over one of the most ultra-liberal dioceses on earth. 19
Yet in order to be true to its own new revolutionary documents, the Vatican had no choice but acquiesce to Di Lorenzos demands for hula. In 1994, the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued the document "Inculturation and the Roman Liturgy," -- a blanket endorsement for inculturation and liturgical fragmentation worldwide. It reads:
"Among some peoples, singing is instinctively accompanied by hand-clapping, rhythmic swaying and dance movements on the part of the participants. Such forms of external expression can have a place in the liturgical actions of these peoples on condition that they are always the expression of true communal prayer of adoration, praise, offering and supplication, and not simply a performance." 20
At least the Vatican is honest enough to recognize what dancing is, and calls it by its proper name. The loophole this document provides however, is that its O.K. for hand-clapping, body swaying and dancing to be done in church, so long as you don't call it a performance. This is like granting children permission for loud belching at the dinner table, providing they don't call it amusement.
Past Practice
Before Vatican II, Catholic parishes struck a fitting balance between culture and religion. In fact, particularly in Europe, it was the Catholic Faith that formed and fashioned the culture.
This "fitting balance" migrated to the United States. One could not, for example, visit an Italian parish and not know that one was at an Italian parish. The culture surrounded the exterior of the church, it permeated the people, it displayed itself proudly in the church basement, its dances and customs enriched church-related social events. But the parishioners did not dance the tarantella in the sanctuary. The culture never forced its way inside the church to dilute the Sacred Mysteries with profane activity. These old time Italians, Germans, Irish, etc. were not so insecure about their culture that they needed to have it compete with the duties of reverence they owed to God during Holy Mass.
One of the finest examples of this "fitting balance" is currently found within Ukrainian Byzantine parishes, where strong ethnic culture surrounds the church, permeates the congregations, defines social-events, but does not intrude itself into Divine Liturgy. These people understand that there is a distinction between the natural order of culture and the supernatural order of the Divine, and that these boundaries may not be crossed. The Ukrainian Catholics carry this distinction within their bones, even if they cannot articulate it by reasoned argument.
By contrast, the whole purpose of today's inculturation, is to blend the natural and the supernatural orders into one syncretistic sauce. It is actually the praxis of a new religion.
Inculturation: Equal Opportunity for Pagan Rites
The new liturgical rites from Vatican II, contrary to the doctrine and practices of 2,000 years of Papal teaching, are characterized by the incorporation of non-Catholic elements.
It is well-known that six Protestant ministers helped formulate the New Mass, and that the New Mass was patterned on the changes made by the 16th Century Protestant Thomas Cramner who disbelieved in the Mass's sacrificial nature, and who transformed it into a barren, Protestant commemoration of the Lords supper.
Journalist Jean Guitton, a close friend and confidant of Pope Paul VI, confirmed that it was the direct aim of the Pope to Protestantize the liturgy. In a recent radio interview, Guitton said:
"The intention of Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy -- but what is curious is that Paul VI did that to get as close as possible to the Protestant Lords supper ... there was with Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic, in the traditional sense, in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass." 21
Ecumenism, a non-Catholic principle consistently condemned by the perennial magisterium, 22 has spawned the incorporation of practices from heretical sects into the Mass. Likewise, inculturation has now produced the incorporation of non-Catholic elements from the surrounding culture into the liturgy, whether these elements are pagan or not.
It has often been stated, and is easy to believe, that the majority of bishops in 1963 did not fully comprehend the liturgical revolution that they had launched by the Councils Constitution on the Liturgy. There were, however, many bishops who knew exactly what was being contrived -- especially regarding inculturation -- and expressed their complete support.
One such prelate, who had sided with the progressives at the Council, 23 happily predicted the fragmentation of the Mass that the liturgical revolution would yield. On December 8, 1965, just a few hours after the closing of the Council, the bishop said:
"It is not only the words that are significant, but likewise the behavior, the movements, the gestures, the open arms, the hands joined, the kiss of peace; all of these are Roman gestures. If the Blacks or the Japanese ... wish to translate these gestures into their traditional mode of behavior, for that is necessary, one must translate them. Where will it end? In comparing an African Mass to a European Mass in 50 years time, will we observe anything in common? Certainly we preserve the basic elements; the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local traditions: the words, gestures, colors, the vestments, chants, architecture, the decors. The problem of liturgical reform is enormous and it is difficult to imagine where it will all end." 24
Thirty-five years after the Council, we reckon the outcome, still unfolding, of this new direction. Victor Kulunday, in his superb book The Paganization of the Church in India, documents the Hindu-izing and paganizing of the Church in his country, thanks to two primary principles of the Vatican II reform: ecumenism and inculturation.
This reckless and irreverent novelty of inculturation is directly responsible for an endless litany of heathen aberrations incorporated into "Catholic" worship: African tribal dance in the sanctuary, Polka Masses, bare-breasted women in native attire reading the Mass's Epistle in Papua New Guinea, Catholic prelates participating in animist pagan rites, Native-American sweet grass rituals in church, the list goes on an on.
In fact, when the Associated Press reported the Vatican's recent permission for "Hula Masses," it reminded the reader:
"Just this past November (1998), barefoot, tribal people performed for Pope John Paul II during a Vatican synod for bishops from Oceania."
