Rorate Caeli

The core of our faith

Excerpt of a very interesting interview granted by Monsignor Georg Ratzinger to Andrea Tornielli, published today in Il Giornale:

What has the liturgy meant for the Ratzinger brothers?

"The liturgy, the Mass, represents the core of our faith and of our action, it is the personal meeting with God. It naturally is at first place. We cannot imagine a day without the Mass, without the liturgy, it would be poor, lacking what is essential..."

Why has Benedict XVI wished to liberalize the ancient, pre-Conciliar, liturgy with the motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum"?

"At the time of the liturgical reform, the change happened quickly, and it was not easy for all to accept. From one day to the other, the ancient liturgy was replaced by the new one, of which we are now fond and with which we celebrate mass with an interior participation which is full of joy. There were some in the Church, however, that did not accept this 'leap' completely, because the loss of the ancient liturgy had deprived them of something and had disturbed their faith. In order not to leave these people alone, to reintegrate them fully in the ecclesial community, my brother decided to render the ancient pre-Conciliar liturgy free."

_______________________________
Transcript: Papa Ratzinger blog

51 comments:

Anonymous said...

This does nothing to explain why masses in the extraordinary rite are full of young people draw to the holiness of it and conversely repelled by the banality of the norvus ordo.
In fact his comments paint the typical NO picture of traditionalists as old fogies who can't keep up with the times.
I'm 37, I've been Catholic for 3 years and I attend the Tridentine rite exclusively. I know in my heart I would not have ever become Catholic had it not existed.

Father Anonymous said...

Speak for yourself, Father Georg!
I'm in my 30s and I have always found it incredibly difficult to achieve this pie-in-the-sky interior participation with the "renewed" post-conciliar "Liturgy". Encountering and now celebrating the Traditional Roman Rite has been the greatest blessing of my priesthood and even my life as a Roman Catholic. I cannot imagine the day without Holy Mass either, but when, through the circumstances of duty, I can only celebrate or concelebrate the "renewed" ordinary form, my day is deficient and lacking - I end the rat race by looking at my calendar to see when the next time I am not scheduled for public Mass and hence can have a more "extraordinary" day.

Iosephus said...

This Mass that folks like Georg Ratzinger finally embraced with joy has emptied the churches, annihilated religious orders, and helped to fill the ranks of the clergy with homosexuals.

Sadly, many prelates in positions of power are either oblivious or conniving. I'm afraid that at least a generation will have to pass - Ratzinger's generation - before we can start to look at the crisis in the Church with some objectivity and willingness to fix the problems.

Anonymous said...

"From one day to the other, the ancient liturgy was replaced by the new one, of which we are now fond and with which we celebrate mass with an interior participation which is full of joy. "

I really don't see how Msgr. Ratzinger could say this with a straight face! He's got to be joking because nothing could be further from the truth!!

If nothing else, the world-wide stats for Mass attendance around the world since Vatican II and the Novus Ordo disproves Msgr. Ratzinger's comment.
That comment is so terribly NOT accurate, that I wonder where our good Pope's brother has lived for the last 40 years...in a hermit's cell perhaps?

Jonas said...

Actually, it is entirely different world - that of ordinary (as in majority of 'ordinary' parishes performed) and etraordinary, i.e. Traditional Mass. The former is truely banal and with constant interuptions, while the latter filled with the deep feeling of true sacrament presence among all the faithful gathered in church

Martina said...

"I'm 37, I've been Catholic for 3 years and I attend the Tridentine rite exclusively. I know in my heart I would not have ever become Catholic had it not existed."

So do I, but I´m 47 and Catholic for 2 years.

EricG said...

Perhaps we're failing to take into account that the Pauline Mass CAN BE(though it almost never IS) celebrated in a worthy manner, in a way that is consonant with the preceding centuries of tradition.

I suspect that the Ratzinger brothers have been accustomed to celebrating the "New" Mass in such a manner.

Believe me, there are places one can go where the Pauline Mass is almost indistinguishable from the Tridentine Mass, or "at worst" looks like a simplification of the older rite, and not a complete rupture with it.

Again, these places are rare and hard to come by. The Canons Regular of Saint John Cantius are a notable example.

Anonymous said...

"In order not to leave these people alone, to reintegrate them fully in the ecclesial community, my brother decided to render the ancient pre-Conciliar liturgy free."

Other commentators (some who know the Pope) insist that Pope Benedict XVI "freed" the TLM to spark a liturgical and spiritual renewal within the Church.

Which intrepretation is correct?

Was the TLM "freed" simply to "reintegrate" into the Church certain Catholics...

...or was the TLM "freed" to spark a liturgical and spritual renewal?

Confiteor said...

It is possible to participate in the NOM with joy, the deficiencies of the NOM notwithstanding (unless there is literal sacrilege involved), because Christ is present and his sacrifice is offered. Christ is our joy.

Note that Fr. Georg speaks of interior participation.

Anon 19:34, I think that both interpretations are correct. The fact that Fr. Georg emphasizes one does not exclude the other.

Anonymous said...

Children of the "reform" – don't you just love their candor when they're in charge.

I lived through that "reform" and I thank God that he gave me the grace to see it for what it truly was – and is – A NEW RELIGION. I watched as novelty upon novelty was forced down our throats, the throats of children. I remember one Sister telling us to "be sure to teach your parents how to follow the new Mass."

The new rite has borne NO fruit. It is irrelevant to most and will surely end up in the dust bin of ecclesiastical history just where it belongs with its heterodox dogmas!

Anonymous said...

Somehow those who praise the New Rites exclusively always seem to be claiming that those who attend the TLM are "in need of integration into Ecclesial community".

Some more Qq. for Father George, would be:

Q. 1: Do the New Rites integrate you into Apostolic Faith and Tradition? -- If so, how can you explain those canons of Trent which condemn central priciples of the liturgical praxis of the New Rites?

Q. 2: Which is more important? Being integrated into the Ecclesial Community, or into the same Faith and traditions of the Apostles?

Q. 3: If I am a Roman Catholic worshipping the same way as Catholcis have done for more than 1000 years, how does that make me not integrated into this "Ecclesial Community", when I am a member in good standing in the Catholic Church? -- Are you saying that this "Ecclesial Community" is at odds with the True Church?

Q. 4: If the liturgical "renewal" as a leap, as you admit, to what did it leap? And over what did it leap?

Alexander said...

No matter how well you celebrate a Novus Ordo it is still inferior to a TLM. Period. You thus draw in more grace because the TLM’s superior forms, prayers, and greater submission (humility) that is present.

Anonymous said...

Here, Here! Cradle Catholic - 46 yrs old - 12 children - Attended the Novus Ordo exclusively for 31 years - spent my four college years studying Vatican II and the New Mass - After that study I now attend the Traditional Mass exclusively where the majority of attendees are under 50.

Interestingly, I go to confession at a Novus Ordo Church and I am amazed how there are almost exclusively elderly people coming in for the Novus Ordo Mass as I leave!

Anonymous said...

Hi Alexander,

I think the NO is horrid but have a question.

Since Jesus is present in both the NO and TLM, isn't there the same amount of grace at/in each mass - because He is present in the Eucharist in each?

Jordanes said...

There is a difference between the grace that is available and the grace that is received. If someone is not properly disposed, or is not as disposed as he might be, there will not be as much grace. Some things in liturgy will work better at disposing a soul to receive grace, and objectively the traditional Mass has more of those things than the typical reformed Mass (especially as celebrated in most parishes).

