Catholics, in their ecumenical work, must assuredly be concerned for their separated brethren, praying for them, keeping them informed about the Church, making the first approaches toward them. But their primary duty is to make a careful and honest appraisal of whatever needs to be done or renewed in the Catholic household itself, in order that its life may bear witness more clearly and faithfully to the teachings and institutions which have come to it from Christ through the Apostles.
Unitatis Redintegratio, 4
Some Australian Bishops seem to be on their way to distort all Sacraments of the Church. For decades, in Queensland, an invalid form of Baptism was tolerated by a local Bishop - until the very late intervention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Now, a "Joint Confirmation" was being planned in New South Wales for next May - Anglican pseudo-confirmations conferred by the local Anglican leader in Newcastle and Catholic confirmations conferred by the Bishop of Maitland-Newcastle. This spectacle of Sacramental confusion was being encouraged by the local Bishop, until the (timely) intervention of the Congregation for Divine Worship. As The Herald reports, "Rome intervened, forcing its cancellation, citing the possibility of 'confusing messages' being given to churchgoers".
77 comments:
It's a bit like the confusing messages conveyed when the Pope prays with infidels in a synagogue or a mosque.
P.K.T.P.
Zing!
Bishop Declan-Lang in the diocese of Clifton, UK has a joint neo-catholic-Anglican education initiative going for educating children. This genre of bastardising the faith is current in many places. The NO service is responsible - it is so defective that it reduces its attendees to the level of protestantism. Confusion and deviation abounds. The law of prayer......the law of belief equation is inescapable. There are very emphatic tendencies towards paganism in the modern church. The compromises have wrecked unity and harmony. Our Blessed Lady's admonitions are all but ignored by those who should know better. However, they no longer do. Unfortunately, all post-conciliar popes share the blame for this. It is futile to make excuses. When Our Blessed Lady tells us to pray for the holy father it is for this reason among others. He is as much in danger as being a danger himself to the faith of others.
I believe that the Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Virginia, USA, jointly administers a parish with the local Episcopal diocese. The parishioners worship together for the Liturgy of the Word and then separate for the Liturgy of the Eucharist. This was the situation as I knew it in the early 1990's. Does anyone else have information on this peculiar arrangement and whether or not it continues?
They will unjustifiably harass and falsely accuse traditionalists of anti-semitism or schism but they fail to perceive the beam in their own eyes. The great chastisement had better be taken seriously because it is here already. The loss of faith is even now momentous. The enemy is closing in on all sides from West to East. For those who love life, they will very soon have to fight for it. The demonic armies of death are surrounding us and there are "useful idiots" aplenty in the neo-Catholic church to assist them.
How many Vatican II moments have we had to put up with since 1965? The list seems endless. But the Vatican says the SSPX must accept all of Vatican II and the teachings of all the popes since 1965. However, Pope Benedict XVI said this in this Letter to the Bishops Accompanying Summorum Pontificum:
"Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion."
Hard to bear? That's putting it mildly. But, you see, the SSPX in their staunch defense of Tradition apparently is allowed no such leeway. Again, however, no one from the Vatican is willing to say exactly what must be acknowledged or assented to by the SSPX. They use buzz words like "they must accept Vatican II" and "the authority of the popes" or the titles of documents like Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate, and Dignitatis Humanae, but they do not get into specifics. Ah, but there's the rub, specifics. If one is not specific, then one cannot be challenged, eh?
It is unreal. The Church needs the staunch defense of Tradition exhibited by the SSPX who, by their recent actions, have submitted to this Pope's authority only to have the "faculties" question thrown back in their face. The Pope has at his disposal a fully armed, traditional clergy able to dispel any doubt about the essentials of the Catholic Faith to aspiring Catholics and they remain at arm's length from the "official church" at least in the eyes of some senior church leaders. And, by the way, it's not just the SSPX but many smaller traditional groups that are ostracized and kept at arm's length.
Now we've been told that the Pope and senior curia officials are undergoing a retreat this week in the Vatican. One wonders if during their private meditations they think of the road ahead with incredible obstacles presented by the Father of Lies and his minions and, most importantly, what they can do to counteract such activity? It is time now for action and removal of the remaining sanctions against the SSPX must take place immediately for the sake of Justice and the Salvation of Souls.
Bishop of the Diocese of Toowoomba, William Morris in Australia too has been under investigation, claiming he is "being dobbed bt the temple police"
So... the Church steps in and prevents an abuse, and then the venemous traitors of the SSPX jump in here and use it as yet another occasion to spit bile into the face of His Holiness.
It would be nice if the SSPX purged itself of the Anti-Semites, Pelagians, Semi-Marcionites, Sedevacantists and protestant revolutionists which pollute its rank ranks. Supposing that there would even be anyone left at all after such a purge... those who would be left would probably make good Catholics.
I do find it a bit funny that there are some who think themselves smarter and more Catholic than Pope Benedict XVI. Funny, but tragic. May God preserve our Pope and give the Church victory over her many enemies.
This is for Adeodatus comment. Are you a novus ordo bishop in disguise? Just wondering...the comments are a sure give-a-way.
Isn't Adeodatus the name of St. Augustine's illegitimate son?
A Novus Ordo bishop wouldn't know his history that well.
This guy Adeodatus is not catholic; just a papolatrer...
...nevertheless, he is a fine troll and an excellent useful idiot of the modernists.
Well, that's the first time I've heard the SSPX get accused of Pelagianism. Usually people call them Jansenists. They never explain why, though.
LeonG
Your comments indicate a fundamentalist Protestant approach:
1) It is Catholic teaching that it the Holy Spirit (through the cardinals) who chooses the pope. You attack those popes who came after Vatican II and thus attack Catholic teaching.
2) You go on about the alleged private revelations concerning Our Lady. Catholic teaching is that even private revelations which are approved do not have to be believed by Catholics. However, fundamentalist Protestants are big believers in private revelation.