This "performance" took place within the sanctuary of St. Peters Basilica at the opening Mass of the Vatican Synod. 25
A Universal Multicultural Church
Inculturation is a pet-favorite of the hard-left trendies who now dominate the ecclesiastical scene. The progressive Father Richard McBrien defines inculturation as:
"The process by which individuals learn their groups culture through experience, observation and instruction ... Through inculturation the church endeavors to reformulate Christian life and doctrine within the thought pattern of each people." 26
Yet inculturation is actually a further development of the modernist "new theology" of Henri de Lubac and Teilhard de Chardin, which confuses the natural and the supernatural orders. In 1946, the great anti-modernist Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange warned that this new theology is nothing more than a resurgent, pantheistic modernism. 27 Likewise, Pope Pius XII, while not naming specific names, condemned the principles of the "new theology" in 1946 28 and also in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis. 29
This modernist "new theology" triumphed at Vatican II. Its principles are at the root of the endless novelties unfolding before our eyes since the Council.
Father Henrici, SJ, a disciple of the "new theology", clearly stated their position:
"Our allegiance is that tradition in line of the 'new theology of Lyon (the cradle of de Lubacs theology), which insists on the non-opposition between nature and supernature, that is, nature and supernature are really identically the same thing (and consequentially) between faith and culture and which became the official theology of Vatican II." 30
Interestingly, the same terminology is encountered within the writings of inculturation advocates. In the book Modern Catholicism, an anthropologist and missiologist, Fr. Aylward Shorter, praises the inculturation in Paul VIs Evangelii Nuntiandi, and also in John Paul IIs Catechesi Tradendae. He calls it a "dialogue between Faith and culture". 31
Nonetheless, he voiced a complaint, both interesting and revealing. He laments that these documents:
"continue unrealistically to imply a distinction between faith and culture, and to ignore the massive obstacle to a truly multi-cultural Church posed by monoculturally biased structures of universal communion." 32
Hence, this statement from Aylward Shorter tells us two things about inculturation:
This is not too strong a statement, since it reflects the concerns expressed by Cardinal Siri in his book Gethsemane, which critiqued de Lubac's confusion of the natural and the supernatural orders. In this book, Cardinal Siri rightly warned that if de Lubac's theories are taken to their logical conclusion, it would mean that "Christ is only man, or man is Divine" 33 The "divination of man" is simply another word for pantheism, and pantheism is what Inculturation is really all about.
For confirmation of this fact, one need only consult The Dancing Church, a pro-inculturation video produced by the Paulist Press. In that presentation, while the viewer is shown African tribal dance assimilated into Sunday mass, the narrator bluntly states a prime tenet of the new creed:
"There is no separation of sacred and secular, of sacred and profane."
Once again, we see this pantheistic principle promoted in the name of the Councils "renewal".
Yet it follows logically. The "new theology" which confuses nature and supernature has become the "official theology of Vatican II". This same "new theology", as Cardinal Siri warned, is a fertile breeding ground for pantheism. Hence, it is no surprise that Cardinal Ratzinger remarked with apparent indifference that "Vatican II is a counter-syllabus." 34 In other words, Vatican II is an attempt to capsize the traditional Catholic principles contained in Venerable Pope Pius IX's magnificent Syllabus of Errors of 1864. The very first error condemned in Pius IX's Syllabus is the pestilence of pantheism.
But Its Approved!
The final question, however, is whether Vatican approval for these anomalies suddenly transforms them into acceptable Catholic practice. Quite simply, the answer is no -- since to accept these innovations is to reject the entire Sacred Tradition of the Church.
For years, Catholics have labored under the mistaken notion that they must accept the pastoral Council, Vatican II, with the same assent of Faith that they owe to dogmatic Councils. This, however, is not the case.
At the close of Vatican II, the bishops asked the Councils Secretary General, Msgr. Pericle Felici, for that which theologians call the "theological note" of the Council. Felici replied,
"We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations." 35
In other words, unlike a dogmatic Council, Vatican II does not demand an unqualified assent of Faith. Its verbose and ambiguous decrees are not on a par with dogmatic pronouncements. God is still with His Church. The Holy Ghost prevented the Council Fathers from formulating decrees (containing previously-condemned novelties) that were unconditionally binding on the Catholic faithful.
The fact that Vatican II is inferior to a dogmatic Council is confirmed by the testimony of Bishop Thomas Morris, which at his request was not unsealed until after his death:
"I was relieved when we were told that this Council was not aiming at defining or giving final statements on doctrine, because a statement on doctrine has to be very carefully formulated and I would have regarded the Council documents as tentative and liable to be reformed." 36
Hence Catholics may "make reservations" and even resist those teachings from the Council that conflict with the perennial magisterium of the centuries. Likewise, Catholics may resist novel practices (Hula Masses) that have emanated from the Councils unprecedented "reform".
Fidelity to Tradition: Our First Duty
Throughout the ages, the Popes, Saints and Holy Doctors have taught that the first and foremost duty of all Catholics, and especially of the hierarchy in Rome, is to maintain tradition; that is, the purity of the Faith in doctrine and practice.
St. Peter Canisuis, a Doctor of the Church, wrote in his Summa Doctrinae Chrisstanae "it behooves us unanimously to observe the ecclesiastical traditions, whether defined or simply retained by customary practice of the Church."
Likewise, St. Peter Damian, another Doctor of the Church, teaches "It is unlawful to alter the established customs of the Church ... Remove not the ancient landmarks which the fathers have set."
In our century, Pope Benedict XV repeated almost verbatim the words of Pope St. Stephen, when he declared "Do not innovate anything. Rest content with tradition." 37
But what if even a Pope should not be "content with tradition" and innovate practically everything? The great theologian, Cardinal Juan de Torquemada (1388-1468), citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, speaks of the real possibility of this happening -- that it is possible for a Pope to be disobedient to Catholic teaching. Then, citing the same doctrine of Innocent III, he instructs the Catholic faithful on how they must respond:
"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 on 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."