This does nothing to explain why masses in the extraordinary rite are full of young people draw to the holiness of it and conversely repelled by the banality of the novus ordo.
In fact his comments paint the typical NO picture of traditionalists as old fogies who can't keep up with the times.


I think it is possible to give Msgr. Ratzinger's comments a more generous interpretation than that. What he said about the effect of the liturgical reform is undoubtedly correct, and some in the Church did have their faith disturbed by the suddenness and great extent of the reform (actually I would say that most had their faith disturbed by the reform): the loss of the ancient liturgy had indeed deprived them of something, indeed had deprived everyone, but some found the loss more objectionable than others. This did cause a "disintegration" of the Church's community, with those who adhered to the Church's ancient liturgy being ghettoised at best or cut off from the Church altogether. To reintegrate them fully, the Pope issued the motu proprio.

Of course Msgr. Ratzinger does not mention that many of a younger generations have been attracted to the ancient rites, but this does not necessarily speak against his overall point, since the younger traditional Catholics have also been shoved to the side by the mainstream of the Catholic Church, and they also are among "these people" whom the Pope wants fully reintegrated in every way into the heart of the Church. In short, the Pope doesn't want Catholics who love the ancient liturgy to be regarded any longer as guests in their own home.

Anonymous said...

How bizzar. How sad. Are we seeing the contortions of an institution that has brought the majority of its constituents to the brink of apostasy trying to slowly right matters so as not to loose them or do they really believe this nonsense?

Jordanes said...

Are we seeing the contortions of an institution that has brought the majority of its constituents to the brink of apostasy trying to slowly right matters so as not to loose them or do they really believe this nonsense?

Whether you realise it or not, the "institution" to which you are referring is the One Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church, the Sacrament of Man's Salvation.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but the Church is not a Sacrament! There are only 7 Sacraments, de Fide, Trent...

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Jordanes said...

You are mistaken, Brother Alexis. The Church says that She is a sacrament, in an analogical sense. Note these passages from the Catechism:

774 The Greek word mysterion was translated into Latin by two terms: mysterium and sacramentum. In later usage the term sacramentum emphasizes the visible sign of the hidden reality of salvation which was indicated by the term mysterium. In this sense, Christ himself is the mystery of salvation: "For there is no other mystery of God, except Christ." The saving work of his holy and sanctifying humanity is the sacrament of salvation, which is revealed and active in the Church's sacraments (which the Eastern Churches also call "the holy mysteries"). The seven sacraments are the signs and instruments by which the Holy Spirit spreads the grace of Christ the head throughout the Church which is his Body. The Church, then, both contains and communicates the invisible grace she signifies. It is in this analogical sense, that the Church is called a "sacrament."

775 "The Church, in Christ, is like a sacrament - a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men." The Church's first purpose is to be the sacrament of the inner union of men with God. Because men's communion with one another is rooted in that union with God, the Church is also the sacrament of the unity of the human race. In her, this unity is already begun, since she gathers men "from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues"; at the same time, the Church is the "sign and instrument" of the full realization of the unity yet to come.

776 As sacrament, the Church is Christ's instrument. "She is taken up by him also as the instrument for the salvation of all," "the universal sacrament of salvation," by which Christ is "at once manifesting and actualizing the mystery of God's love for men."

849 The missionary mandate. "Having been divinely sent to the nations that she might be 'the universal sacrament of salvation,' the Church, in obedience to the command of her founder and because it is demanded by her own essential universality, strives to preach the Gospel to all men": "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and Lo, I am with you always, until the close of the age."

1140 It is the whole community, the Body of Christ united with its Head, that celebrates. "Liturgical services are not private functions but are celebrations of the Church which is 'the sacrament of unity,' namely, the holy people united and organized under the authority of the bishops. Therefore, liturgical services pertain to the whole Body of the Church.

2305 Earthly peace is the image and fruit of the peace of Christ, the messianic "Prince of Peace." By the blood of his Cross, "in his own person he killed the hostility," he reconciled men with God and made his Church the sacrament of the unity of the human race and of its union with God.

Fr. D said...

As a priest in his early 30's I grew up with the NO. I was fortunate to have good traditional catechesis and the NO offered according to the book (with options used) in my parish.
After learning about the TLM in the seminary, I wondered why I had been deprived of the TLM! And why was I made to feel like I was doing something wrong by certain faculty members when I attend the indult TLM when on holiday?
As a priest I offer the both TLM and NO in my parish. I must say, whenever assigned the TLM I very much look forward to it. It's certainly not the same with the NO. Frankly, in my experience the only thing that makes the NO better than the TLM (and only on weekdays) is that it is "shorter" so that Catholics on a short lunch break are able to attend Mass, get lunch, and then get back to work.

Anonymous said...

At the time of the liturgical reform, the change happened quickly, and it was not easy for all to accept. From one day to the other, the ancient liturgy was replaced by the new one, of which we are now fond and with which we celebrate mass with an interior participation which is full of joy.

That's not quite how "the changes" happened, as those of us who lived through that time period can attest.

While the changes were certainly rapid, the new Mass did not take the place of the old Mass overnight.

In the parish of my youth, the Mass had changed so much prior to the promulgation of the new Mass that there was virtually no difference between what we were doing immediately before the new Mass was instituted and immediately after.

As an example, we stopped kneeling for Holy Communion several years before anyone ever heard the term "new Mass."

Jordanes said...

He didn't say the changes happened overnight, but rather that they were introduced in a pretty steady stream -- from one day to the next, it seemed the Church was changing the Mass yet again. That was before I was born, and anyway I'm an adult convert, but I've read in a chronological sequence the back issues of our diocesan newspaper from those years, and I noted the same thing about the liturgical reform: like the death of a thousand paper cuts. After Vatican II, the Church made a series of major changes to the liturgy -- and priests on their own started changing the liturgy in ways not permitted -- until finally the new Ordo Missae was issued.

Anonymous said...

To my knowledge, Pope Benedict has never once publicly celebrated the Tridentine rite. Can anyone point to such an event. I would like to think that I was wrong, and that he indeed had honored the "extraordinary" form of Mass by celebrating it at least one time since the publication of his Motu Proprio.

Jordanes said...

No, the Holy Father has not publicly celebrated the traditional Latin Mass since issuing Summorum Pontificum, nor since his election as Pope. He celebrated it publicly several times before his election. Hopefully we can say “he has not YET celebrated it publicly as Pope.”

Anonymous said...

Cut Fr. Georg some slack. He prefers the NO--what's it to you? Mother Teresa attended the NO for years, and I think she received plenty of grace. The Holy Father is saying enough of this fighting, already. Let both rites live side by side and let the people can choose as they see fit. A house divided cannot stand, people.

Charles said...

To Jordanes and others:
It is not a question of a valid mass, of latin versus "vernacular" (this is a wrong word by the way referring to the people's tongue, or the "vulgar" language, because vernacular refers to the varieties of a language according to the regions of a country); it is not a question I continue of versus populum or versus the people. The truth of the matter is whether the mass conforms to the theology of it that holds that it is the bloodless sacrifice of our Lord, versus the New Mass, that depicts same as a memorial meal, that is the protestant view. Consequently I would rather believe an ecumenical infallible Council like Trent and not a non infallible one such as VII. Likewise I would rather follow Saint Pius V than pro-protetant and freemason Bugnini.
By the same reasoning I will follow the teaching of the Lord in the Gospel rather than the teaching of a modern Pope regarding universal salvation and denial of the existence of Hell.
Anonymous

Percy said...

