Posted on 11/29/2002 5:00:21 PM PST by Loyalist
An Open Letter to the Church Renouncing my Service on I.C.E.L.
Father Stephen Somerville, STL.
Dear Fellow Catholics in the Roman Rite,
1 – I am a priest who for over ten years collaborated in a work that became a notable harm to the Catholic Faith. I wish now to apologize before God and the Church and to renounce decisively my personal sharing in that damaging project. I am speaking of the official work of translating the new post-Vatican II Latin liturgy into the English language, when I was a member of the Advisory Board of the International Commission on English Liturgy (I.C.E.L.).
2 – I am a priest of the Archdiocese of Toronto, Canada, ordained in 1956. Fascinated by the Liturgy from early youth, I was singled out in 1964 to represent Canada on the newly constituted I.C.E.L. as a member of the Advisory Board. At 33 its youngest member, and awkwardly aware of my shortcomings in liturgiology and related disciplines, I soon felt perplexity before the bold mistranslations confidently proposed and pressed by the everstrengthening radical/progressive element in our group. I felt but could not articulate the wrongness of so many of our committee’s renderings.
3 – Let me illustrate briefly with a few examples. To the frequent greeting by the priest, The Lord be with you, the people traditionally answered, and with your (Thy) spirit: in Latin, Et cum spiritu tuo. But I.C.E.L. rewrote the answer: And also with you. This, besides having an overall trite sound, has added a redundant word, also. Worse, it has suppressed the word spirit which reminds us that we human beings have a spiritual soul. Furthermore, it has stopped the echo of four (inspired) uses of with your spirit in St. Paul’s letters.
4 – In the I confess of the penitential rite, I.C.E.L. eliminated the threefold through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault, and substituted one feeble through my own fault. This is another nail in the coffin of the sense of sin.
5 – Before Communion, we pray Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst (you should) enter under my roof. I.C.E.L. changed this to ... not worthy to receive you. We loose the roof metaphor, clear echo of the Gospel (Matth. 8:8), and a vivid, concrete image for a child.
6 – I.C.E.L.’s changes amounted to true devastation especially in the oration prayers of the Mass. The Collect or Opening Prayer for Ordinary Sunday 21 will exemplify the damage. The Latin prayer, strictly translated, runs thus: O God, who make the minds of the faithful to be of one will, grant to your peoples (grace) to love that which you command and to desire that which you promise, so that, amidst worldly variety, our hearts may there be fixed where true joys are found.
7 – Here is the I.C.E.L. version, in use since 1973: Father, help us to seek the values that will bring us lasting joy in this changing world. In our desire for what you promise, make us one in mind and heart.
8 – Now a few comments: To call God Father is not customary in the Liturgy, except Our Father in the Lord’s prayer. Help us to seek implies that we could do this alone (Pelagian heresy) but would like some aid from God. Jesus teaches, without Me you can do nothing. The Latin prays grant (to us), not just help us. I.C.E.L.’s values suggests that secular buzzword, “values” that are currently popular, or politically correct, or changing from person to person, place to place. Lasting joy in this changing world, is impossible. In our desire presumes we already have the desire, but the Latin humbly prays for this. What you promise omits “what you (God) command”, thus weakening our sense of duty. Make us one in mind (and heart) is a new sentence, and appears as the main petition, yet not in coherence with what went before. The Latin rather teaches that uniting our minds is a constant work of God, to be achieved by our pondering his commandments and promises. Clearly, I.C.E.L. has written a new prayer. Does all this criticism matter? Profoundly! The Liturgy is our law of praying (lex orandi), and it forms our law of believing (lex credendi). If I.C.E.L. has changed our liturgy, it will change our faith. We see signs of this change and loss of faith all around us.
9 – The foregoing instances of weakening the Latin Catholic Liturgy prayers must suffice. There are certainly THOUSANDS OF MISTRANSLATIONS in the accumulated work of I.C.E.L. As the work progressed I became a more and more articulate critic. My term of office on the Advisory Board ended voluntarily about 1973, and I was named Member Emeritus and Consultant. As of this writing I renounce any lingering reality of this status.