It follows, then, that if it is possible for a Pope to command something against divine law, then it is likewise possible for a Pope to permit something that is against divine or natural law, i.e., ecumenism and inculturation.
Cardinal Torquemada continues:
"By doing so, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church because the body is itself linked to Christ by obedience. In this way the Pope could, without doubt, fall into schism ... 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. ... Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states (De Consuetudine) that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, "he need not be followed ..." 38
This truth was recently reinforced by a theologian and loyal son of Pope John Paul II, Father Joseph de Sainte Marie 39 who emitted a brokenhearted lament about the Vatican's present state of instability:
"In our day, and it is one of the most obvious signs of the extraordinarily abnormal character of the current state of the Church, it is very often the case that the acts of the Holy See demand of us prudence and discernment." 40
This is in no way a camouflaged attempt to advance a sede-vacantist position. 41 Its aim is nothing more than to recall the traditional Catholic principle -- advanced by many Popes, saints and theologians 42 -- that if anyone within today's Vatican permits or propagates teaching and practices contrary to Sacred Tradition, the faithful are not bound to follow in blind obedience. In fact, the Catholics duty is to resist. 43
On this point, the Fathers of the Church have given us firm guidance. St. Vincent of Lerins teaches that "if some new contagion infects the whole Church at once", then the Catholics first obligation is to "attach himself to antiquity (tradition) which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty". 44
We attach ourselves to Tradition by:
Finally, we must draw courage and strength from the words of Pope St. Pius X who assures us "Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither the revolutionaries nor innovators, they are the traditionalists." 45
Footnotes:
1. The Tablet, Feb. 15, 1964, p. 195. Cited from Michael Davies Pope Pauls New Mass, (Angelus Press, Kansas City, 1988) p. 82.
2. Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII, from Selected Letters and Addresses of Pius XII, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1949, p.198.
3. Pius XII, Allocution to the International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy, Sept. 22, 1957.
4. Father John W. Mole, essay "Assault on the Roman Liturgy". Currently posted on Una Voce website.
5. The full quote reads "If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned, or that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only, or that water should not be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ: let him be anathema." (Quoted from Denzinger, The Source of Catholic Dogma, 1955 edition.), #956 (theologians teach that this is aimed at the Roman Rite).
6. Auctorum Fidei, Condemning the false Synod of Pistoia, Aug. 28, 1794, Denzinger, #s 1531,1532.
7. Pope Pius XI conducted a scientific inquiry into the subject and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree to the Churchs nature: "(T)he Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time ... of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable and non-vernacular." Cited from Pope Pauls New Mass, p. 377.
9. Sacrosanctum Concilium, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, #36.
10. The Ottaviani Intervention, available from CFN
11. Ibid. p., 27 emphasis added.
12. Much has been written with the problems of the New Rite. See Pope Paul's New Mass, Iota Unum, etc.
13. Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi, Encyclical against Modernism, 1908, para. #42.
14. Associated Press, "Ban on Hula at Hawaiian Masses Reversed" Michael Tighe, Jan. 7 (& Jan. 8), 1999.
15. The Dominion, "Faith Hoop and Charity", July 11, 1998.
16. Associated Press, see footnote 14.
17. Hawaii Catholic Herald, Jan. 8, 1999, p.10.
19. The full story appeared in The Homiletic and Pastoral Review, June, 1984.
20. Hawaii Catholic Herald, Jan. 8, 1999, p.10.
21. Dec. 19th Radio Discourse, cited from Anthony Fraser, "Ecumenism - A disaster for the Church", Apropos, No. 18, 1966, (Scotland) p. 122, emphasis added. For complete documentation of the Prostestanization of the Mass, consult Pope Pauls New Mass by Michael Davies.
22. For the finest statement of the traditional teaching against ecumenism, see the encyclical Mortalium Animos by Pope Pius XI.
23. Fr. Ludvik Nemek, a "conservative" Catholic, writes in praise of John Paul II that "Bishop Wojtyla took a progressive stand" at Vatican II, and that he "interacted with progressive theologians" at the Council. Pope John Paul II, A Festive Profile, (Catholic Book Publishing, NY, 1979), p. 98.
24. Bishop Karol Wojtyla from Cracow speaking to Fr. Malinksi. Fr. Malinksi, De. Cath, Eccl. unit 6., p. 220, cited from Abbe Daniel Le Roux, Peter Lovest Thou Me?, Instauratio Press, p. 15, emphasis added.
25. Associated Press, Nov., 23, 1998. Published in January, 1999 Catholic Family News, p. 17. Sadly, John Paul II expressed his delight and encouragement for this startling innovation.
26. Richard McBrien (ed.) Encyclopedia of Catholicism (Harper Collins, 1995), p. 660 -- as quoted in the booklet No Turning Back, "A Lay Perspective on Ministry in the Catholic Church in the United States" -- National Association for Lay Ministry, Chicago, IL.
27. Garrigou-Lagrange, "Where is the New Theology Leading Us", (English translation), Aug. 1998 Catholic Family News (reprint available).
28. In a published Discourse in LOsservatore Romano, Dec. 19, 1946, Pius XII said, "There is a good deal of talk (but without the necessary clarity of concept), about a 'new theology, which must be in constant transformation, following the example of all other things in the world, which are in a constant state of flux and movement, without ever reaching their term. If we were to accept such an opinion, what would become of the unchangeable dogmas of the Catholic Faith; and what would become of the unity and stability of that Faith?"