3) The term "great chastisement: is one which is common in fundamentalist Protestantism, but is not found in official documents of the Catholic Church.
4) You state that the Missal of Paul VI is responsible for the chaos and is defective. Yet, the missal was approved the authorities of the Church. Benedict XVI clearly stated in his letter concerning Summorum Pontificum that both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms are 2 expressions of the SAME rite. In other words, the pope disgrees with you.
As Adeodatus said, there are some on this blog who (are so arrogant that they) think they are more Catholic than the pope.
LeonG: Can you prove that you are a Catholic by quoting official Catholic documents to back your opinions? I suspect that you are a fundamentalist Protestant who is seeking to cause dissention on Catholic blogs.
Anonymous: your bitter comments regarding Adeodatus lack charity. Scripture says where there is charity God is present. By extension, comments not made in charity do not come from God. If they do not come from God, they can come from only one other source - the Devil. If this comment makes you angry and brings you to make uncharitble posts regarding me, you will prove my point.
It is alleged in the link that something similar has happened in England. Does anyone know what this refers to?
Alban: Very clever manipulation technique. Saul Alinsky would be proud of you!
Goodness Alban, you have said what I've thought about LeonG for some time. He really is close to protestantism in what he says in his posts - even though he speaks about the Blessed Mother. Of course, he could be a Catholic charismatic - they have been seriously infected by protestant thinking. LeonG is full of opinion and attacks the Church authorities - no faithful Catholic would do such a thing. I agree. I think he is a plant. Or worse - an ultra liberal Catholic pretending to be orthodox.
Oh, I had to laugh at your final comment to anonymous. I wonder ig her will prove you right. Don't you hate it when people lack the courage to declare their name?
Mr Hanley - while I totally agree that the SSPX have striven to remain Catholic the bishops are guilty of schism and they must (as the Vatican has said) give full affirmation to Vatican II. Until then they cannot be fully reconciled and will continue to celebrate invalid marriages and hear invalid confessions (clergy need jurisdiction for these, and the SSPX lack this).
Remember that several of the Vatican II documents are "Dogmatic Constitutions" and so must be accepted. This applies to all Catholics, both 'left' and 'right'. The Holy Father has the knowledge and wisdom necesary - more than us. If he is holding back on the SSPX he must have excellent reasons. We need to be patient and trust the pope.
Alban
Catholic charity being the love of truth, the lack of it departs from Adeodatus when he accuses SSPX of anti-semitism, pellagianism, marcionism, sedevacantism and protestantism, without proving it!
You should remembered such fact, before you have done your really uncharitable comment...
Anonymous: Thank you, but it is simply good logic. I am flattered by the link to Alinsky. He was a severe critic of rampant liberalism, and with that he and I are in concord. However, he was also a Marxist, and in that respect he and I differ significantly.
As to your post: you respond but without invective; that is also amusingly clever as you rob me of my point. I like that!
Anonymous: Oh, I think I now have my point after all.
I agree that that Adeodatus lacks charity in his allegations regarding the SSPX. However, he does not accuse the SSPX, per se, of being anti-semitic, sedevacantist et al. He states that the Society needs to purge itself of such people, and with that I (and probably you) wholeheartedly agree. At the risk of being accused of claiming divine omniscience, I think that Adeodatus is rather tired of self-proclaimed orthodox Catholics claiming to be more knowledgeable/informed and more Catholic than Benedict XVI. Surely, you and I would agree on this point, as well.
Oh, apart from Augustine's son, wasn't there a pope who also carried the name Adeodatus?
Remember that several of the Vatican II documents are "Dogmatic Constitutions"
Well, two of them are. Not quite "several." There is also a "pastoral constitution" (whatever that is) which has some good bits but otherwise should probably best be ignored. All of the rest of Vatican II's documents are of lesser weight and authority, though authoritative nevertheless.
Alban: Then you can tell your friend Adeodatus to turn his guns on those who caused this chaos and confusion. If all of you had reacted 44 years ago towards them as you now do to traditionals, there wouldn't be a divided Church today. I mean this quite sincerely.
Anonymous: I do not know your heart, so I cannot question your sincerity.
Nor, do I believe that the Church is in chaos. The Acts of the Apostles tell us, more than once, of disgareement within the early Church, and I believe that is where we are today. Tension, yes. Chaos, I think not. I grow daily in trust of the Holy Spirit and in His guiding hand.
I have grown weary of the pointing of fingers at others. None of us stands innocent in this fray. Those of us who consider ourselves be orthodox Catholics have also played a part in causing scandal by the uncharitable way we have sometimes attacked those who are 'liberal' in the Church. Common decency and good manners have been lost on both sides, and this must surely bring sadness to the heart of God. Just as I do not question your sincerity, nor do I doubt the sincerity of those who are more liberal than I in terms of liturgy or morality - no matter how much I disagree with their position.
Whomever causes schism, whether it be the Polish National Church (which broke away in the late 19th century) or the SSPX, damages the Church, Christ's Body, and causes scandal. Whether it is from the 'right' or 'left' is irrelevant.
We ourselves, in our own lives, harm the Body of Christ whenever we act without charity, and in this, I too have been guilty. I struggle to remember: "In God's time. Not in mine."
Let us keep each other in prayer. I mean this quite sincerely.
Going back to a previous posting.. We in Portland, OR have a joint Lutheran/Catholic parish called, "Mission of the Atonement." They apparently worship together up to the point of receiving Communion where they "go their own ways" so-to-speak. I find it so disappointing and frustrating that Archbishop Vlazny will allow this to take place in his diocese yet will shun the SSPX congregation when their chapel gets vandalized or defaced..
It is Catholic teaching that it the Holy Spirit (through the cardinals) who chooses the pope. You attack those popes who came after Vatican II and thus attack Catholic teaching.