10 – The I.C.E.L. labours were far from being all negative. I remember with appreciation the rich brotherly sharing, the growing fund of church knowledge, the Catholic presence in Rome and London and elswhere, the assisting at a day-session of Vatican II Council, the encounters with distinguished Christian personalities, and more besides. I gratefully acknowledge two fellow members of I.C.E.L. who saw then, so much more clearly than I, the right translating way to follow: the late Professor Herbert Finberg, and Fr. James Quinn S.J. of Edinburgh. Not for these positive features and persons do I renounce my I.C.E.L. past, but for the corrosion of Catholic Faith and of reverence to which I.C.E.L.’s work has contributed. And for this corrosion, however slight my personal part in it, I humbly and sincerely apologize to God and to Holy Church.
11 – Having just mentioned in passing the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), I now come to identify my other reason for renouncing my translating work on I.C.E.L. It is an even more serious and delicate matter. In the past year (from mid 2001), I have come to know with respect and admiration many traditional Catholics. These, being persons who have decided to return to pre-Vatican II Catholic Mass and Liturgy, and being distinct from “conservative” Catholics (those trying to retouch and improve the Novus Ordo Mass and Sacraments of post-Vatican II), these Traditionals, I say, have taught me a grave lesson. They brought to me a large number of published books and essays. These demonstrated cumulatively, in both scholarly and popular fashion, that the Second Vatican Council was early commandeered and manipulated and infected by modernist, liberalist, and protestantizing persons and ideas. These writings show further that the new liturgy produced by the Vatican “Concilium” group, under the late Archbishop A. Bugnini, was similarly infected. Especially the New Mass is problematic. It waters down the doctrine that the Eucharist is a true Sacrifice, not just a memorial. It weakens the truth of the Real Presence of Christ’s victim Body and Blood by demoting the Tabernacle to a corner, by reduced signs of reverence around the Consecration, by giving Communion in the hand, often of women, by cheapering the sacred vessels, by having used six Protestant experts (who disbelieve the Real Presence) in the preparation of the new rite, by encouraging the use of sacro-pop music with guitars, instead of Gregorian chant, and by still further novelties.
12 – Such a litany of defects suggests that many modern Masses are sacrilegious, and some could well be invalid. They certainly are less Catholic, and less apt to sustain Catholic Faith.
13 – Who are the authors of these published critiques of the Conciliar Church? Of the many names, let a few be noted as articulate, sober evaluators of the Council: Atila Sinka Guimaeres (In the Murky Waters of Vatican II), Romano Amerio (Iota Unum: A Study of the Changes in the Catholic Church in the 20th Century), Michael Davies (various books and booklets, TAN Books), and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, one the Council Fathers, who worked on the preparatory schemas for discussions, and has written many readable essays on Council and Mass (cf Angelus Press).
14 – Among traditional Catholics, the late Archbishop Lefebvre stands out because he founded the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), a strong society of priests (including six seminaries to date) for the celebration of the traditional Catholic liturgy. Many Catholics who are aware of this may share the opinion that he was excommunicated and that his followers are in schism. There are however solid authorities (including Cardinal Ratzinger, the top theologian in the Vatican) who hold that this is not so. SSPX declares itself fully Roman Catholic, recognizing Pope John Paul II while respectfully maintaining certain serious reservations.
15 – I thank the kindly reader for persevering with me thus far. Let it be clear that it is FOR THE FAITH that I am renouncing my association with I.C.E.L. and the changes in the Liturgy. It is FOR THE FAITH that one must recover Catholic liturgical tradition. It is not a matter of mere nostalgia or recoiling before bad taste.
16 – Dear non-traditional Catholic Reader, do not lightly put aside this letter. It is addressed to you, who must know that only the true Faith can save you, that eternal salvation depends on holy and grace-filled sacraments as preserved under Christ by His faithful Church. Pursue these grave questions with prayer and by serious reading, especially in the publications of the Society of St Pius X.
17 – Peace be with you. May Jesus and Mary grant to us all a Blessed Return and a Faithful Perseverance in our true Catholic home.
Rev Father Stephen F. Somerville, STL.