29. Humani Generis, #s 29, 30, 32, 34. See Catholic Family News, August 1998 issue for numerous articles on "The New Theology". List of CFN reprints on "The New Theology" available upon request.
30. 30 Days, Dec.,1991, cited by sì sì no no in the series "They Think They Have Won". (emphasis added).
31. Modern Catholicism edited by Adrian Hasting, Chapter 8L, "Missionary Activity" by Alward Shorter, (Oxford University Press, 1991) p. 167.
33. Cardinal Joseph Siri, Gethsemane, (Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago, 1981) p. 58.
34. Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, (Ignatius Press, 1987) p. 381.
35. Cited from Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Lefebvre, (Fowler-Wright, London), p. 112.
36. Catholic Word News, January 22, 1997.
37. Pope St. Stephen (254-257) said, "Let them innovate in nothing, but keep the traditions."
38. Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29.
39. Father Joseph de Sainte Marie worked closely with Pope John Paul II on numerous occasions. He wrote the text for Pope John Paul IIs speech at Fatima for May 13, 1982.
40. Cited from Apropos, Isle of Skye, Scotland, Issue No. 16, 1994, p. 5.
41. Catholic Family News is sometimes accused of being a sede-vacantist publication. It is not. We recognize John Paul II as Pope and pray for him daily. Neither I, nor anyone at Catholic Family News subscribe to the sede-vacantist position. (J.V.)
42. See "Resting Wayward Prelates, According to the Saints", Catholic Family News, January, 1998. (reprint available).
43. Resisting unorthodox novelties goes even further, since Saint Thomas Aquinas, in many passages of his works, upholds the principle that the faithful can question and admonish prelates. For example: "There being an imminent danger for the faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, Saint Paul, who was a subject of Saint Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Gloss of Saint Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2,14), 'Saint Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometime they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects." (Summa theologiae, Taurini/Romae: Marietti, 1948, II.II, q.33, a.4).
44. St. Vincent of Lerins (c. 445 AD) cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Fr. Kramer, (1st edition), pp. 28-29.
45. Pope St. Pius X, Our Apostolic Mandate, Aug. 25, 1910, para. 44.
Which also applies to both the modernist and traditionalist side of the argument.
I know some consider the SSPX as being schismatic, is there a group as far on the other side of the spectrum that is treated like the SSPX'rs?
I'm not up on all the left-wing modernist cults, although I have heard of these Masses being conducted by lesbian nuns who think they are priestesses or some such. Doubt this is a very large organization. There used to be a group called "Old Catholics" which may still exist. This was a 19th-century faction which split off (I think) because they would not recognize the papal infallibility business. There are different factions of the SSPX/LeFevre groups. There's an SSPV, right, which is slightly different in governing structure? Been a while since I have read anything on this. As far as I know, they do accept the orthodox versions of the creed, so, technically I guess, they can't be considered a "heresy" proper.
"I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of schismatic group." (Whoooh! Hope that's clear for anyone ready to curse, hex, or anathematize me to the warmer, subterranean realms). Kinda silly that people do this.
This is it, I think. Definitely a "schismatic" Traditionalist group in the canonical sense. Don't know that much about them. Saw their leader (one Fr. Kelly) on television once. He claims to have become alarmed by modernism, liberalism, and heresy during his seminary studies. Similar to the concerns expressed in this recent book by Michael Rose. No idea what one could expect in terms of how they style their Catholicism or how cult-like the organization might be. Just know little about it.
A couple replies to each of you, thought I would just meld it into one post.
First, that isn’t what I said. Nonetheless I will try to answer the question.What bothers me is trolling for schismatics, which from all outward signs is what you appear to be doing.Why is it considered schismatic if a group wants to stay true to your ancient traditions?
In the Catholic Church you are defined as being non-schismatic if you are in communion with the Pope and the Bishops who are in communion with him. You are schismatic if you are not in communion with the Pope and his Bishops. The question of staying true to ancient traditions or staying true to modern rites is not the same as the question of being in communion or not.
It is possible to practice the older western Rite of the Mass, commonly called the Tridentine, and still be in communion with the Pope and his Bishops. There are even orders dedicated to that. It is also possible to say the newer western Rite of the Mass, commonly called the Novus Ordo, and be schismatic. For example, if a group of gypsies decided to start saying Mass, and did so using the exact words called for by the Church, but did so without being ordained properly and being properly subject to a Bishop, they would still be outside the Church (i.e., schismatic). What Rite of Mass they say would not be relevant to that question.
I don’t understand the question. Are you suggesting that the reception of Communion in the hand is Sacrilege? Please explain why if so?The reception of Communion in the hand v. tongue is not infallible doctrine, of course, it is a matter of discipline.Is sacrilege considered a part of faith or morals?
I know some consider the SSPX as being schismatic, is there a group as far on the other side of the spectrum that is treated like the SSPX'rs?Yes. Call to Action is a liberal group commonly considered outside the Church, as is Catholics for a Free Choice. The Vatican also recently began the process of excommunicating a bunch of Catholic women who claim to have been ordained as priests. Howling mentioned them I believe, if you would like to read a news blurb on it let me know.
There used to be a group called "Old Catholics" which may still exist. This was a 19th-century faction which split off (I think) because they would not recognize the papal infallibility business.Correct, and they do still exist. There are many splinters off of them today, and its all a bit confusing.