I'm not sure that this is really the case but even if it is I'm not sure it's necessarily a good argument. After all, God chose Saul to be king of the Israelites in order to punish them. Similarly, the Holy Ghost might choose a Pope in order to punish the Church.
penicuik said...
Mr Hanley - while I totally agree that the SSPX have striven to remain Catholic the bishops are guilty of schism and they must (as the Vatican has said) give full affirmation to Vatican II. Until then they cannot be fully reconciled and will continue to celebrate invalid marriages and hear invalid confessions (clergy need jurisdiction for these, and the SSPX lack this).
I presume you meant " Mr Haley" not "Mr Hanley" but I will take your remarks for what they are. You say that the SSPX bishops are guilty of schism. Can your prove this statement since Cardinal Hoyos has stated just the opposite and, as well, Count Neri Capponi one of the foremost canon lawyers of our time says they are not in schism. Cardinal Hoyos says they simply are not yet in full communion. Do you argue with Cardinal Hoyos? On top of all that, Pope Benedict XVI recently ordered their excommunications rescinded and that was done by the Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops. So, on what basis do you pronounce them guilty of schism?
Do you understand the words calumny and slander? How about libel? Apparently, you do not believe the Church is in crisis and that is certainly up for debate but the status of the SSPX bishops most definitely is not up for debate. They are within the Church and are currently without faculties because the suspension remains in effect. But they are validly consecrated bishops however illicit that consecration may have been. They lack jurisdiction but even that matter is currently under discussion with the Holy See.
“1) It is Catholic teaching that it the Holy Spirit (through the cardinals) who chooses the pope. You attack those popes who came after Vatican II and thus attack Catholic teaching.”
Not to totally agree with Leon but this is not a very good argument.
If I criticize JPII for letting pagans worship on sacred Church ground, kissing the Koran, and declaring that schismatics can be martyrs (just to name some examples) I’m criticizing his non-binding opinions and scandalous activities which are obviously not Catholic teaching. The Pope isn’t a super-impeccable entity that every time he breathes is infallible.
”4) You state that the Missal of Paul VI is responsible for the chaos and is defective. Yet, the missal was approved the authorities of the Church. Benedict XVI clearly stated in his letter concerning Summorum Pontificum that both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms are 2 expressions of the SAME rite. In other words, the pope disgrees with you.”
Although not totally responsible it is inferior to the TLM in so far that it Catholic doctrine that the Mass suppose to communicate to people has been watered down (such as the prayers, symbolisms and optional forms). Hence when externals do not communicate Catholicity that well the reinforcement of Catholic doctrine weakens and so does the sense of the sacred. As a result reverence decreases and error increases.
Further, it is very much possible that a Pope can be mistaken on an act of discipline such as allowing for an inferior Mass to be fabricated by a commission who sought protestant advice and whose head (Bugnini) disobeyed Paul VI when he was ordered to submit the 1969 GIRM draft to the CDF. He also stated that “"We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants."
Hardly the guy you want to head the commission for constructing a Mass huh?
Also clearly allowing for Communion in the hand and Communion standing are two more examples of mistakes.
“The Pope disagrees with you.” Really? Because Pius XII would disagree with Paul VI for allowing ancient customs to come back (for example). “That’s because it’s a matter of discipline.” Exactly and Paul VI was wrong and the New Mass is inferior to the TLM; a side by side comparison reveals this.
Once the new Mass prayers are made flexible enough to be interpreted in an un-Catholic way a belief in the Real Presence and Real Sacrifice will fall. The New Mass has achieved in being flexible and watered down enough to where this is possible. In fact there is positive protestant reaction to it (reaction that explicitly states they were happy that the Mass was brought closer to their theology) and there were some protestant sects that were actually using the Novus Ordo in their services because they can interpret the prayers into their own erroneous theology.
The Church can very much approve of an inferior liturgy without infringing upon infallibly.
"It's a bit like the confusing messages conveyed when the Pope prays with infidels in a synagogue or a mosque."
We have JP II to thank/blame for all of this.
If the SSPX bishops were in schism then the excommunications could not have been lifted. Therefore they are not in schism. Q.E.D.
A lot of Catholics are more Catholic than the Pope. Saints, for example. Who was more Catholiclast decade, then Pope JPII or then Cardinal Ratzinger (a non-Pope more Catholic than the Pope)? Was Saint Athanasius more Catholic than his Pope(s)? How about a lowly holy monk in, shall we say, close communion with the saints? If you're talking about theology, is the Pope always selected because he is the best theologian?
The point being, many Catholics may well be "more Catholic than the Pope". He's the Pope, not necessarily the most Catholic person in the world, or even necessarily close to it.
I know my dog is more Catholic than many bishops. At least she obeys her Catholic boss.
Whatever happened at St. Mary's with Fr. Kennedy? Is he gone yet (please God), or is it an embarrassing defeat for the forces of reform?
Is it just me or does that guy look like Tim Russert?
Adeodatus, what a curious comment!
Are we to suppose that no one is ever more catholic than the reigning pontiff of the time? And if this is so how do we then resolve the following conundrum:
May one pope, (say Pope Benedict XVI) be more or less catholic than another, (say Pope John-Paul II)?
As to the multiferious heresies of which you accuse the SSPX, these seem to be a lot less the ones that are more easily perceived in most ordinary catholic dioceses - perhaps your comment is that the SSPX is marginally better than most catholic organisations?
I guess somebody forgot to tell Our Lady that SSPX was in schism. Hey, maybe Tim Russert can do it since he's up there and down here, both.
On Jordanes's comment:
I've mentioned this before. The fact that a document has the term 'dogmatic' in it does not make it a de fide dogmatic document. Vatican II documents are dogmatic only to the extent that they repeat previously-proclaimed dogma. Period. So they do contain dogma. But they don't contain any NEW dogma and that is what is critical. There is nothing NEW, for example, in Dignitatis Humanæ which is dogmaitc.