"That you don't realize this is part of the current scandal these days--a sign of wretched catechesis designed to keep slavish neo-Catholics docile."
Forgive me for pointing out that you are eyeball-deep in hypocrisy when you criticize the verbal barbs of Catholicguy and then write this dreck.
If you were a traditional Catholic, you would know that docility to the Magisterium of the Church is a virtue, and you wouldn't use the word in a perjorative sense. I have heard many Protestants often speak perjoratively of docility.
"Rome WANTS you to believe every burp of the Pope is divine revelation--to distract you from the ongoing and deliberate destruction of the Catholic faith."
Ah, more insults. More hypocrisy.
"Encyclicals were meant to be understood by the faithful."
Very good. You have managed to write a sentence which is wholly true. Bravo.
But you misunderstand all you read and quote. So, I'm uninterested in your interpretation of the encyclicals of the popes. I prefer the the on-going authoritative interpretation of Tradition given by the Holy Father.
"The ordinary magisterium has no binding authority when it issues novelties. It is only infallible when it is aligned with the teachings of past popes and councils."
Actually, even if not infallible, the ordinary magisterium is binding. There is a difference between infallibility and the attribute of being binding. An individual may think to himself that the teaching on artificial contraception is wrong. It hasn't been formally proclaimed as infallible, and Pope Paul VI actually revised Humanae Vitae so that it was not promulgated as infallible. Nonetheless, the Church's teaching on artificial contraception is binding on all Catholics.
The ordinary magisterium is binding on you, too, ultima.
However, though in your interpretation, there are novelties in the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, or Pope John XXIII, or Pope Paul VI, or Pope John Paul II (or whatever, I'm really uninterested in the particulars of URIOT [ultima ratio's interpretation of tradition]), I don't see any novelties. Why? Because the authoritative Magisterium of the Church has the authority from Jesus Christ to teach and interpret what is Tradition.
Paraphrasing BlackElk, 1. When the pope teaches, he is in accord with Sacred Tradition. It is his interpretation of Sacred Tradition which is valid. 2. If you think that the pope has misinterpreted Sacred Tradition, you are wrong. Go back to 1.
Anything else really and truly is Protestantism. And I say that with the deepest respect to our Protestant observers, especially drstevej. ;-)
"I'm the one who follows Trent..."
That's very nice, really, ultima. But you follow Trent as if you're living in 1602, rather than 2002. And you interpret Trent as if nothing has happened since. Which is why you disagree with the pope. Which is why you should return to 1., above.
We follow Trent, too. But we follow the First Vatican Council, as well. And the Second Vatican Council. And the encyclicals and teachings of all the popes who followed Trent, including John Paul II. If, in our limited view, we believe that Trent contradicts Vatican II or John Paul II, it is we who are in error, not Vatican II nor John Paul II. Again, apply rule 2., and return to rule 1.
"I'm the one who insists the Mass is a Sacrifice and not primarily a memorial meal, which is the Protestant's doctrine, not the true Catholic's and which had been unambiguously condemned by Trent."
* sigh *
How many times must your errors be corrected, ultima? It's only worthwhile to correct them again because this thread is developing into an entire syllabus of lefebvrist errors.
Here is where you live as if it is 1602. Indeed, the Mass is a sacrifice. It is THE Sacrifice. And Luther said it wasn't. So Trent's reform was to add extra heavy emphasis, bold, underline, and italic, to the sacrificial nature of the Mass, to counter the Lutheran heresy.
But, it is also a meal. Or at least Jesus thought so. Or perhaps you think that Trent overruled Jesus? In any event, it is a meal, as well. And the Church believed that that had been lost in the shuffle. You, of course, are evidence of this. So, the Church made a prudential judgement to change the Mass to remind us again that it is also a meal.
Now, perhaps you could argue that this was a poor prudential decision. I disagree, but you are entitled to your point of view. Perhaps you think the change went too far. Perhaps you think some adjustments could be made to improve what is already good. It would be rather arrogant on your part to think these things, but it wouldn't make you a schismatic.