There are different factions of the SSPX/LeFevre groups. There's an SSPV, right, which is slightly different in governing structure?The SSPV was formed by a couple SSPX priests who left. They are sedevacantists, which means they believe there is no Pope alive today. They don’t recognize the authority of JPII, and consider the Papal seat empty. The SSPX recognizes JPII as Pope, but picks and chooses how it will obey him or agree with his pronouncements.
Been a while since I have read anything on this. As far as I know, they do accept the orthodox versions of the creed, so, technically I guess, they can't be considered a "heresy" proper.I don’t think the SSPX is generally considered heretical, though there are elements that have approached heresy.
"I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of schismatic group." (Whoooh! Hope that's clear for anyone ready to curse, hex, or anathematize me to the warmer, subterranean realms). Kinda silly that people do this.I’m a silly guy. Its my opinion that the last thing in the world the Church needs right now is for more conservatives to leave for the SSPX, leaving behind a more liberal Church because they left. I intend to fight to make this Church a holier place, and I selfishly want all the help I can get.
patent +AMDG
It's this kind of over-reaching that I object to. Someone on another thread warned somone (warned Narses, I think) about the perils of Hell on a point which had absolutely nothing to do with a question of salvation. That's what my comment referred to. If you thought I was referring to you, I apologize for any confusion. Not sure I have even read all your posts on this thread. :)
I heartily agree! Which is one of the reasons I have never considered abandoning the official Church for any of the schismatic or splinter organizations.
I guess I have a problem with comparing the Magisterium Christ left on earth to guide his faithful with the liberal interpretation of the Constitution. It almost makes it sound like you don’t believe in the Church’s indefectibility.The Church has a living Magisterium, ELS.Is that like the living and breathing Constitution the liberals talk about? ;-)
One of the Modernists' tactics has been to not teach Aquinas in the seminaries.True, and we would both agree that it should be taught.
I still stand by my statement that given a choice between the Council of Trent or St. Thomas Aquinas vs. something proposed by a Modernist (read heretic), I will follow the Council of Trent or St. Thomas Aquinas.First, you do one of two things. You either present two false choices and ignore the true one, or you consider the current Magisterium to be heretical. As I see it we have three choices.
(1) We can follow our understanding of Trent (which is part of the Magisterial teachings) and Aquinas (which is not and has no binding authority or guarantee from God it is correct). If we take this choice there is no difference between us and the Orthodox. They follow several Ecumenical Councils as well, but they are schismatic and do not possess the full truth.I chose the third. You seem to be choosing the first over the third, following Trent but not following the Pope. I see this as a false choice. Trent is not the Magisterium, it is merely one part of it, albeit an important part. Now, that leaves unanswered whether you consider there to be three choices or just two. If you consider the Pope a heretical modernist, then choices 2 and 3 collapse into the same choice. Is this your view? If so, you are all but claiming the Church Magisterium has fallen into heresy, and that the Church is not indefectible. The Pope has issued many formal teachings in the Catechism, and in issuing the Mass. If you reject these as heresy, he has preached heresy, and the Church has fallen.(2) We can follow the modernist heretics like call to action, etc.
(3) We can follow the current hierarchy and Magisterium, e.g., the Pope.
We are discussing Communion in the hand, not predestination or dancing at weddings.You consider whether Communion is received in the hand or mouth more important than how we are saved? I’m giving a couple parallels, but I don’t see a reason for rejecting them.
Am I not allowed to be critical of a discipline?It depends on a number of things, such as how you are critical, disobedience, scandal, schism, and things like that. A couple thoughts from Aquinas:
Whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things?
Objection 1. It seems that subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things. For the Apostle says (Col. 3:20): "Children, obey your parents in all things," and farther on (Col. 3:22): "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh." Therefore in like manner other subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things.
Objection 2. Further, superiors stand between God and their subjects, according to Dt. 5:5, "I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you at that time, to show you His words." Now there is no going from extreme to extreme, except through that which stands between. Therefore the commands of a superior must be esteemed the commands of God, wherefore the Apostle says (Gal. 4:14): "You . . . received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus" and (1 Thess. 2:13): "When you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it, not as the word of men, but, as it is indeed, the word of God." Therefore as man is bound to obey God in all things, so is he bound to obey his superiors.
Objection 3. Further, just as religious in making their profession take vows of chastity and poverty, so do they also vow obedience. Now a religious is bound to observe chastity and poverty in all things. Therefore he is also bound to obey in all things.
On the contrary, It is written (Acts 5:29): "We ought to obey God rather than men." Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.
I answer that, As stated above (A1,4), he who obeys is moved at the bidding of the person who commands him, by a certain necessity of justice, even as a natural thing is moved through the power of its mover by a natural necessity. That a natural thing be not moved by its mover, may happen in two ways. First, on account of a hindrance arising from the stronger power of some other mover; thus wood is not burnt by fire if a stronger force of water intervene. Secondly, through lack of order in the movable with regard to its mover, since, though it is subject to the latter's action in one respect, yet it is not subject thereto in every respect. Thus, a humor is sometimes subject to the action of heat, as regards being heated, but not as regards being dried up or consumed. On like manner there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First on account of the command of a higher power. For as a gloss says on Rm. 13:2, "They that resist [Vulg.: 'He that resisteth'] the power, resist the ordinance of God" (cf. St. Augustine, De Verb. Dom. viii). "If a commissioner issue an order, are you to comply, if it is contrary to the bidding of the proconsul? Again if the proconsul command one thing, and the emperor another, will you hesitate, to disregard the former and serve the latter? Therefore if the emperor commands one thing and God another, you must disregard the former and obey God." Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something wherein he is not subject to him. For Seneca says (De Beneficiis iii): "It is wrong to suppose that slavery falls upon the whole man: for the better part of him is excepted." His body is subjected and assigned to his master but his soul is his own. Consequently in matters touching the internal movement of the will man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone.