My approach to Vatican II is simply to ignore it. I live as if it never happened. There are so many more interesting church documents to read from before the 1960s.
A N.O. priest once complained to me that 'you traditionalists never quote from Vatican II. Why is that?' My reply was, 'You modernists never quote from any other Council, and act as if V. II was the first œcumenical council ever. Why? When was the last time *you* quoted a passage from Lateran IV from the pulpit?'. That shuts them up. Some of the smarter of them will try then to argue that Vatican II is quoted as if it's the only council ever because it's the most recent one. 'Oh, I'll reply, Then between 1870 and 1965, everyone was quoting Vatican I constantly and ignoring Trent?'
P.K.T.P.
I live in the Brisbane archdiocese and no Father Kennedy from St Marys at this point has not gone.He refuses to leave, his congregation is supporting him and our local paper keeps publishing articles in support of him and attacking the Catholic church for its harsh stance against "poor Father Kennedy". Our archbishop is very liberal and is too afraid to remove him forcefully and now wants to send in a mediator. We will have to wait and see what happens.
If Pope Benedict said that the Traditional Mass was never abrogated, when did the decree "Quo Primum" become so?
A.M. LaPietra
I've mentioned this before. The fact that a document has the term 'dogmatic' in it does not make it a de fide dogmatic document.
That’s not the traditional approach to a dogmatic constitution. If the Pope and the bishops in union with him tell us that a document is dogmatic, then it’s dogmatic.
Vatican II documents are dogmatic only to the extent that they repeat previously-proclaimed dogma.
Or if they teach something in a dogmatic constitution, which amounts to the same thing if the constitution does not define a doctrine. Dogmatic constitutions are dogmatic constitutions, and therefore are dogmatic. Our Holy Mother Church prepared and ratified two such documents at Vatican II. The other Vatican II documents are of another character, though they at times include reiterated dogma.
So they do contain dogma. But they don't contain any NEW dogma and that is what is critical.
Not really, because not all of what the Church holds to be true is at the level of dogma.
There is nothing NEW, for example, in Dignitatis Humanæ which is dogmaitc.
No, it is a conciliar declaration, of less weight and authority than a dogmatic constitution.
My approach to Vatican II is simply to ignore it. I live as if it never happened.
I understand what you mean, and above I advised that generally speaking G&S is probably best to be ignored. Even so you’re not ignoring Vatican II now, and I submit that in the strictest sense it is really impossible for any Catholic truly to live as if it never happened. It changed too many things, and the pre-Vatican II culture of the Church is irretrievably lost, for worse and for better. Important elements of it still survive, and always will. But Catholics can’t just ignore an oecumenical council: it has to be accepted, interpreted, understood, and, to the extent necessary, explained or explained away.
I advise the moderators of this blog to go to "Mercury News" through Google and also enter Mahony and Williamson in the Google search engine. Cardinal Baloney has signed a statement which apparently makes him a material heretic. The statement also makes Cardinal Baloney a liar, unless we assume that his knowledge of Canon Law is about the same as that of your average two year old.
Go see.
P.K.T.P.
Thanks, Mr. Perkins. That was first brought to readers' attention here this week by Mr. Rick DeLano in the "Wagner affair over" commentbox. I don't know if any of Rorate's contributors are planning a weblog post about it. My own ability to do so is hindered by a number of factors, such as computer harddrive troubles . . . and preparations for the fast-approaching due date of our sixth child.
There are some very supercilious comments here regarding SSPX - the very tenor of these remarks betrays an almost total lack of understanding of the situation & the role of the SSPX. Better that these individuals stay mute rather than make public display of their ignorance.
Furthermore, to place one's faith entirely in the hands of one man, even a Pope, is to misunderstand the role of the holy father & our responsibilities and duties as Roman Catholics. In these unusual times it is preferable to place personal trust in the consistent teachings of The Church and Her authentic interpretation of Sacred Scripture. These are very confusing times. The post-conciliar papacies are born out of modernism and the orientation is liberalist. Pope St Pius X has given us teachings in abundance to direct our faith in times of "silent apostasy". This is why the modern church ignores him as he is irreconcilable with this process.
A good example of this blind papolatry has been to follow inculturated liturgy propagated by the last papacy and to further encourage this liturgical disorientation because it was favourably disposed. The inculturated liturgical forms are defective replete with illicit behaviours. Furthermore, the ecumenical policies of the post-conciliar papacies have reduced The Church to the status of one religious institution among many.
But, for the infiniteth time, Pope Paul VI denied Vatican II had anything newly dogmatic in it. No new dogmas, unless you wish to argue the Papal Stupidity Doctrine, which is also not dogmatic.
On Jordanes's comments:
1. There is absolutely nothing new which is infallible in the Council documents.
2. It is true that we are not allowed deliberately to refuse to accept all non-infallible dogma. However, we are not bound to discover it and therefore not bound to assent to it specifically unless it is presented to us for that purpose.
3. The degree of assent required of any conciliar document is determined by the Sacred Magisterium. So, until we know what degree of assent is required of us, we are not required to interpret any such document in any particular way; we are only required to give to it a prudential assent, and not one of Faith.
4. A "Dogmatic Constitution" merely implies that a certain document is more authoritative than others. It does NOT mean that there need be any NEW dogma contained in it, only that some dogma is contained in it. It might include new dogma but it also might not. Similarly, other documents not bearing this title might include new dogma--or not.
4. We may never be required to assent to anything which contradicts the traditional teaching of the Church.
It follows logically that we are allowed to live as Catholics as if it was never written. A lady living, say, in rural Portugal might not notice any new teaching in sermons at Church and might simply live exactly as she did before 1965. If she can do so, so may we--and I certainly do.
Another gent living in, say, Oklahoma, might simply opt never to read a single word of it.
The fact that I write about these documents does not mean I have read them or know them. I can know of someone without knowing the person.