I now understand the Bible quote "When Christ returns will He find any faith left on earth?" I had found that inconceivable but now know that "When heretics occupy the places of authority, heresy becomes the law and orthodoxy becomes heresy. This legalization of heresy does not debilitate the Catholic faithful but rather places a heavy burden upon them to bear witness to the wickedness of the law and to its logical consequence the non-authority of the apparent authority" Hence the Novus Ordo.

Jordanes said...

Charles said: The truth of the matter is whether the mass conforms to the theology of it that holds that it is the bloodless sacrifice of our Lord, versus the New Mass, that depicts same as a memorial meal, that is the protestant view.

The reformed Missal does conform with the doctrine (not merely theology) that the Eucharist is Our Lord’s bloodless sacrifice, but also conveys with greater emphasis than in the traditional Missal the Catholic doctrine that the Eucharist is a memorial meal. It does not convey that the Eucharist is nothing but a memorial meal, which is a common (not the) Protestant view.

Consequently I would rather believe an ecumenical infallible Council like Trent and not a non infallible one such as VII.

We can’t say Vatican II is non-infallible, because many of its teachings are infallible, even though it supplied no new infallible definitions. In any case, the reformed Missal was the work of the post-conciliar Consilium, not the work of the Council, which authorized liturgical reform, but not the liturgical reform that the Consilium provided and that quickly developed in dioceses and parishes around the world.

Likewise I would rather follow Saint Pius V than pro-protetant and freemason Bugnini.

Bugnini’s reforms are to be criticised in many, many ways, but Bugnini himself cannot be said to have been “pro-Protestant,” and there is no evidence substantiating the allegation that he was a Freemason. Leave the Freemason rumors aside – since they can’t be proven, they’re a distracting sideshow – and just focus on the substance and methods of his liturgical reform: there’s more than enough to find fault with there.

By the same reasoning I will follow the teaching of the Lord in the Gospel rather than the teaching of a modern Pope regarding universal salvation and denial of the existence of Hell.

As well you should, if a modern Pope ever starts teaching universal salvation and denies the existence of hell.

Anonymous said...

A blogger writes: "The Holy Father is saying enough of this fighting, already. Let both rites live side by side and let the people can choose as they see fit. A house divided cannot stand, people."
I don't think he appreciates the magnitude of the problem. To say that the two rites can exist "side by side," is, in my opinion, an admission that the the house is divided against itself.
Fr. Joseph Gelineau, one of the most influential members of the Commission (Consilium) which composed the New Mass, said in a famous quote: "The Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed."
Let's not pretend that there is any real compatiblility between the two rites, and that Catholics are free to choose one or the other. Such thinking plunges us all into an unrealistic dreamscape.
The new rite was designed to do away with the old rite of Mass. It was never meant to exist in harmony with it.

Anonymous said...

To Jordanes:
The fact that VII mentions two documents as Dogmatic Constitution does not render them so. If it were they are writings without teeth, because they do not attach the word "anathema" to these documents. So Catholics and particularly SSPX do not feel obliged to follow their teaching.
The fact of Bunini being a freemason is derived from his own memoirs, where he manifests that as a probable cause of his demotion, but of course he denies it.
What is clear is that he was intent by his own admission in destroying the Roman Rite that he considered a stumbling block for christian unity and had no qualms of conscience for that.
Also he used the term "separate brothers" to designate protestants, so that they should not feel bad about the Council.
Anonymous

Jordanes said...

Let's not pretend that there is any real compatiblility between the two rites, and that Catholics are free to choose one or the other.

Compatibility or not, Catholics are free toc hoose one or the other, depending on availability of a priest who can celebrate the traditional rite.

The new rite was designed to do away with the old rite of Mass. It was never meant to exist in harmony with it.

Doesn't matter what it was meant for, only matters what the law of the Church says, which is both rites now coexist in the Latin Church. (This coexistence, of course, is also utterly different of the Roman Rite as it was before Vatican II.)

Jordanes said...

The fact that VII mentions two documents as Dogmatic Constitution does not render them so.

Yes it does. No one has a right to any other opinion on this question: when the Bride of Christ issues a dogmatic constitution, it is a dogmatic constitution that She issues. It is the sin of presumption to claim that a church document does not have the authority that Holy Mother Church says it has.

If it were they are writings without teeth, because they do not attach the word "anathema" to these documents.

Sorry, it is the Church, not you, who gets to decide what makes a dogmatic constitution and what doesn't. There is no rule that the word "anathema" must be used.

The fact of Bunini being a freemason is derived from his own memoirs, where he manifests that as a probable cause of his demotion, but of course he denies it.

Ah, so the fact that he denied he was a Freemason proves he was a Freemason. In that case I'd better not tell the police that I have never committed any murders!

What is clear is that he was intent by his own admission in destroying the Roman Rite that he considered a stumbling block for christian unity and had no qualms of conscience for that.

Yes, you're at least right about that.

Also he used the term "separate brothers" to designate protestants, so that they should not feel bad about the Council.

I believe it was Leo XIII who first used the term "separated brethren" (in his 1895 encyclical Adiutricem), and almost every single Pope since him also used it in reference to Protestants.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes,
I can sympathize how you desperately want to uphold the NO and the leadership that keeps proping it up but your posts sound well, unconvincing and don't get your main point.

What is your point - Obedience above all else? Justification because the Pope says so? Sure both rites exist and I have a choice according to the Pope. That doesn't make the NO a good mass. Rather it shows how poor our leadership is.

Re: your comment on how the NO points to the memorial meal more then the TLM - I should think that is obvious as is the out come to the Church.

The NO has 11 places that say it is a sacrifice...but so what. The NO is a new thing, molested by heresy...and is the outcome of V2. V2 is no innocent bystander like you seem to suggest.

The arguments against V2, NO, conciliam clergy and leadership, et al all point to the same conclusion, the NO is not reformable.

Say no to NO. Like the previous poster stated, Orthodoxy is now heresy and heresy is now orthodox.

My choice is the TLM, even if I have to go out of my way to get to it. Obedience and certitude are found in the TLM. You can trust Trent de fide as Br. Alexis says.

Ex NO

Jordanes said...

I can sympathize how you desperately want to uphold the NO

I don't want to uphold the reformed Missal. I want to encourage fair and accurate analysis and criticism of it.

and the leadership that keeps proping it up but your posts sound well, unconvincing and don't get your main point.

Of course I as a Catholic wish to do what I can to uphold the Church's leadership.

What is your point - Obedience above all else?

Absolutely not.

Justification because the Pope says so?

Nope.

Sure both rites exist and I have a choice according to the Pope. That doesn't make the NO a good mass.

I didn't say it did. I only said that both rites exist and we have a choice according to the Pope.

Rather it shows how poor our leadership is.

Actually I think the "two uses in the single Roman Rite" was a juridical masterstroke: reestablishing the rights of the old rite without precipitating another pastoral disaster by attempting the wholesale suppression of the only liturgy that most Catholics have ever known. It is, of course, not a permanent solution, but under present circumstances it more than serves.