Nevertheless man is bound to obey his fellow-man in things that have to be done externally by means of the body: and yet, since by nature all men are equal, he is not bound to obey another man in matters touching the nature of the body, for instance in those relating to the support of his body or the begetting of his children. Wherefore servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like. But in matters concerning the disposal of actions and human affairs, a subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority; for instance a soldier must obey his general in matters relating to war, a servant his master in matters touching the execution of the duties of his service, a son his father in matters relating to the conduct of his life and the care of the household; and so forth.
Reply to Objection 1. When the Apostle says "in all things," he refers to matters within the sphere of a father's or master's authority.
Reply to Objection 2. 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, in respect of which the superior stands between God and his subjects, whereas in respect of other matters the subject is immediately under God, by Whom he is taught either by the natural or by the written law.
Reply to Objection 3. Religious profess obedience as to the regular mode of life, in respect of which they are subject to their superiors: wherefore they are bound to obey in those matters only which may belong to the regular mode of life, and this obedience suffices for salvation. If they be willing to obey even in other matters, this will belong to the superabundance of perfection; provided, however, such things be not contrary to God or to the rule they profess, for obedience in this case would be unlawful.
Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience; one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful.
And:
Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church; for this is the chief unity, and the particular unity of several individuals among themselves is subordinate to the unity of the Church, even as the mutual adaptation of each member of a natural body is subordinate to the unity of the whole body. Now the unity of the Church consists in two things; namely, in the mutual connection or communion of the members of the Church, and again in the subordination of all the members of the Church to the one head, according to Col. 2:18,19: "Puffed up by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the Head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God." Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose viceregent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff. Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.
patent
Why is it considered schismatic if a group wants to stay true to your ancient traditions?
First, that isn’t what I said. Nonetheless I will try to answer the question.
Actually that question was directed at a quote by one of your popes at the beginning of the article. I should have been clearer.
Is sacrilege considered a part of faith or morals?
I don’t understand the question. Are you suggesting that the reception of Communion in the hand is Sacrilege? Please explain why if so?
The reason I asked that was because in ELS' #29 there were a number of thoughts and quotes from your church's past that led me to believe that taking the Host in an unconsecrated hand had been considered sacrilege at one point in time.
From Fr. Perricone's essay (emphasis mine):
Most theologians know well that this Common Doctor is the thick steel wall protecting the Faith against the seepage of Modernity. Tear it down, and the Faith is fatally exposed. That's not hyperbole, it's the Magisterium. After citing six hundred years of Pontifical praise for St. Thomas, Leo XIII concludes a section of Aeterni Patris with: " . . . while to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: 'His teaching above that of others . . . enjoys such an elegance of phraseology, a method of statement, a truth of proposition, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dares assail it will always be suspected of error.'" (Aeterni Patris, #16)[Note: In the document I linked above, this quote is from #21.]
Fr. Perricone says the teachings of Aquinas as a protection of the Faith is part of the Magisterium. I will obediently follow his direction and that of Pope Leo XIII, Pope Innocent VI, and all of the other Popes (including John Paul II) who have praised the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Do you think that previous Popes encyclicals were only true while they were alive? Does the Truth change or is it unchanging? Does it not make sense that only consecrated hands should hold the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ?
You seem to be ... not following the Pope.
I don't how you arrived at that conclusion. I neither said nor implied any such thing. I said a Modernist proposed the return of Communion in the hand. Just because JPII may have given his approval does not mean that he would have suggested it to begin with. I do not think he is a heretic. Quite the contrary, I think he is solidly orthodox, an excellent teacher and evangelizer, and a very holy man.
While the reference to Aquinas is appreciated, you didn't answer my question. I am not being disobedient because Communion in the hand is not required for the New Mass. One can still receive Communion on the tongue in the New Mass. Since I regularly attend the Tridentine Rite, which doesn't allow Communion in the hand, it's a moot point. You also apparently failed to notice that my criticism of it is due to the potential for sacrilege. Is that not a valid concern? I don't see that concern in any way being connected to the idea of not following the Pope.
Do you think that previous Popes encyclicals were only true while they were alive?Of course not, and if you look above I indicate that some of Trent’s teachings are part of the Magisterium, which would seem to indicate I don’t have a problem with something simply because it is old.
Does the Truth change or is it unchanging?The truth about what? A matter of faith and morals is of course unchanging. A discipline is a prudential judgment that can change, depending on the needs of the times. This is why Pius XII recognized that
From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow--keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact--to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.[47]Do you consider how we receive Communion to be a matter of faith and morals, infallibly settled for all time? I think we would both agree its not, that it is discipline, and that the Church can change that discipline as it sees fit. This is not the first era that the non-ordained have touched the host. If you read the writings of certain fathers you would probably see some actions with the Eucharist that would leave you rather uncomfortable. Treatment for injuries and things like that. They aren’t disrespectful actions, but to one who believes only the ordained should touch it, they could bug you.
Does it not make sense that only consecrated hands should hold the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ?It is my preference that at Mass only consecrated hands hold the Eucharist. I have to recognize situations where that is not true, however. If you only have one priest for a vast territory, he cannot cover all of it. He cannot deliver the Eucharist to all of the sick throughout the territory, etc. For this purpose I have no objection to a Eucharistic minister delivering it. My view, however, is one of my own prudential judgment, and nothing more. I have no right to argue otherwise.