Yes, we are allowed to live as if the Council never sat. And we are allowed to protect our children from its every word, raising them as if it never happened.
I strongly advise everyone I know to read the infallible teaching of my favourite Councils, including Trent and Vatican I. My favourite Council will always be Lateran IV of 1215, with its anathemas.
P.K.T.P.
When we see headlines such as the one in the reference below then we know these are not normal times in the Church. Place your trust in God, not man - this is certainly the year of St Paul.
March 4th, 2009
Anti-Darwin speaker gagged at Vatican evolution conference
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/03/04/anti-darwin-speaker-gagged-at-vatican-evolution-conference/
Jordanes,
Congratulations on your sixth child :) My wife and I are also expecting our sixth, due in June.
God Bless,
Martin
I stumbled upon another bit of news in regard to the S.S.P.X. Apparently, Bishop Gerhard Müller of Regensburg has proclaimed that the Society bishops are forbidden to ordain priests, since, by accepting the remission of the censure of excommunication, they recognised the Pope and yet now have the status of clerics who are suspended a divinis [since 1976].
The truth is that, when the four bishops thanked the Pope for remission of the 1988 decree, they added a note that the Society has never accepted the validity of any excommunication in the first place. Müller, therefore, has it wrong.
Society ordinarations are coming up in Germany, apparently. I imagine they will take place within the Diocese of Regensburg. Müller might be implying that he will re-excommunicate the Society bishop who administers them, and the priests who receive them. He can excommunicate those within his territory under certain grounds (just as Bishop Bruskewicz tried to excommunicate Society priests some years ago).
That cannot be Williamson, who cannot step foot on German soil. I imagine that it means Tissier or Fellay, de Galarreta having returned to Argentina.
This may put yet more pressure on the Pope to grant faculties to the Society members. Imagine how embarrassing it would be for a reigning Pope to be overrided by one of his bishops.
P.K.T.P.
Jordanes, congrats on the baby.
"Anti-Darwin speaker gagged at Vatican evolution conference"
Well, that's a typical Reuters inaccurate and sensationalistic headline. The video does show that they took the microphone from him, but only after requests that he finish his statement and submit a question.
And I say that even though I think this Darwinism conference is at the least an embarrassment to the Church. It will mislead Catholics and others into believing that the Church has endorsed some form of evolutionary theory, that one may believe in evolution without stopping to consider the grave difficulties there are in making it fit with the teachings of the Church. The Church should be issuing warnings about Darwinism and even formally condemning certain aspects of it (but she won't do that and have the Galileo albatross hung around her neck again), not in effect endorsing it with this pseudo-scientific conference.
Didn't Paul VI say that Vatican II was THE Council of the Church, greater than even Nicae? Wasn't Benedict XVI one of the main architects of this Council? There are German Protestant theologians who reckon him to be THE architect of Vatican II, more so than even Rahner.
I note that Bishop Williamson turns 69 years old on Sunday and that, next Thursday, the Church commemorates the memory of Pope St. Gregory the Great.
Unless the Pope grants faculties to the S.S.P.X, it will be possible for such men as Bishop Müller and Cardinal Mahony to 'declare' re-excommunications for Society bishops and priests. Bishop Bruskewicz did it, why not them?
Of course, the Society will not recognise such excommunictions: unjust ordinances are not bad laws; rather, they fail to qualify as law. But this will make the Pope look very bad. That would not be good for any process of reconciliation.
Now is the time to renew our prayer.
P.K.T.P.
To Jordanes & Aeodatus:
Aeodatus is a BLEEP.
He appears to be a fifth columnist intent on dislodging the Traditionalist Movement.
As to the doctrine of the Holy Ghost inspiring an Oecumenical Council, I have serious doubts this is so. Too many heretical and radical forces worked to destroy the Church at VII to warrant Divine Inspiration, as well as the lack of unanimity. It is known that of the total number of bishops convened at least five of them did not sign it, or at least their signatures do not show on those. Likewise, Cardinal Ottaviani had serious discrepancies with the document Sacrosantum Concilium on the Liturgy, as well as other documents, and it is also known that those documents were put forward for him to sign when he was seriously ill, and completely blind, and so there is no guaranty that he knew what he was signing.
As to the infallibility of the Dogmatic Constitutions, I have expressed before my opinion that they are not binding, and since Jordanes' opinion is that they are, I do not see any transgression of the faithful if they do not comply. Nowhere in those documents there is an express condemnation of the faithful if they do no follow them.
By the way, the faithful were not taken into account, except for certain people invited as observers, including heretical Protestants, but the Liturgical Reform was imposed on the laity without their consent.
Charles Dupuy
On the Cardinal Baloney debate, I can't seem to post under that topic, so I'll put it here for now:
1. According to "Mercury News", dated 3 March, 2009, in a "signed" commentary by Roger Cardinal Baloney and two members of the "American Jewish Committee" of that same date, Baloney said, "Williamson . . . is not--and may never become--a member [of] the Catholic Church".
2. Anyone who is not a member of the Catholic Church may become such a member, usually owing to the teaching on Free Will, which is infallible dogma in virtue of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church. In all cases, anyone who is not a member can become one because God's grace is not limited by human circumstances, and God can lead anyone into His Church. To deny this is to deny His omnipotence and His sufficient and superabundant love for mankind proved by the Cross, all infallible teachings.
3. Therefore, were Williamson not a member of the Catholic Church, he could become such a member.
4. To deny that non-member may become a member of the Catholic Church is to deny infallible dogma; it is to replace the judgement of God with the judgement of Baloney.
5. "Those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are, at the same time, proposed as divinely revealed, either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which is manifested by the common adherence of Christ's faithful under the guidance of the Sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to shun any contrary doctrines" (Canon 750).
6. "Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after Baptism, of a truth which must be believed by the divine and Catholic Faith" (Canon 751).