The NO has 11 places that say it is a sacrifice...but so what.

So it means the reformed Missal agrees with the Tridentine doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass. The traditional rite expresses that truth more emphatically and much more beautifully, however.

The NO is a new thing, molested by heresy...and is the outcome of V2. V2 is no innocent bystander like you seem to suggest.

And yet the fact remains that the new Missal is not the Mass of Vatican II, nor was it the reform that the Church called for. The Consilium and Paul VI went too far.

The arguments against V2, NO, conciliam clergy and leadership, et al all point to the same conclusion, the NO is not reformable.

I wouldn't say that. I believe God can do anything, even fix the mess that the Roman Rite is in today.

Kevin said...

"I believe it was Leo XIII who first used the term "separated brethren" (in his 1895 encyclical Adiutricem), and almost every single Pope since him also used it in reference to Protestants."

Very interesting! I think we need to be careful of accusing a term/thing as being a modernist innovation, when it sometimes may be our own ignorance at work of the Church and its history.

I've learned alot from your posts, Jordanes, not to mention those of Confiteor as well.

Anonymous said...

I am 44 y/o. I've been away from God and His Church for more than 8 years. When I started to look for God again I went to the NO, that was the only thing I knew. The "mass" was a big joke, the people doing whatever in the altar, and the priest... well, I even couldn't see him as a priest. But by the sole Mercy of God, someone I barely knew told me about the TLM at the FSSPX chapel. Since the very first step I knew it was God there, and that I was there to stay. God Bless his Holy Church!

Anonymous said...

"VII mentions two documents as Dogmatic Constitution"

Please tell what the names of these 2 documents are.

Jordanes said...

Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 21 Nov. 1964

Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, 18 Nov. 1965

Anonymous said...

To Jordanes:
The fact that two VII documents are labeled "dogmatic" in spite of no dogma being proposed is not coherent.
First: document Lumen Gentium starts by making a definition of the Church as a "mystery". The reason for this mysterious definition is a mystery itself, though what follows helps to understand why.
The Church is not a mystery; it is openly visible. It is the bride of Christ, it is a hierarchical institution founded upon the Pope, the bishops and the clergy. Everyone knows it; it is the Catholic Church.
By defining the Church as a mystery LG prepares the way to introduce the novelties of the Church as the communion of baptized believers, as the "people of God", as the body of Christ and as a pilgrim church moving toward fulfillment in heaven, suggesting that something is missing in the Church, as if Christ had founded it as an incomplete body of His. These novelties are destined to open the concept of the Church as the encompassment of all that believe in Christ, and so make it palatable to the Protestant. Likewise it introduces the concept of the people of God that integrates the faithful and clergy, and thus tries to incorporate laity in priestly functions, consonant with the Protestan notion that we are all priests. It later develops into the notion that both, clergy and laity constitute the Church (we are all the Church), which is nonsense. The Church is conformed by the hierarchy and the body of faithful are the ones that hear the message. If we are all the Church, who is going to teach whom?
If this is to be considered dogmatic, I am afraid that SSPX is right in rejecting same, and the same if some of the faithful rejects it, because where does it state that non-conformity to this document places one in schism.
By the way, the word schismatic and heretic has lost any meaning after VII, because Protestant and Orthodox, that were once considered schismatic and heretic, are now integrated into the extended concept of the Church.
So, why should SSPX be concerned if they are considered schismatic, when former ones are now hailed into the Church.
By the way, the masochistic Pope JPII, recently lauded Luther as a Great Theologian, and asked forgiveness from the Protestant, for the Catholic persecutions of the XVI century.
Second: Dei Verbum teaches that Scripture and Tradition are the foundations of the Faith and so may be more appropiately called "dogmatic".
As to Bugnini not accepting his freemasonry, no occult member of the clergy will ever accept belonging to this body of belief, so the fact that he denied it does not prove his innocence. What is clear is that the reformed missal is an attempt at making a liturgy acceptable to all religions, which is one of the purposes of Freemasonry: the foundation of a universal religion.
Charles

Jordanes said...

Charles said: The fact that two VII documents are labeled "dogmatic" in spite of no dogma being proposed is not coherent.

No dogma is proposed in LG and DV? No new dogmatic definitions were offered, but both LG and DV propose plenty of dogmas.

First: document Lumen Gentium starts by making a definition of the Church as a "mystery". The reason for this mysterious definition is a mystery itself

Not to those who read LG, which explains very well why the Holy Roman Catholic Church refers to herself as a mystery.

The Church is not a mystery; it is openly visible.

So a mystery cannot be visible? The Church refers to the sacraments as “mysteries,” and yet they are all visible signs that mysteriously convey the grace that they signify.

It is the bride of Christ

And St. Paul called that a mystery too.

By defining the Church as a mystery LG prepares the way to introduce the novelties of the Church as the communion of baptized believers, as the "people of God"

That’s a novelty? How can something that all Catholics have always believed be a novelty?

as the body of Christ

You think that’s a novelty too?? You really don’t know that much about Catholicism, do you.

and as a pilgrim church moving toward fulfillment in heaven, suggesting that something is missing in the Church, as if Christ had founded it as an incomplete body of His.

So all members of the Catholic Church have already been perfected and are now enjoying eternal bliss in heaven? Guess that means all of us here below are in hell.

These novelties are destined to open the concept of the Church as the encompassment of all that believe in Christ, and so make it palatable to the Protestant.

If that was what the Church set out to do with LG, She obviously failed. There are no Protestants who agree with everything LG says, or even close to everything. Nor does LG have any concept of the Church as encompassing every person who believes in Christ – that’s a gross caricature of what the Church believes about herself.

Likewise it introduces the concept of the people of God that integrates the faithful and clergy, and thus tries to incorporate laity in priestly functions, consonant with the Protestan notion that we are all priests.

The lay faithful and clergy ARE both integrated in the People of God, but LG explicitly teaches that they essentially different. As for the notion that we are all priests, that is a Catholic notion, and a biblical one. Just because the Protestants talk about the priesthood of all believers, and twist it and misinterpret it, doesn’t mean there is not a common priesthood of all members of the Church.

It later develops into the notion that both, clergy and laity constitute the Church (we are all the Church), which is nonsense.

It’s not nonsense, it is the constant and irreformable teaching of the Church. Your notion that lay members are not constituted as members of the Church is heretical gibberish.

The Church is conformed by the hierarchy and the body of faithful are the ones that hear the message.

Non-Christians hear the message too, and they obviously are not members of the Church. Since lay members hear the message from the clergy, that must mean lay members are not members at all, and since clergy also hear the message, that must mean that the clergy aren’t members either. Congratulations, Charles: you just eliminated every single member of the Catholic Church. How the Church can exist and yet have no members is, well, a mystery. See, the Church is mystery after all.

If we are all the Church, who is going to teach whom?

Those members of the Church whom God sends as teachers.

If this is to be considered dogmatic, I am afraid that SSPX is right in rejecting same

If the SSPX claims that only those in Holy Orders constitute the Church, then the SSPX has lapsed into heresy. I hadn’t heard anything about the SSPX maintaining such absurd, un-Catholic notions. The SSPX is a fraternity of ordained clergy, but the Catholic Church is not.

where does it state that non-conformity to this document places one in schism.

It doesn’t necessarily place one in schism, but it would probably mean that one has committed the sin of incredulity and perhaps the sin of heresy as well.