Well, (1) you stated you would follow Trent, and conspicuously left out the current hierarchy. (2) we are talking about your rejection of communion in the hand, a practice approved by the Pope, and your rejection of the modernists that brought it in, and (3) you only proposed two categories to follow, Trent or the modernists - given that the Pope allows communion in the hand it seemed you may have considered him more in the former, and (4) it is my understanding you have a preference for the SSPX, which is IMHO not in communion with the Pope (hashed out in detail elsewhere). This is why it “seemed” to me that might have been what you meant. Of course, by using the word “seemed” rather than a phrase like “are not following the Pope” I meant to be clear that it wasn’t clear to me what you meant, and this is why I asked you “Is this your view?” Please don’t take offense, but your words did leave that open question in my mind.You seem to be ... not following the Pope.I don't how you arrived at that conclusion.
I said a Modernist proposed the return of Communion in the hand. Just because JPII may have given his approval does not mean that he would have suggested it to begin with.This kind of seems to be splitting hairs. I don’t know of any change or any doctrinal statement that any Pope has adopted or any Council has adopted that wasn’t first proposed by someone else. This is how it always works, others suggest things and eventually a Pope may allow it or agree or whatever.
While the reference to Aquinas is appreciated, you didn't answer my question. I am not being disobedient because Communion in the hand is not required for the New Mass.I guess I didn’t understand whether you CAN receive on the tongue to be your question, but rather whether one can be “critical of a discipline.” Can you receive on the tongue is even a different question than can you be critical of the Church’s decision to allow reception in the hand.
One can still receive Communion on the tongue in the New Mass.Yes, I do.
You also apparently failed to notice that my criticism of it is due to the potential for sacrilege. Is that not a valid concern?It is a valid concern, but one for those with the authority to make the prudential judgment, not for you. You and I are laity, and unlike the modernists I suspect you are willing to recognize that you have a place (just as I do, I’m not trying to single you out.) It is a hallmark of modern thought that the layman thinks he has the right to judge actions properly within the authority of his superiors.
patent +AMDG
If a discipline is not a matter of faith or morals, then do I have to assent to it? Can I as a faithful lay person be critical of it without questioning the authority of my superiors (keeping in mind that in this situation one has two options and is critical of one of them)?
Communion in the hand is a different situation than Extroardinary Eucharistic Ministers. The intent of the Church authorities on that issue has been totally disobeyed in the US.
and your rejection of the modernists that brought it in,
You type that like rejecting heretics is a bad thing.
it is my understanding you have a preference for the SSPX
That is not true. I have stated on FR that I am a non-SSPX traditionalist. I realize that among some Catholics on FR, traditionalist is a four-letter word. So be it. I would have thought that conservatives appreciate tradition and Catholics appreciate Tradition. I freely and completely assent to all of the dogmas of the Catholic faith. I have a sympathy for the SSPX and hope that they can come to an agreement with Rome. Well respected canonists are in disagreement about the status of the SSPX and this is neither the time nor place for that discussion.
This is how it always works, others suggest things and eventually a Pope may allow it or agree or whatever.
Always? Do you think that maybe some members of the Curia have their own agendas that are contrary to the agenda of Holy Mother Church and apply pressure to JPII? How do you explain the inconsistency of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the approval of altar girls?
I guess I didn’t understand whether you CAN receive on the tongue to be your question, but rather whether one can be "critical of a discipline."
My question was whether one can be critical of a discipline. Your reply was essentially, "It depends" and then you quoted Aquinas' writings on obedience of one's superiors. I will admit I didn't see that as a direct answer to my question. However, I tried to interpret my criticism in the light of your reference to obedience to one's superiors. Since I am not required to accept Communion in the hand during Mass and it is a discipline rather than a dogma, where is the disobedience? Was St. Catherine of Siena a disobedient schismatic because she spoke her mind to the Pope and questioned his decision to stay in Avignon? Was she necessarily judging him?
It is a valid concern, but one for those with the authority to make the prudential judgment, not for you... It is a hallmark of modern thought that the layman thinks he has the right to judge actions properly within the authority of his superiors.
So, now being critical of a discipline (not a matter of faith or morals) with a valid concern is judging "actions properly within the authority of [one's] superiors."? It is a misconception of some Protestants that Catholics are automatons who do/believe what they are told without thinking for themselves. Since we agree that one is not required to receive Communion in the hand, what's the beef?
Of interest from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Certain ecclesiastical writers have received this title on account of the great advantage the whole Church has derived from their doctrine.
And a little farther down:
It is not in any way an ex cathedra decision, nor does it even amount to a declaration that no error is to be found in the teaching of the Doctor. It is, indeed, well known that the very greatest of them are not wholly immune from error. No martyr has ever been included in the list, since the Office and the Mass are for Confessors. Hence, as Benedict XIV points out, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, and St. Cyprian are not called Doctors of the Church.
If the greatest Saints and Doctors of the Church are "not wholly immune from error", that doesn't leave much hope for me. The silver lining is that it didn't keep them from Heaven.
Facts appear to be an unecessary inconvenience for some.They do. For example, you accused me of calling you a liar (post 25). I then explained that “I have not called you a liar, . . . “ and explained why I had not. (post 28) You then go on to whine about how you consider my posts are “as an assault on my honesty and motives. Perhaps I misread him, perhaps you did. . .” even after I clarified my intent, you seem unwilling to accept my explicit statement I’m not calling you a liar.