But when you say that the new Mass was not permissible because it violated Trent, you are wrong in fact, and wrong in theology. It is URIOT, not Catholic teaching.
"If you weren't so docile..."
Again, docility is a virtue. It is the mean between contentiousness and subservience. A true traditional Catholic would know that.
But thanks for the compliment. A true traditional Catholic knows that it is high praise, indeed, to be called docile, in the context of submission to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
"I have said over and over that Tradition is no secret."
I agree! Listen to the Successor of Peter, and TWO THOUSAND YEARS OF TRADITION are yours!
But URIOT, or perhaps its LIOT (Lefebvre's interpretation of Tradition), or perhaps a broader SIOT (schismatic's interpretation of Tradition) IS esoteric and secret. Your interpretation is held by a few thousand folks throughout the world, whereas a billion Catholics submit to the authentic Tradition taught by the Bishop of Rome.
"I do not lack submission to this pontiff..."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
Catholics all, I nominate this laugher for BIGGEST LAUGH OF THE DAY AWARD.
You directly disobey Pope John Paul II's direct instruction to all Catholic faithful to abjure from assisting at the Masses of the schismatic SSPX. "Ah, but I CANNOT obey THAT instruction, because it is the command to do evil!"
Yeah, right. Again, you have substituted your judgement for that of the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church. That is schism, plain and simple. You have rejected the clear teaching of the Holy Father, prefering your own judgement, on a matter where the Holy Father has made plain is matter of basic unity and communion with the Catholic Church. You have chosen schism.
Worse yet, ultima, you have chosen schism when you could have easily continued to obey. If attending the Novus Ordo contradicted your (malformed) conscience, you HAVE AN INDULT MASS AVAILABLE TO YOU. You could have EASILY continued in obedience to the Holy Father AND have had your Tridentine Mass, too.
If disobedience were truly and really necessary for you to attend what you believe is a good and holy rite of the Mass, you could be considered to be misguided, but in good conscience.
But any reasonably well-catechized Catholic knows that disobedience to the Holy Father for its own sake is nothing other than RANK REBELLION.
Your choice is not about assisting at a rite of the Mass you believe is good and holy. You are angry at the Holy Father because he exercised his right to discipline the FSSP in a way with which you disagreed. Even if his prudential choice was wrong, it was certainly within his prerogative to make it. Even if you disagreed with it, it gave you no right to directly disobey him. You have available to you the same rite that is yours with the schismatics. Your choice is about rebellion, out of anger. You are a rebel against the Catholic Church, acting like a teenager who does what is wrong because he feels himself over-harshly judged by his father. And by rebelling against PETER, you are a rebel against God. Repent, ultima.
You are angry how the Holy Father has dealt with the FSSP, and so you have said, "non serviam".
And I know that you are so far gone that there is virtually no hope that my feeble, inadequate defense of the Holy Catholic Church will reach your darkened heart, mind, and soul.
I will continue to pray for you. It's the only remedy for the spiritual sickness from which you suffer.
sitetest
You claimed the source was a historian. Do these last two paragraphs represent anything resembling objectivity?
The Catholic Church survived the Arian crisis, and so it will survive the present one. For our part, it is our duty to remain faithful to the unchangeable teaching and Sacred Tradition of our Holy Catholic Church, and not to compromise the Faith in any way with the present trend of Liberalism and Modernism sweeping the Church worldwide.
"What happened over 1600 years ago is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria today is the whole Universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transformed to a different level. Exile is replaced by banishment into the silence of being ignored; killing by assassination of character." --
I called the author a propagandist because the author reveals an undeniable bias in what he writes. I felt duty-bound to bring that to your attention, since you used him as an objective arbitrator in our dispute. Or at least that is what I thought the purpose of your post was when you described him as an historian. I don't think I was being dishonest. I think the author is dishonest. Here:
The saint even consecrated orthodox bishops outside his own diocese, acting out of necessity for the good of the Church.
There are no details cited by the author to back this claim up, but it sounds very similar to the actions of Mr. Lefebvre (and the reasons Lefebvre gave) and to the undiscerning reader a parallel may be drawn between the two cases. But until I am shown that St. Athanasius defied any pope's direct prohibition concerning the consecration of bishops, I will consider the SSPX claims that St. Athanasius and Lefebvre are similar as propaganda.
