Inculturation at Papal Masses; next, Poland and St. Faustina

National Catholic Reporter ^ | 8/7/2002 | John L. Allen

[Catholicguy]

Let's think about this. Christmas is on December 25 because it was the feast of a pagan god and it was the only way they could get people to go to Mass.

Christmas is celebrated on the 25th because that is the day Jesus was born.

[Desdemona]

No, I hate to tell you this, but the census was in June. December 25 was the feast day of a Celtic god and wasn't set as Christmas until, like, the 4th century while the Romans were converting the Brisish Isles and Ireland. I'll have to really seriously look it up, but I know that's the case.

[Catholicguy]

As Pope Pius XI said, there are no enemies on the right

Cite the quote, please. That phrase was proposed to "The Remnant" by one of its supporters years ago. I know because I used to subscribe to The Remnant. The one proposing it was a gentleman from "Keep the Faith," as I recall.

[Desdemona]

Amazingly enough, I actually found this.

Christmas was set as Dec. 25 by Julius I, Bishop of Rome, in 350 A.D. Every pagan religion had a celebration at that time. Legend has it that Christmas was set to compete with the pagan religions. I've heard so many explainations over the years, the truth lies, I'm sure somewhere in the middle. But Christ was DEFINITELY not born in December. Historical records show that the census was in June. More than one scholar also believes that the translation from the Greek of the might be incorrect on a couple points.

I'm hungry. Lunchtime.

[Catholicguy]

. If I don't repond to anything else you might have to say, it's because it's probably been covered before.

It has been , repeatedly. It makes no difference how many times Patent and Sitetest patiently chased down his misquotes and fabrications and corrected them. He will not abandon his position, for now.

Responding to his ceaseless repitition of the same errors will only encourage him to continue.

[Catholicguy]

Christmas was set as Dec. 25 by Julius I, Bishop of Rome, in 350 A.D. Every pagan religion had a celebration at that time. Legend has it that Christmas was set to compete with the pagan religions. I've heard so many explainations over the years, the truth lies, I'm sure somewhere in the middle. But Christ was DEFINITELY not born in December. Historical records show that the census was in June. More than one scholar also believes that the translation from the Greek of the might be incorrect on a couple points.

I'll have to wait until I get home, but, off the top of my head, there is internal evidence of the Bible and external evidence - well,it used to exist.

I wouldn't leap to the 'definitely" conclusion. Some of the thngs I have lead me to think that 12/25 is DEFINITELY correct :) But, I think this a good oportunity to reconsider that date

[St.Chuck]

Your tirade proves my point. Show me where I have used such abusive language...

Tirade? And to think that I have been consciously exercising restraint. Oh well.

I never accused you of using abusive language, so I'm not going to show you anything.

Yes, I have criticized the Pope--as any Catholic has the right to do for acts which are thoroughly unprecedented and unorthodox--such as praying with voodoo priests and witchdoctors or kissing the Koran. I have done so in a context of extreme adulation of the Pope on the part of some on this site who refuse to attribute to his papacy any responsibility for the systemic wrongs and breakdowns in discipline and doctrine which currently plague the Church.

I was so proud of you when you substituted mullahs for voodoo priests on another post. That attempt at variety/originality was encouraging. But you've reverted back to voodoo priests. Rats! A relapse.

IMHO, if not for this pope things would be far worse in this church. Liberals despise this pope too, Ultima. He's no modernist. Too laid back, maybe, but that is probably a consequence of a profound inner peace. May the peace of Our Lord also be with you.

[St.Chuck]

Cite the quote, please. That phrase was proposed to "The Remnant" by one of its supporters years ago.

I was skeptical too. But I decided to use it as a teaching point instead of rightfully questioning it's validity. It does sound a bit fishy.

[St.Chuck]

Responding to his ceaseless repitition of the same errors will only encourage him to continue.?

There is the Limbaugh school of thought, that when a kook calls up you don't need to respond to him, just let him ramble on and let his arguments reveal for themselves their speciousness. I must admit that I am somewhat bored with it though.

[ultima ratio]

Let me set the record straight. It was you who wrote to me, not the other way around. I simply responded to your posts.