I explicitly stated otherwise, and you won’t believe it. Were I to steal a page from your playbook, I would have to claim you were calling me a liar.
I have been accused of attacking the Pope (I have not), of being schismatic (I am not) and of "trolling" for schismatics (I do not). Are there facts to base the accusations on?Are you going to admit where you attend Mass or not? So long as you refuse to answer any questions, your comments here lack credibility. You don’t have to identify where you go to church. You can use silence as a shield. But you cannot use silence both as a shield to defend yourself, and then attack others with it as a sword because you won’t discuss the facts that would be needed to determine your schismatic or non-schismatic status. Silence should not be used as both a sword and a shield.
patent +AMDG
Sometimes, yes, you do. I would be terribly surprised to see you say otherwise. The particular penance you receive after Confession is a discipline, is it not? (that you receive a penance is part of the Sacrament, of course, but the particular penance you have to do is not an infallible matter of faith and morals). Yet, I would be shocked to hear you say you can disobey freely. Now, I’m starting to expect you to say you weren’t talking about penance, but you did ask a global question again, so I tried to pick an example I thought was clear that fit within the global question. The answer, IMHO, is different depending on the different discipline.The truth about what? A matter of faith and morals is of course unchanging. A discipline is a prudential judgment that can change, depending on the needs of the times.If a discipline is not a matter of faith or morals, then do I have to assent to it?
In the Catholic faith more is required than merely assenting to infallible matters of faith and morals. I once had a treatise that explained that much better than I ever could. Since I don’t have that handy I’ll take a quick crack at it, and ask your forgiveness for my doctrinal errors.
You are required to give interior assent, true faith, to settled matters of faith and morals. There are, however, many other matters in which, while you might not have to give the full interior assent of faith to the Church’s teachings and the Church’s rules, exterior assent is required, or put another way you should not be giving public scandal on them. What disciplines fall into the second category, I am not qualified to define for you, I just think you should recognize that it exists. Vatican I, below, sets the vague, general definition and discusses both discipline, and the jurisdiction to determine what the discipline is.
From Vatican I:
6. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.You are not merely required to accept the Church has made its decision and then go off and complain bitterly. You are held to a duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this is why I posted Aquinas on obedience.. . .
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].
4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
That is not true.I’m sorry, I was mistaken. Do you attend an indult or an independent?
. I realize that among some Catholics on FR, traditionalist is a four-letter word.To me, for reasons explained earlier on this thread, traditionalist is not a dirty word unless its someone who attends a schismatic chapel. Even then I have a great deal more respect for those individuals then I do for the liberals who have stayed in the Church to cause more rot. I'm sure you can't tell from this thread, but I both like you personally and have a great deal of respect for you. That isn't changing.
My most fervent desire is that the Big T Traditionalists return fully to the Church, but I also wish to keep those traditionalists we still have. This is why I argue on these threads and elsewhere.
How do you explain the inconsistency of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the approval of altar girls?I don’t consider it inconsistent. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis didn’t mention altar servers, to my recollection.
That is fair enough, my answer was far from a perfect answer. At my level of theological training, frankly, I’m not qualified or capable of providing one. There are a lot of different types of disciplines, and I don’t know where to start in preparing a global answer.I guess I didn’t understand whether you CAN receive on the tongue to be your question, but rather whether one can be "critical of a discipline."My question was whether one can be critical of a discipline. Your reply was essentially, "It depends" and then you quoted Aquinas' writings on obedience of one's superiors. I will admit I didn't see that as a direct answer to my question.
Since I am not required to accept Communion in the hand during Mass and it is a discipline rather than a dogma, where is the disobedience?The issue as I see it here is not how you actually receive, but how we criticize the Church in public.
Was St. Catherine of Siena a disobedient schismatic because she spoke her mind to the Pope and questioned his decision to stay in Avignon? Was she necessarily judging him?(1) Did I call you a disobedient schismatic? You and narses have engaged in a consistent pattern of blowing my words up to mean more than they do, despite explicit denials on my part. To be perfectly clear, I am not calling you a disobedient schismatic for speaking your mind. I am not calling Trent a schismatic council. I am not calling narses schismatic for posting any one article or for saying we should receive on the tongue.
Obviously I'm getting frusterated on this point. We have discussed whether I consider people schismatic for this or that a couple times now. Can we stop? If not, the next time you want to ask if I am calling someone schismatic could you please carefully quote where I do so? Otherwise, please presume I am not.
(2) On St. Catherine. Did she publish a newspaper on the issue? Did she stand on a soapbox at the town square and shout out her disagreement? These are the equivalents of posting your disagreement on a public website for all to see. My understanding is that she actually just wrote to the Pope, plead with him, worked on him. This is far different from what you are doing, correct? Or am I mistaken about that as well, have you directed these comments to John Paul II?
Since we agree that one is not required to receive Communion in the hand, what's the beef?Quietly exercising one lawfully approved option is far different than loudly criticizing the option you don’t like.
It is, indeed, well known that the very greatest of them are not wholly immune from error.This is the my entire point on him. He is the greatest of the doctors, but he is not infallibly protected the way Trent’s formal pronouncements are. I still place great value in his work, far more than anything I will ever do, so don’t take it as a dismissal, its just that we have to obey the Magisterium first, individuals like Aquinas second.
The silver lining is that it didn't keep them from Heaven.Nor, hopefully, will our more serious issues keep you and I.
Dominus Vobiscum
patent +AMDG
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.