Infallible. Binding.
Two different things.
Catholics are bound to avoid the use of artificial contraception. The teaching is binding.
The teaching has never been proclaimed to be infallible.
It is likely a good candidate to be proclaimed to be infallible, and may be infallible, already. But Pope Paul VI actually struck language from the text of Humanae Vitae declaring the prohibition to be infallible.
Certainly, it meets the attributes of the infallible teaching of the ordinary Magisterium. It is a teaching on faith and morals. It has been taught to the universal Church. It has been taught consistently since the first century.
Yet, Pope Paul held back. Some will say he lost his nerve. I try to avoid judging even dead popes. I will leave it to some other pontiff to teach what is what in this regard.
But whether the teaching was infallible or not, it is binding.
It was once taught authoritatively that it was immoral to take interest on loans. At that point, this teaching was binding on all Catholics.
That's no longer taught.
Was the teaching infallible? It had the attributes of a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium which was universally taught to the universal Church consistently for the entire history of the Church, up until when it was changed.
Whether it was infallible is problematic (I've read arguments both ways.). But in any event, it sure as heck was binding.
As are all teachings by popes on matters of faith and morals addressed to the universal Church.
Catholics don't get to pick and choose between teachings.
But a pope can also give opinions as a theologian, or as a private person, not addressing them to the universal Church as authoritative teaching on matters of faith and morals. And in these teachings, a pope can err.
The reason for all this is that we interpret Jesus' promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church to mean that the authoritative teaching office of the Catholic Church can not teach error, and thus, lead Christians into error. Like you, we think right doctrine is important, as well. Vitally important.
The pope will not lead the faithful off the cliff of heresy. This is the promise.
To say otherwise is to cease to believe in the promise of Jesus Christ to His Catholic Church.
Thus, to say that a pope could write and issue an encyclical addressed to the universal Church which would be heretical is extremely problematic. This is especially true since Catholics are bound even by teachings which are not made infallibly.
In any event, no one alive could unilaterally judge a pope to be in heresy. Theologians and bishops of sufficient rank could propose that such has happened, but none have the authority to definitively judge a pope thusly. A pope, himself, could make that judgement, and my memory dimly reminds me of Pope John XXII, I think, who held a private opinion which eventually turned out to be material heresy (because he held a private opinion that turned out to be heresy PRIOR to the Church's determination that it was, indeed, heretical, he couldn't be said to have been a formal heretic). He believed that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment.
How did he know it was heresy? Well, he himself wasn't sure of the opinion, so he appointed a commission to study the question. They came back and said, "Sorry, boss, it's heresy." But EVEN AT THAT POINT, he was not yet in formal heresy. He was initially unconvinced that he was wrong. Though the commission could PROPOSE that he was wrong, it could not DEFINITIVELY JUDGE him to be wrong.
He also NEVER TAUGHT HIS OPINION AS CHURCH TEACHING. He explicitly stated that it was his own opinion, that he could be wrong, and that he in no way ever intended to teach that which was contrary to Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
He eventually changed his mind, and accepted that his former view had been wrong. And that is when the particular doctrine in question was definitively decided by and for the Church. When the pope decided it.
Also, to a limited degree, the judgements of a following pope can be made on a deceased pope. A successor pope can judge a predecessor, within certain limits. Leo II condemned the late Honorius for failure to defend the faith from heresy. But not for actually teaching heresy to the universal Church.
But no one on earth has the authority to definitively judge the current pope to be a heretic. Can't do it.
Insofar as some folks here do that, they are themselves guilty of material heresy.
Remember that for the most part, the charism of infallibility is a negative charism. It doesn't mean that the pope is going to wake up every day and preach what the Church needs. It means that the pope is protected from teaching falsely to the universal Church. He may teach incompletely. He may teach poorly. He may fail to teach what is true. But he will not teach what is false.
We have Christ's Word on it.
sitetest
Working backwards, as that is the order of importance, first:
I haven't judged the state of your soul. I know neither whether you are in a state of grace nor in a state of mortal sin.