By the way, the word schismatic and heretic has lost any meaning after VII, because Protestant and Orthodox, that were once considered schismatic and heretic, are now integrated into the extended concept of the Church.

They always were integrated into that “extended concept,” and anyway Protestants and Orthodox are still heretics and schismatics, materially and often formally as well.

So, why should SSPX be concerned if they are considered schismatic, when former ones are now hailed into the Church.

Because schism is a grievous sin against Christ and His Church that puts one in dire peril of hell fire.

By the way, the masochistic Pope JPII, recently lauded Luther as a Great Theologian, and asked forgiveness from the Protestant, for the Catholic persecutions of the XVI century.

Watch your language, Charles, and give the late pontiff due respect. Humbly asking on behalf of the Church for forgiveness of past wrongs committed by her members is not the sexual perversion of masochism, and it’s an insult to characterise a Christian virtue as something twisted. If you are a Catholic, then remember your obligation to be careful, fair, respectful and accurate when expressing criticisms of Successors of St. Peter.

Second: Dei Verbum teaches that Scripture and Tradition are the foundations of the Faith and so may be more appropiately called "dogmatic".

I’m sure the Church appreciates you giving her permission to refer to DV as “dogmatic.”

As to Bugnini not accepting his freemasonry, no occult member of the clergy will ever accept belonging to this body of belief, so the fact that he denied it does not prove his innocence.

Yes, it doesn’t prove his innocence, just as the fact that he was accused of being a Freemason doesn’t prove his guilt, nor does the fact that he denied it prove his guilty. It is the accuser, not the accused, who is commanded by God to provide evidence of guilt. "In the mouth of two or three witnesses let everything be established." You haven't even got one witness.

What is clear is that the reformed missal is an attempt at making a liturgy acceptable to all religions

Complete and utter foolishness. The reformed Missal has plenty of problems with it, but syncretism, heresy, and apostasy are not among them. The reformed Missal isn’t even acceptable to all Christians, let alone all religions.

Kevin said...

"By the way, the masochistic Pope JPII, recently lauded Luther as a Great Theologian, and asked forgiveness from the Protestant, for the Catholic persecutions of the XVI century."

I don't have a quote or context in front of me, but it immediately comes to mind that we need to distinguish the varied ways in which the word "great" can be used--oftentimes, you'll find, people will reference a person or thing as being "great" even if they don't mean "correct"--it's simply being used in a way that designates that person or thing as being a towering presence in the history of its subject. One could reference Karl Marx as a "great" thinker in terms of economics, even if you disagree with his theses. You may have a class on the "great philosophers" which includes Plato, Aquinas, Descartes, Nietsche, etc. and know that Aquinas is the correct one of the bunch.

It's the distinction between judging a person or idea as correct/true, and being comfortable enough in admitting a person/thing's massive contribution to the subject at hand--even if the contribution was not entirely, if at all, a correct/good one.

In my opinion, the sspx has difficulties with making distinctions such as this one.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes,
You said, "The Church says that She is a sacrament, in an analogical sense. Note these passages..."

Did the Church call her self a sacrament before V2? If so please give examples. Just wondering if this is a V2 innovation.

You said,"Because schism is a grievous sin against Christ and His Church that puts one in dire peril of hell fire."

Doesn't the 1983 Code say there are only minor excommunications today? I think that is the case. I read somewhere (?) that even prior to V2 we were allowed to receive the sacraments from those schismatics if the sacraments are already being supplied to others? Sorry can't cite chapter and verse.

Thanks.

Jordanes said...

Did the Church call her self a sacrament before V2? If so please give examples. Just wondering if this is a V2 innovation.

Yes, the Church called herself a sacrament before Vatican II. I already gave examples, in the passages of the Catechism quoted above: those passages include patristic quotes, most notably a famous quote from St. Cyprian of Carthage.

Doesn't the 1983 Code say there are only minor excommunications today?

I don't think so. Rather, I believe the distinction between major and minor excommuncation is no longer a part of the Latin Church's canon law. But I'm no canon lawyer, so I can't be relied on here.

I read somewhere (?) that even prior to V2 we were allowed to receive the sacraments from those schismatics if the sacraments are already being supplied to others?

I wouldn't know about prior to Vatican II, but the current code certainly allows for that in cases of real emergency (danger of death). Anyway I wasn't referring to receiving sacraments from schismatics. I merely said that going into schism is a grievous sin against Christ and His Church that puts one in dire peril of hell fire.

Anonymous said...

To Jordanes:
You state that while LG and DV give no dogmatic definitions, they propose plenty of dogmas, such as?
Anyway, the fact that a document quotes plenty of dogmas does not make it dogmatic. If it were so any writing by Catholic authors that quotes "plenty of dogmas" would become dogmatic on that account.
The Church is not a mystery, per se, though its supernatural nature is. It would make a better service to the faithful to quote a good definition from past Coucils or encyclicals.
The concept of People of God was used in the Old Testament to portray Jewish People. It was adopted by the Council on the initiative of Cardinal Suenes, to name a Chapter on the Laity but placing it before the Chapter on the hierarchy, in order to give a special place to the "people" and remark the "priestly" function of the laity. At the time that this was proposed the bishops hailed it
as a happy term and warmly acknowleged that it was an inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If it weren't tragic this would be hilarious.
Preparing the way for defining the Church as the community of Baptized believers (not catholic believers) prepares the way for the introduction of Protestant and other sects who practice baptism. In the same manner "the People of God" is not the same as the Church, the body of Christ.
I acknowledge that I know not much about Catholicism, but the little that I know is very well founded.
"So all members of the Catholic Church have already been perfected and are now enjoying eternal bliss in Heaven?"
I don't follow your comment, i.e.: if they are on a pilgrimage on earth, how can they be in Heaven?
By the way the Church, which does not identify with the People of God, needs not perfectioning, because she is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, according to the Creed, so it needs no pilgrimage for attaining fullfilment.
"If that is what the Church set out to do with LG, She obviously failed..."
Of course it did¡¡, and it also failed miserably not only with LG, but with the rest of VII documents to produced the announced revival, the New Church that would produce a New Man, and other hyperbolic exaggerations on the part of John XXIII and Paul VI, that spoke of Nirvana on Earth, and were readily followed by a choir of bishops that believed in their illuminism.
One cannot understand how old people like this could be carried away by such mirages.
"It does not necessarily place one in schism, but it would probably mean..."
I cannot use as a guide probability; I need clear certainties.
If I were a member of SSPX, I would not be concerned of being labeled schismatic, because they love the Church as it always was up to VII. So why their traditionalism makes them more despicable than Protestant and Orthodox who are also schismatic, but are now treated very warmly by Church authories?
My commentaries about JPII as "masochistic" does not imply the psicoanalytical meaning of this term, but the common knowled of a person intent of damaging himself. His sexual inclinations are not known, although his strange "theology of the body" is perturbing and stops on the brink of speaking of sexual matters as an experienced one"
In addition I have read that he wrote on this subject articles that have not been published for being too erotical.
Finally the Church can call any document whatever; it is her prerogative, but mine is to accept the terminology if it is incongruos, because I have not relinquished the right to use reason or common sense.
Before ending this message I recommend to Jordanes to read the refutation of the "People of God" concept by an excellent theologian, the Abbe de Nantes, in its web page, by looking in the Archives articles.
Charles

Jordanes said...