7. "a heretic incurs a latæ sententiæ excommunication. . . " (Canon 1364.1).
Now we might be dealing with only 'material heresy' here, since Baloney is known to be a stupid man. But if he should adhere to this notion pertinaciously after a canonical warning, he could incur the penalty of reserved for heresy as foreseen in the Code. Richard Williamson, his brother bishop, could begin this process of correction of this ignoramus by informing him that his written words contradict the clear teaching of the Magisterium of the Church and are materially heretical. Should such a warning from a kind brother be insufficient, it may be necessary to proceed further through the tribunals of the Church, for the good of souls.
SECONDLY, Bishop Williamson would also have a second cause against Cardinal Baloney. The bad Cardinal claims that "Williamson . . . is not . . . a member [of] the Catholic Church". This is cause for a suit of defamation should it be untrue.
1. It is generally known that Bishop Williamson was received into the Church in London in 1971 by the Oratorians, who, unlike Cardinal Baloney, are apparently not material heretics.
2. This London is a City in England, not any part of Los Angeles, which is a City in the U.S.A.
3. In order to be admitted to the Church, he must have supplied proof of valid baptism or been baptised (cf. Canon 205), unless Cardinal Baloney is alleging that the Oratorians admitted him to the Church invalidly. If that is the case, the Oratorians also have a case against Baloney.
4. It is difficult to see how Cardinal Baloney could gain access to the files of the Archdiocese of Westminster, in London, to determine that he was invalidly admitted to the Church. If he has such access, we can only hope that other bishops have access to his files to look up the priest-predators he has been hiding from the law.
5. As far as I know, Bishop Williamson has not left the Church by a formal act. It follows that he remains a Catholic.
6. I have failed to find the Canon which claims that one ceases to be a Catholic for denying a point of secular history, especially balderdash dreamed up by infidels such as the Jews.
P.K.T.P.
And I add my congratulations on your sixth child also, Jordanes, and my appreciation to your wife for being a great Mom.
May he be a loyal Catholic, like his Dad. Unless he is a girl, of course, and then may he be like his Mom. Of course, then he would be a she.
Where's that Long-Skirts when you need her?
The problem does not lie with Reuters or its headlines - it lies squarely with The Church's leadership that has separated itself from the exclusivity of the divine mandate and has compromised it by embracing the world with its squalid philosophies and its pagan attitudes. Such a headline would have been impossible and unthinkable prior to the Vatican Councils. Will it be that long before we hear Tauran lauding the mohametans once again, on this occasion for defending the Creation paradigm in Europe against this subjectivised atheistic evolutionist "hypothesis". One which insults its opponents with immature displays of name-calling and false accusations of fundamentalism or lunacy. Have we not recycled this witness in the face of the appalling outbursts against Williamson: shut up, sit down and stop being silly. What type of argument is this?
Here's another post-Vatican II moment.
"Creationists, Intelligent Design Advocates Blast Vatican for Not Inviting Them to Evolution Conference"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,505385,00.html
Didn't Paul VI say that Vatican II was THE Council of the Church, greater than even Nicae?
Not that I’m aware of. Does anybody have a quote from Paul VI saying something like that?
Wasn't Benedict XVI one of the main architects of this Council?
No, but he was one of the periti, and he obviously thinks Vatican II was generally a good thing.
There are German Protestant theologians who reckon him to be THE architect of Vatican II, more so than even Rahner.
If there are German Protestant theologians who think that, they are welcome to their opinion. Protestants aren’t reliable authorities for matters pertaining to the Catholic Church.
Unless the Pope grants faculties to the S.S.P.X, it will be possible for such men as Bishop Müller and Cardinal Mahony to 'declare' re-excommunications for Society bishops and priests. Bishop Bruskewitz did it, why not them?
Cardinal Mahony has virtually declared an excommunication of the SSPX, by claiming falsely that Bishop Williamson is not a member of the Church and implying that the rest of the SSPX members aren’t either.
Of course, the Society will not recognise such excommunications: unjust ordinances are not bad laws; rather, they fail to qualify as law. But this will make the Pope look very bad.
If they proceed with ordinations that flout Church law, it will make them look bad too, like they are not very serious about reconciliation. (While a Bruskewitz-style excommunication may be an unjust ordinance, the canon requiring the local ordinary’s permission for ordinations within his jurisdiction is not.)
Mr. Perkins said: There is absolutely nothing new which is infallible in the Council documents.
That might be true. Certainly there are no formal dogmatic definitions, but then the Church has various organs and modes of infallible teaching.
It is true that we are not allowed deliberately to refuse to accept all non-infallible dogma. However, we are not bound to discover it and therefore not bound to assent to it specifically unless it is presented to us for that purpose.
True, but then I know this point certainly doesn’t apply to me, perhaps it doesn’t to you either. I’m no longer ignorant of what the Church taught at Vatican II, and you seem to be pretty familiar with those teachings too.
The degree of assent required of any conciliar document is determined by the Sacred Magisterium. So, until we know what degree of assent is required of us, we are not required to interpret any such document in any particular way; we are only required to give to it a prudential assent, and not one of Faith.
True.
A "Dogmatic Constitution" merely implies that a certain document is more authoritative than others.
More than almost any other. It also states, not merely implies, that it contains dogmatic teaching.
It does NOT mean that there need be any NEW dogma contained in it, only that some dogma is contained in it. It might include new dogma but it also might not. Similarly, other documents not bearing this title might include new dogma--or not.
Yes.
We may never be required to assent to anything which contradicts the traditional teaching of the Church.
Absolutely. Clearly at least some of Vatican II’s teachings are in tension with, if not contradiction to, the Church’s traditional teaching.
It follows logically that we are allowed to live as Catholics as if it was never written.
Each of us should pursue the virtues proper to our state in life, and none should be content with a child’s intellectual grasp of the faith, nor is it good to calculatedly remain in ignorance.