I know that objectively, your actions put you in schism.
I know that you evince darkness and sickness of the soul.
I know that you are at risk.
"You do this out of malice and even hate."
Yes, I suppose that is why I specifically remember you while I say the Rosary each day. Because I am so hateful.
Who is judging whom, now? I judge your actions, you judge my motives.
As to disobedience, you disobey out of the anger that you have expressed at the Holy Father here on this forum for what you perceive as his offenses against the FSSP. You have said so yourself. You, yourself, expressing anger, said you stopped assisting at FSSP Masses after the sacking of their superior general.
Thus, you believe that you must attend an old rite Mass. Okay, I think you're wrong, but I can at least see how you got there. But you could very well attend at an FSSP Mass. To do so would be to continue to obey the Supreme Pontiff. However, because of how he treated the FSSP, BY YOUR OWN WORDS, you left the FSSP parish, and started assisting at an SSPX Mass. You are in disobedience OF YOUR OWN CHOOSING, because you disagree with a prudential decision of the Supreme Pontiff, which he was entitled to make (even if he wrongly made it), and because you are angry.
That is not disobedience out of necessity. You have no need to assist at an SSPX chapel to assist at the old Rite. It is disobedience out of rebellion. You are in rebellion. Deal with it.
Now that the important stuff is out of the way, we can deal with the dross.
As to the sacrificial nature of the Mass, gee whiz, ultima, don't you get it?? You have no authority to judge! Neither did Archbishop Lefebvre, nor anyone else, the right to judge the Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI. All these may critique, may offer their own views, may propose, but only the pope has authority to alter the Mass.
But even if you or any of your schismatic friends DID have any authority to judge definitively, it has been shown time and again that YOU are wrong, and that when you have cited others in support of your borderline material heresy, either THEY have been wrong, or YOU have entirely misquoted, mischaracterized, misrepresented, and/or misunderstood what they said.
"Black Elk is as mistaken as you if you think the Pope is lord over Tradition."
Well, if BlackElk beleived that, he would be wrong. As would I. Our point is not that the pope is lord over Tradition, but that only the pope, or ecumenical councils in communion with, and confirmed by him, is given the authority by Jesus Christ to teach definitively what is Catholic faith. It is not only his authority, but his obligation.
"Rome may interpret all it wishes, but if its interpretation is out of line with past interpretations of past popes and councils it would still be in error. Being pope doesn't mean you can invent truth and make something other than what it is."
Indeed, if that is what we alleged, we would be wrong. But neither BlackElk nor I are saying that the pope gets to invent Tradition. But where there is a dispute as to what is Tradition, he has the final word. No one on earth may contradict him. If you don't believe that, you just don't believe in Catholicism.
"The issue of contraception is not a good example since it is aligned with all past magisterial teachings and hence is NOT a novelty but is an infallible teaching."
Show me where it has been defined infallibly. Please point out the words ex cathedra.
"The ordinary magisterium, even when not infallible, is most certainly NOT binding. Do you know what binding means in this context? I think not."
Catholicguy, patent, you gotta read this. Ultima's now claiming that the ordinary Magisterium is not binding. LOL.
Ultima, are you SURE you were EVER a Catholic?? Maybe one of those "Spirit of Vatican II" Catholics?? Maybe you've been drinking one too many with Fr. McBrien from Notre Dame?? Try these on for size, ultima: Catechism of the Catholic Church: "892 The Pope, the Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." [Lumen Genium, 23] "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as the pastor of the entire Church has full, suprem, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." [Lumen Gentium 22]
891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith - he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council [Lumen Gentiium 12]. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for believe as being divinely revealed," [Dei Verbum 10] and as the teaching of Christ, the definitiions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." [Lumen Gentium 25] This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelations itself. [Lumen Gentium 25]
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching, the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent",[Lumen Gentium 25] which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
sitetest
Sitetest, are you SURE you were ALYWAYS a Protestant??
Tell me about it, hypocrite:
Sitetest: "Ultima, are you SURE you were EVER a Catholic??"
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.