Charles said: You state that while LG and DV give no dogmatic definitions, they propose plenty of dogmas, such as?

There are so many dogmas in LG and DV that it would be tedious to list them all, so you should just read them yourself.

Anyway, the fact that a document quotes plenty of dogmas does not make it dogmatic.

Not “quotes,” proposes or states or asserts. Furthermore, it must be a document of the Magisterium, not just any document. Plus, it must be called a “dogmatic constitution” by the Church. If it isn’t, then it’s not a dogmatic constitution. If it is, then it is a dogmatic constitution. Only a fool, or a madman, would argue that one of the Church’s dogmatic constitutions is not really a dogmatic constitution. You may as well argue that water is not wet.

If it were so any writing by Catholic authors that quotes "plenty of dogmas" would become dogmatic on that account.

Wrong. It must be a document of the Magisterium, formally approved by the bishops and ratified by the Pope. “Catholic authors” are not a Magisterium.

The Church is not a mystery, per se, though its supernatural nature is.

I’d rather listen to what the Church says on this matter than what you say. You’ve given me no reason to think that the Church is wrong about what she is, but I’ve found plenty of reasons not to trust your own judgment and understanding.

The concept of People of God was used in the Old Testament to portray Jewish People.

And in the New to portray the Israel of God. The Old Covenant People of God were a type and foreshadowing of the New Covenant People of God.

It was adopted by the Council on the initiative of Cardinal Suenes (sic), to name a Chapter on the Laity but placing it before the Chapter on the hierarchy, in order to give a special place to the "people" and remark the "priestly" function of the laity. At the time that this was proposed the bishops hailed it as a happy term and warmly acknowleged that it was an inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If it weren't tragic this would be hilarious.

There is nothing tragic about the Church teaching the truth, Charles. Also, if you would take the time to read LG, you’d notice that the chapter on the Laity is Chapter IV while the chapter on the Hierarchy is Chapter III. The chapter on the People of God is Chapter II, which says the ministerial priesthood and the common priesthood of the faithful “differ from one another in essence and not only in degree.”

Preparing the way for defining the Church as the community of Baptized believers (not catholic believers) prepares the way for the introduction of Protestant and other sects who practice baptism.

As I said before, that is a mischaracterisation of what LG says. LG says the Church is linked to validly-baptised non-Catholics, but does not say they are members of the Church. LG also says, “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

In the same manner "the People of God" is not the same as the Church, the body of Christ.

Such an interpretation of LG is unsustainable.

"So all members of the Catholic Church have already been perfected and are now enjoying eternal bliss in Heaven?"
I don't follow your comment, i.e.: if they are on a pilgrimage on earth, how can they be in Heaven?


You criticized what the Church says about her being a Pilgrim on the way to heaven, arguing that saying the Church is on a pilgrimage suggests that something is missing in the Church, as if Christ’s Body were incomplete. By your reasoning, then, the Church already enjoys the total fulfillment of her hopes. But according to the Catholic Church, she will not have perfection and fulfillment of her hopes until the complete number of the elect is in heaven. By rejecting the reality of the Church’s pilgrimage, you are effectively claiming that the Church’s elect have already arrived in heaven. But we know that is not true, so the Church is a pilgrim Church on the road to heaven.

Have you considered that Jesus went on a pilgrimage too? And yet we know He truly lacked nothing, but was perfect in all things. Pilgrimage doesn’t mean the pilgrim is incomplete or is missing anything. Christ was perfect, but He still had an “incomplete” mission until His Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension to Glory was accomplished. The Church too is perfect, but She still has a mission to complete, and must follow Her Lord in His Passover to Glory.

By the way the Church, which does not identify with the People of God

If, as you claim, the Church is not God’s People, whose People is She?

needs not perfectioning, because she is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, according to the Creed, so it needs no pilgrimage for attaining fullfilment.

And yet the Scriptures and the Fathers and the Magisterium still present the Church as on a pilgrimage. . . .

"If that is what the Church set out to do with LG, She obviously failed..."
Of course it did¡¡, and it also failed miserably not only with LG, but with the rest of VII documents to produced the announced revival,


Sorry, but you weren’t referring to LG and the rest of the Vatican II documents being designed to produce a revival. You claimed LG has ecclesiological novelties that were fashioned to remake the Catholic faith so that it would be palatable to the Protestants. But as I said, LG obviously does not present any ecclesiology that would be a palatable to any Protestants. The “failure” of LG that we are talking about was of the alleged design to make a religion palatable to Protestants, not of the design to produce a revival. That design did fail, to be sure, but there is no ulterior motive in LG to remake Catholicism into a new religion that Protestants would like, and even if there were, that design obviously failed, because LG’s doctrine is unquestionably Catholic.

the New Church that would produce a New Man, and other hyperbolic exaggerations on the part of John XXIII and Paul VI, that spoke of Nirvana on Earth, and were readily followed by a choir of bishops that believed in their illuminism.
One cannot understand how old people like this could be carried away by such mirages.


It is your words that are “hyperbolic exaggerations,” since John XXIII and Paul VI never spoke of a New Church that would produce a New Man, nor did they say anything about Nirvana on Earth.

"It does not necessarily place one in schism, but it would probably mean..."
I cannot use as a guide probability; I need clear certainties.


Sorry, Charles, but in this case all we can have are probabilities, since it is impossible to be specific about hypothetical cases or about an individual’s unique circumstances of which we are ignorant.

If I were a member of SSPX, I would not be concerned of being labeled schismatic, because they love the Church as it always was up to VII.

We ought to love the Church of today too, not just the Church that no longer exists on earth and that we’ll never see again this side of heaven.

So why their traditionalism makes them more despicable than Protestant and Orthodox who are also schismatic, but are now treated very warmly by Church authories?

It doesn’t make them more despicable, and the Church should be fair and just towards the SSPX. However, since the SSPX have not made a complete and total break with the Church as the Protestants and Orthodox are, the Church had tended to take a more disciplinarian stance with them, as with a rebellious child who has not yet been kicked out of the house, as opposed to the Protestants and Orthodox whose relationship to the Church is tenuous and distant: with them, the Church hopes to convince them to move back into the house.

Lastly, my objection to your careless use of the term “masochistic” was not an invitation for you to utter innuendo and untoward speculations about Pope John Paul II. No more of that, okay?

Kevin said...

I believe you find this understanding of the Church on earth as a "pilgrim" in St. Augustine's "City of God"

Anonymous said...

I appreciate and respect greatly the discourse between Jordanes and Charles in that two views and understandings are presented. Yes lets keep disrespectful comments out esp. toward the Pope for which it is a sin. We can disagree strongly without distasteful comments :)

Jordanes can effectively defend his view that V2 is faithful and an organic growth which I find helpful though in my experience the reality within the Church today doesn't line up.

Charles seems to have a sense of betrayal and argues for that based on his experience and best knowledge. I empathize and often feel the same way. I believe that V2 has ambiguity which has been taken advantage of to the detriment of the Church.

It is interesting that a FSSP priest suggested that I NOT read V2 encyclicals because they are for priests. Oh, to have a simple obedient faith without cause for worry about our leadership and Holy Mother Church.

I hope and pray the divisive liturgical and doctrinal issues can be cleared up and made apparent even for us layman.

In Christ,
vJerry

Anonymous said...