The fact that I write about these documents does not mean I have read them or know them. I can know of someone without knowing the person.
If one is not willing to read and attempt to understand documents or a council with which one disagrees, then one really has no business commenting on them at all. That, it seems, is an essential part of living as if the council never sat.
Mr. Dupuy said: As to the doctrine of the Holy Ghost inspiring an Oecumenical Council, I have serious doubts this is so.
I’m pretty sure that it’s not the Church’s faith that the Holy Spirit “inspires” her councils, in the proper sense of “inspiration,” but rather He guides and protects them so that they do not teach error.
Too many heretical and radical forces worked to destroy the Church at VII to warrant Divine Inspiration, as well as the lack of unanimity.
But that would call in question all of the 21 previous general councils. What matters is that the council is lawfully convened, has a good representation of the world’s episcopate, and is approved and confirmed by the Roman Pontiff.
As to the infallibility of the Dogmatic Constitutions, I have expressed before my opinion that they are not binding, and since Jordanes' opinion is that they are, I do not see any transgression of the faithful if they do not comply.
There’s no question that they are binding; the only questions would be in what way and at what level of authority.
Jordanes wrote:
"If one is not willing to read and attempt to understand documents or a council with which one disagrees, then one really has no business commenting on them at all. That, it seems, is an essential part of living as if the council never sat."
This is not true. We can come to believe in God by seeing the beauty of the world. As St. Thomas taught: a created thing implies a creator. The converse is also true. If we see that the fruits of some teaching is all bad, we can comment negatively on the apparent cause.
Some say that the Council teachings are all good but that they include expressive errors rather than doctrinal errors; others say that there are at least some doctrinal errors. Judging, however, from the universal confusion in and decline of the Church following the Council, we can comment on it negatively, and I note that even expressive errors can be extremely serious and can lead souls astray. Astray from churchgoing, astray from the seminaries, astry from religious orders, astray from Catholic schools. What have seen from 1965 to the present is not merely decline by a catastrophic collapse. or example, a 92% decline in priestly vocations as the lay population increased, and a 99% decline for the De La Salle brothers, for example. If the Council didn't cause it, it certainly failed to prevent it.
Also, if I read negative commentaries on the documents and find that these commentaries correspond to changes in Church discipline and praxis, I certainly can conclude without reading the documents that their effect has been noxious. Priests did not suddenly dress up as clowns or wear cheesehead hats in 1215 after Lateran IV. But they did in 1965, after Vatican II.
I choose not to read the documents. Better to nourish one's spiritual life on the dogmas of previous councils, such as Lateran IV and Trent. They inspired devotion and converted much of the world. Go to a good teacher for a good lesson.
My policy is to avoid Vatican II documents as if they were a plague sent from Hell itself.
P.K.T.P.
In response to Jordanes:
Yes, Paul VI did say that. I've read it somewhere or other. Forgot where. It shows how unbalanced he was. In my view, he was the very worst Pope in history, the very worst of the 262. In terms of personal morals, he was apparently fine. But in terms of the effect on the Church, his pusillanimous pontificate was a disaster.
Imagine saying that Vatican II was comparable with Nicæa, the first and greatest of all the councils.
P.K.T.P.
I reiterate that there is no new infallible teaching in Vatican II. It is because no new definitions were rendered. Both Popes of the Council affirmed that there was no new infallible teaching in allocutions before sessions. It was a pastoral council which failed to invoke the conditions stipulated in Vatican I for pronouncing new infallible teaching.
There might be dogma in Vatican II because not all dogma is infallible. Hence there might be teaching we are bound to assent to, although Fr. McDonald, who commentson this on this blog, affirms that there is not.
As for old infallible teaching merely repeated in Vatican II documents, I'd rather get it from documents which are uncontaminated by at least expressive error. We have a right to protect our souls from error.
P.K.T.P.
On my last post, to my recollection, Fr. McDonald quoted a document in Vatican II itself which said that it imposed nothing necessary. He then explained why this meant nothing infallible. Presumably, there is no new dogma anywhere in Vatican II, so all the dogma in the 'Dogmatic Constitution' Lumen Gentium must be old dogma, which is the very best kind.
Cardinal Baloney's kind of doxy might be heterodoxy but my kind of doxy is orthodoxy.
P.K.T.P.
Jordanes writes:
I’m pretty sure that it’s not the Church’s faith that the Holy Spirit “inspires” her councils, in the proper sense of “inspiration,” but rather He guides and protects them so that they do not teach error."
No, the Holy Ghost prevents the Church fathers at the councils from teaching error WHEN they claim to be teaching infallible truth, and not otherwise.
Of course, inspiration can be more than this but there is no guarantee of it.
Where you'll really find the inspiration of God the Holy Ghost is in the constant teaching of the Church down through the ages.
P.K.T.P.
"infidels such as the Jews."
- wow - I didn't know that I had stumbled upon an Islamist website. Same terminology folks. Simply awful.
We can come to believe in God by seeing the beauty of the world. As St. Thomas taught: a created thing implies a creator. The converse is also true. If we see that the fruits of some teaching is all bad, we can comment negatively on the apparent cause.
You’re mistaken. To follow your analogy, those who close their eyes so they cannot see the beauty of the world, or anything else, should not comment negatively about what they think might be the fruits of the (to them) apparent absence of beauty in the world. So, one may consciously elect to remain in ignorance, but in such cases one should not make judgments about what one chooses not to know. Solomon said something like that, I think.
Judging, however, from the universal confusion in and decline of the Church following the Council, we can comment on it negatively
On the confusion and decline, yes, but not on the council, for that would be the post hoc fallacy, and it would also be unedifying and unhelpful, since one has chosen not to know what the council said and did. Attempting to remain ignorant of Vatican II is really to prevent one from understanding what is going on in the Church today and why.
Priests did not suddenly dress up as clowns or wear cheesehead hats in 1215 after Lateran IV.