[ultima ratio]

1. Wrong. Check canon 1323. An individual need only believe there was a state of necessity for the excommunication to be void. Whether the individual is right or wrong objectively is of no consequence. The individual must merely have believed in good conscience such a state of necessity existed. There can be no doubt the Archbishop believed this. He saw the Church collapsing in the West. He saw scandals and apostasies burgeoning everywhere. So he refused the Pope's command to contribute to the generalized corruption. You point out he was told there was no State of Necessity. But why should he have believed Rome? Your argument is absurd on the surface. The very people causing the crisis were telling him there was none! We can see today how right he was and how wrong they were! --Of course there was a crisis! In fact, as has been indicated on another thread, there is not ONE crisis, there are about TWELVE major crises.

2. Why is it a deception to point out the six were not excommunicated for attending an SSPX Mass? The Bishop of Honolulu clearly believed they were schismatic for supporting the SSPX. People like you commonly charge people like me with schism for attending these Masses and supporting these priests. And the Pope had stated publicly in motu proprio that anyone supporting the SSPX were participating in formally schismatic acts. The excommunication of Lefebvre and that of the laity who support his fraternity are linked inseparably in most people's minds. The reason why Ratzinger's ruling is significant is that it proves the Pope himself mis-spoke, that those who support the fraternity are not in formal schism as the Pope had previously stated. The reason is that the Pope's own canon law is in conflict with his statement.

3. Regarding the Pope as Supreme Legislator--he may be this, but he is not an absolute monarch. He is constrained by the papal office itself, which exists to GUARD the tradition of the Church, not to destroy it. Vatican I made this very clear: the Holy Spirit, it warned, does not protect the Successors of Peter except when they exercise their office to guard the deposit of faith handed down by tradition. There is no protection for novelties or innovations. In fact, the Pope took an oath not to oppose tradition or to alter it in any way. Yet the Archbishop and his followers, who represented the last hope for traditional Catholicism itself in the midst of the modernist revolution, were under attack and the Pope joined forces with those doing the attacking. The Archbishop therefore resisted, as he was absolutely right to do. (cf, Summa Theologica, 11a, 11ae, Q 39, 2-6.)

[St.Chuck]

Let me set the record straight. It was you who wrote to me, not the other way around. I simply responded to your posts.

Actually , I merely flagged you, narses and sinkspur to my response to HDMZ, since he had included you guys in his bizarre post #16, which, by the way, is a good example of the schismatic mindset. Since you were invited to the attack, I included you for the response. Now the record is even straighter.

[ultima ratio]

1. You are wrong again. A person who violates a law out of necessity is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, 4.) even if there is no state of necessity a) if one inculpably thought there was, he would incur no penalty (canon 1323, 70), or b) if one culpably thought there was, he STILL would not incur an automatic penalty (canon 1324, 3).

2. No penalty is ever incurred without committing a subjective mortal sin. (1321, 1; 1323, 70). The Archbishop made it amply clear he was bound in conscience to do what he could to preserve the traditional priesthood. For him to have done otherwise would have harmed the Church--and the doctors of the Church (Aquinas, Suarez, Bellarmine) teach that no authority exists to lawfully command a bishop to harm the Church, and that even should the pope himself issue such a command, it must be resisted.

4. This is not a matter of moral relevance as you put it. Resisting a pope may be right or wrong, depending on circumstances precisely because it is not in itself an intrinsically evil act. The issue boils down to what the Pope intended by forbidding the consecrations, and what the Archbishop understood lay behind the Pope's destructive action.

[ultima ratio]

As long as we're talking about "mindsets", I wonder if you've also noted the persistent use of pejorative terms for those you disagree with: kooky, bizarre, schismatic, etc? Try using reasoned arguments instead.

[St.Chuck]

More new age psychobable. Excusing the almost total lack of disciplinary action from the Supreme Pontiff on his quest for inner peace?

You are right. "INner peace" is a new age term. What would a traditionalist call it? Ab omni perturbatione securi? The pope need not be a reactionary. You do, the pope doesn't.