To Jordanes:
I still can't follow your reasoning. If LG like the rest of conciliar documents does not propose any NEW dogmas, as the popes and other Church authorities acknowledge, if LG mentions "plenty of dogmas" that you do not mention, they must of necessity be dogmas already proclaimed, and so they must be quoted and not proposed.
Your still drag on with the pilgrim Church, a new characterization of the Church that was unknown before, when we knew that there were a Church Militant, a Church Penitent and a Church Glorious. The notion of pilgrimage attached to the Church or the faithfull is a meek one, and passive to boot, when we are called fo wage war with the devil and the enemities of the Church. But appearantly the conciliar fathers were too scared to fight and preferred to embrace the enemy.
Finally, to make this message short, the fact that both John XXIII and Paul VI spoke of a New Church and a New Man (the word Nirvana) was added by me to stress the subject) is authentic, although I do not have the quotes at hand, and I am not surprised that you find it unbelievable, as did I when I read same. I hope that I can find the corresponding quotes for your information.

Jordanes said...

If LG like the rest of conciliar documents does not propose any NEW dogmas, as the popes and other Church authorities acknowledge, if LG mentions "plenty of dogmas" that you do not mention, they must of necessity be dogmas already proclaimed, and so they must be quoted and not proposed.

It seems you don't know the difference between "quoting" and "proposing," and "proposing" and "defining." LG does have a few quotations of dogmas, and proposed plenty of dogmas, but no new dogmatic definitions.

Your still drag on with the pilgrim Church, a new characterization of the Church that was unknown before

Wrong again. The Fathers frequently make mention of the pilgrim Church. As was mentioned above, St. Augustine wrote about the pilgrim Church. In The City of God, book 19, ch. 17, he writes:

"This heavenly city, then, while it sojourns on earth, calls citizens out of all nations, and gathers together a society of pilgrims of all languages, not scrupling about diversities in the manners, laws, and institutions whereby earthly peace is secured and maintained, but recognizing that, however various these are, they all tend to one and the same end of earthly peace. It therefore is so far from rescinding and abolishing these diversities, that it even preserves and adopts them, so long only as no hindrance to the worship of the one supreme and true God is thus introduced. Even the heavenly city, therefore, while in its state of pilgrimage, avails itself of the peace of earth, and, so far as it can without injuring faith and godliness, desires and maintains a common agreement among men regarding the acquisition of the necessaries of life, and makes this earthly peace bear upon the peace of heaven; for this alone can be truly called and esteemed the peace of the reasonable creatures, consisting as it does in the perfectly ordered and harmonious enjoyment of God and of one another in God. When we shall have reached that peace, this mortal life shall give place to one that is eternal, and our body shall be no more this animal body which by its corruption weighs down the soul, but a spiritual body feeling no want, and in all its members subjected to the will. In its pilgrim state the heavenly city possesses this peace by faith; and by this faith it lives righteously when it refers to the attainment of that peace every good action towards God and man; for the life of the city is a social life."

Now please, enough of this second guessing the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church. You ought to consider that the Church has been around for a lot longer than any of us has, and just might know a little more about these things than we do.

when we knew that there were a Church Militant, a Church Penitent and a Church Glorious.

The Church militant and Church penitent are the pilgrim Church.

The notion of pilgrimage attached to the Church or the faithfull is a meek one

And your point is? Did not Our Lord say, "Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls"?

and passive to boot,

In vision Isaiah saw Our Lord's Passion, and Isaiah wrote, "He was offered because it was his own will, and he opened not his mouth: he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be dumb as a lamb before his shearer, and he shall not open his mouth."

when we are called to wage war with the devil and the enemities of the Church.

And St. Paul told the Corinthians, "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal." The war that we wage with the devil is like the one that Our Lord waged: through humility, meekness, silence, self-abnegation, and mortification.

But appearantly the conciliar fathers were too scared to fight and preferred to embrace the enemy.

There are many ways to fight our enemies. Some of those ways can sometimes look like embracing the enemy, especially when we are obeying Jesus' command to love them.

Finally, to make this message short, the fact that both John XXIII and Paul VI spoke of a New Church and a New Man (the word Nirvana) was added by me to stress the subject) is authentic, although I do not have the quotes at hand, and I am not surprised that you find it unbelievable, as did I when I read same.

They may have said something that might have borne some very, very slight resemblance to your "New Church/New Man/Nirvana" paraphrase, but even so we can be sure that it didn't mean anything like what you think.

Anonymous said...

To Jordanes:
Your strange logic defies my wits. Yes I know the difference between proposing and defining, still you affirm that LG “proposed plenty of dogmas, but no new dogmatic definitions” (??). My understanding was that you wanted to correct me by making clear that the Church does not “propose” a dogma, but defines it, because the word propose or proposal indicates that something is not definite. You mention plenty of dogmas, and still you fail to quote the abundant dogmas “proposed” by LG.
By the way, number 8 of LG states that “the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church”, a phrase that raised heated controversies in the Council, because many bishops questioned that phrase because it was not faithful to the Lord’s dictum: “You are Peter and upon this rock I shall found MY Church”, so the Catholic Church founded by our Lord IS the Church of Christ. Benedict XVI has been forced recently to admit as much by saying that the quoted paragraph is not intended to deny that the Church is the Church of Christ.
The chapter of collegiality also provoked a heated debate that obliged the Pope to add a “Nota Previa”, !!at the end of the document¡¡, to clarify the subject. I do not know if these are examples of some of the “abundant dogmas proposed”.
You quote Saint Augustine mentioning the Church in a state of pilgrimage, and point out that many Church Fathers did likewise. The fact that it has been described so does not mean it was commonly known before VII. Being a pre-conciliar Catholic I can attest that never was it mentioned either in the Catechism or elsewhere.
To dig further into the matter I must say that depicting the Church as the Council does on a pilgrimage in spite that She is holy and does not need to peregrinate is not precise. The role of the Church is to give contents to the Lord’s mandate: “go and preach the Gospel to every creature”, and consequently she is charged with a task that has to be performed.
In a similar way, the Lord descended from Heaven to comply with his Father’s will, to preach the Good News of the Kingdom of God, to suffer and die for the remission of our sins. On his final breath he exclaimed: “consummatum est”, signifying that the task that his Father had entrusted upon him was accomplished. It would be grotesque to picture the Via Crucis as a pilgrimage to end at the summit of Mount Calvary.
The reason why the Council coined the phrase the “Pilgrim Church” derives from the fact that the Council fathers did not want to have enemies, and the denomination Church Militant called to mind the militancy of the “people of God” against the enemies of the Church.
When I mentioned the word “meek” I knew instantly that you would reply by quoting the Lord’s depiction of himself as meek and humble, that refers to a personal attitude of humbleness in the face of offence, be it by word or deed. However, when he had to defend the Temple he took up the whip and scourged the merchants, and he also scourged the Pharisees with the power of his word. This is what the Church is called to do: to defend the faith decisively.
Also, the Council definition of the Church as the “People of God” is not accurate, as I will show in what follows:
You ask candidly the tautological question: if the People of God is not God’s people, whose people is it?
First of all, what is meant by the People of God? Being a collective noun it can mean in an ample sense the whole of humanity, because we are all created by God; or the body of all Christians and other peoples that believe in God. In a restrictive sense it may signify the body of the Catholic faithful, which would be the only meaning acceptable to characterize the Catholic Church. Still, the Church cannot be equal or identical to her children. Given that the Church is holy, she cannot be equated with the faithful, since all of us are sinners, from the Pope down.
The sanctity of the Church derives from its character as a divine institution founded by the Lord, and not from its people. She is holy because of its divine or supernatural nature, and from the graces and charisms that She avails as means of sanctification. The human element is but a part of the Church, while the sacraments, the preaching of the Gospel and other means of sanctification that she endows to her children are what make it holy. The fathers of the Council, failed to recognize this distinction, when they state in LG that “the Church as a pilgrim marked on earth with a sanctity that is real, although imperfect” (??).
As to the question of Bugnini’s masonry, we may consider it unsettled, because his denial neither exonerates or condemns him. However there must have been serious reasons for being twice summarily dismissed by two popes, without any given explanation. In any event he was a sinister figure that probably did more damage to the Church than any of the other fathers of the Council.

Jordanes said...

Charles said: Your strange logic defies my wits.

My logic isn’t strange, but you seem to be a stranger to logic.

Yes I know the difference between proposing and defining,

So you say, but I’m not convinced you do.

still you affirm that LG “proposed plenty of dogmas, but no new dogmatic definitions”(??).

Yep.

My understanding was that you wanted to correct me by making clear that the Church does not “propose” a dogma, but defines it, because the word propose or proposal indicates that something is not definite.

Nope, that’s not what the Church means when she says she is “proposing” something as true. It means she is “placing it forward” as something that is true: offering the truth to us and inviting us to accept the truth.

You mention plenty of dogmas, and still you fail to quote the abundant dogmas “proposed” by LG.

That’s because I’d have to quote almost the entire dogmatic constitution. It’s simpler for you just to read it. These comments are long enough as it is.

By the way, number 8 of LG states that “the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church”, a phrase that raised heated controversies in the Council, because many bishops questioned that phrase because it was not faithful to the Lord’s dictum: “You are Peter and upon this rock I shall found MY Church”, so the Catholic Church founded by our Lord IS the Church of Christ.

The Church has made clear many times what “substitit in” means. It means that the Catholic Church founded by our Lord IS the Church of Christ. “Subsistentia” is one of the Church’s own words and frequently appears in philosophical and theological writings of her teachers. It takes some training to understand what the Church means by her words, but it can be done. Just keep in mind that these documents were not written to or for the average layman, so be sure to ask someone for guidance if you come to something that confuses or alarms you.

Benedict XVI has been forced recently to admit as much by saying that the quoted paragraph is not intended to deny that the Church is the Church of Christ.

He was “forced” to do nothing, and he didn’t do anything that the Church hadn’t already done, which is to quash the attempts of heretics to twist “subsistit in” to deny the salvific necessity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

The chapter of collegiality also provoked a heated debate that obliged the Pope to add a “Nota Previa”, !!at the end of the document¡¡, to clarify the subject. I do not know if these are examples of some of the “abundant dogmas proposed”.

Yep, they are among the dogmas proposed in LG.

You quote Saint Augustine mentioning the Church in a state of pilgrimage, and point out that many Church Fathers did likewise. The fact that it has been described so does not mean it was commonly known before VII.

No, but the fact that it was commonly known before VII does mean it was commonly known before VII. Just because you are ignorant of the teachings of the Church and the writings of the Fathers doesn’t mean the Council Fathers at Vatican II were.

Being a pre-conciliar Catholic I can attest that never was it mentioned either in the Catechism or elsewhere.

I can assure you that St. Augustine’s “City of God” is one of the most famous works of Western literature ever. His metaphor of the pilgrim Church was hardly esoterica. Although the Catechism of Trent does not use that figure of the Church, it does state that “we all hope for the same consummation, eternal and happy life.” Catechisms cannot be expected to mention every single truth of the Catholic faith, nor to delve into them in any great depth. They are by nature introductory and summary.

To dig further into the matter I must say that depicting the Church as the Council does on a pilgrimage in spite that She is holy and does not need to peregrinate is not precise.

It is only your opinion that the Church does not need to go on the pilgrimage that God has set her on.

It would be grotesque to picture the Via Crucis as a pilgrimage to end at the summit of Mount Calvary.

It didn’t end there: it ended in heaven after the Resurrection and Ascension. You apparently don’t like it that Christ has commanded us to take up our crosses and follow Him to heaven, but that is what He has done, and if you don’t go on that pilgrimage you will end up in hell.

The reason why the Council coined the phrase the “Pilgrim Church” derives from the fact that the Council fathers did not want to have enemies

You have already been shown that the Council didn’t coin that phrase. You are without excuse.

When I mentioned the word “meek” I knew instantly that you would reply by quoting the Lord’s depiction of himself as meek and humble

And yet you went ahead and made your error-riddled statements anyway . . .

However, when he had to defend the Temple he took up the whip and scourged the merchants, and he also scourged the Pharisees with the power of his word. This is what the Church is called to do: to defend the faith decisively.

Yep. The Magisterii of the Church don’t always do that as they should, but they have the authority and responsibility to do that, in all meekness and humility.

Also, the Council definition of the Church as the “People of God” is not accurate

I have no reason to believe you even know what their definition of the Church as the “People of God” is.

By the way, you might be interested to read this passage from the Catechism of Trent, under Article IX:

“It should not be deemed a matter of surprise that the Church, although numbering among her children many sinners, is called holy. For as those who profess any art, even though they depart from its rules, are still called artists, so in like manner the faithful, although offending in many things and violating the engagements to which they had pledged themselves, are still called holy, because THEY HAVE BEEN MADE THE PEOPLE OF GOD and have consecrated themselves to Christ by faith and Baptism.”

First of all, what is meant by the People of God?

Read LG and you’ll find out.

Being a collective noun it can mean in an ample sense the whole of humanity, because we are all created by God;

The Church obviously doesn’t use “People of God” in that sense.

or the body of all Christians and other peoples that believe in God.

Nor in that sense.

In a restrictive sense it may signify the body of the Catholic faithful, which would be the only meaning acceptable to characterize the Catholic Church.

Bingo!

Still, the Church cannot be equal or identical to her children.

So the Church has no members, eh?

Given that the Church is holy, she cannot be equated with the faithful, since all of us are sinners, from the Pope down.

You really haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about, have you. Please, Charles, read what the Catechism of Trent has to say about the four marks of the Church, particularly the mark of holiness.

The sanctity of the Church derives from its character as a divine institution founded by the Lord, and not from its people.

True, though that does not prove that the Church is not God’s People as you claim. Which, of course, again begs the question of whose people the Church is, since you claim she is not God’s People -- or you claim that the Church has no members.

The fathers of the Council, failed to recognize this distinction, when they state in LG that “the Church as a pilgrim marked on earth with a sanctity that is real, although imperfect” (??).

They didn’t say anything that the Catechism of Trent didn’t say about the holiness of the People of God. If you have a problem with “the Church as a pilgrim marked on earth with a sanctity that is real, although imperfect,” then you should also take the Council of Trent to task for the catechism it produced.

Your comment demonstrates the kind of trouble that Catholics get themselves into when they set themselves up as those who will teach the Church, instead of letting their Mother teach them.

As to the question of Bugnini’s masonry, we may consider it unsettled

We may also consider unsettled the question of whether or not you have stopped beating your wife, Charles.