No, priests in those days who did silly, stupid, vile, and pernicious things tended towards failings that were usually somewhat different from the kinds of absurd things that priests today have been prone to.
My policy is to avoid Vatican II documents as if they were a plague sent from Hell itself.
It’s most inappropriate to compare one of the Church’s general council’s to a plague sent from hell.
Yes, Paul VI did say that. I've read it somewhere or other. Forgot where.
I hope you or someone can track down the quote. Thanks.
In my view, he was the very worst Pope in history, the very worst of the 262.
I’m not exactly a fan of his either, but we’ve definitely had far worse than Paul VI, may he rest in peace.
I reiterate that there is no new infallible teaching in Vatican II. It is because no new definitions were rendered.
That’s not the only way that the Church teaches infallibly, it’s just the clearest and most authoritative way.
Both Popes of the Council affirmed that there was no new infallible teaching in allocutions before sessions.
True, and they were very probably correct, though of course their affirmations were not infallible and thus could be in error. There were certainly no new infallible definitions, though some of the council’s apparently new teaching could be old infallible teaching.
It was a pastoral council which failed to invoke the conditions stipulated in Vatican I for pronouncing new infallible teaching.
I thought Vatican I laid down the conditions for papal infallibility, not conciliar infallibility. I’m not contending that Vatican II did supply new infallible teaching, but just saying that we can’t absolutely affirm that it didn’t. For all we can tell at this time, we could yet see explicit definitions of some of Vatican II’s apparently new teachings.
No, the Holy Ghost prevents the Church fathers at the councils from teaching error WHEN they claim to be teaching infallible truth, and not otherwise.
Sorry, my language was sloppy. What I meant is pretty close to what you said, that the Holy Spirit prevents the Council Fathers from formally teaching error, from binding that on the faithful --- whether or not they explicitly claim to be teaching infallible truth (not that there is any other kind of truth).
Of course, inspiration can be more than this but there is no guarantee of it.
“Inspiration” properly speaking refers to words that are “God-breathed” such that God is their true author. No council has ever been inspired by the Holy Spirit in that sense.
Son of Trypho, I appreciate and understand you're being taken aback by that language.
Nevertheless, in the proper sense non-Christian Jews are, from the Church's perspective, "infidels," persons who do not have the Catholic faith. It is not language Catholics usually use these days, of course, since it is unnecessarily provocative and understandably taken as an insult (and probably sometimes intended as one).
Jordanes writes:
"If they proceed with ordinations that flout Church law, it will make them look bad too, like they are not very serious about reconciliation."
You can't be serious. There is no evidence that they asked for a remission of the censure of excommunication in the understanding that this would mean a cessation in ordaining priests (under supplied jurisdiction).
This is an odd response. The S.S.P.X has never suffered threats of sanction from N.O. bishops before for this. Why should they now? Is the S.S.P.X expected to stop ordaining priests just because the Pope lifted the excommunications? I hardly think so. The Pope is not lifting the censure of excommunication so that they will not be able to ordain priests.
I note that the S.S.P.X, in thanking the Pope for his remission of the 1988 decree, added that it has never accepted the validity of that decree in the first place. In the Society's view, it continues to be acting under supplied jurisdiction. I am not agreeing with this view but that's hardly the point. The point is that the Society will obviously not stop ordaining priests just because the Pope remitted the decree.
Re-excommunications from N.O. bishops would appear to the public to be what they obviously are: a slap in the face to the Pope. That's why the Pope should grant faculties to the Society now. He already looks weak after the L'Affaire Wagner. This would undermine his respect.
P.K.T.P.
Jordanes writes:
"You’re mistaken. To follow your analogy, those who close their eyes so they cannot see the beauty of the world, or anything else, should not comment negatively about what they think might be the fruits of the (to them) apparent absence of beauty in the world. So, one may consciously elect to remain in ignorance, but in such cases one should not make judgments about what one chooses not to know. Solomon said something like that, I think."
No, you've misunderstood the tenor of my analogy. I'm saying only this: that just as a good fruit (the beauty of the world) suggests a good cause, a bad fruit (e.g. priests saying Mass dressed as clowns) suggests a bad cause (Vatican II). My point about not reading dangerous texts (e.g Dignitatis Humanæ) to avoid corruption was separate from this.
If you wish to attack the position, you must argue a fallacy of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'. But I would counter that the amazing plethora of bad fruits, from architecture to the disappearance of Holy Name societies, which immediately followed Vatican II, does suggest a connexion.
P.K.T.P.
Jordanes comments:
"It’s most inappropriate to compare one of the Church’s general council’s to a plague sent from hell."
I was inspired by Michael Davies's comment in one book that, perhaps, John XXIII was inspired to call the Council in session not by the Holy Ghost but by Satan. It shocked me at the time and I wrote him a note about it. An inappropriate comment perhaps but I think it really does serve as overstatement to express the shock, the horror, the revulsion, and especially the irreligion which most of us recognised in the reforms which were enacted IN THE NAME OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL. Such horrors were not enacted after 1215 in the name of Lateran IV. Whatever problems may have followed this Council (which is my favourite one) were not invoked in its name. Same for the others. In fact, what followed Lateran IV was the great flowering of the faith in the thirteenth century, arguably never matched since apostolic times. What followed Trent was the very successful counter-reformation. What followed Vatican II was the annihilation of the faith throughout Europe and much of North America.
The Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is generally misunderstood today, as I teach my students. It does not mean the opposite extreme, that a later event cannot possibly be caused by an earlier one!
What Davies and especially that American lawyer (forgotten his name but I have his statistical report) have shown is that, while Protestant sects declined from 1945 to 1965, the Catholic Church was actually *growing* at a slow but steady rate. This fact is known by very few people: the Church was not just 'holding steady' but actually growing in that period in terms of all the leading indicators.
Then, suddenly, magically, between 1965 and 1967, those numbers did a nosedive. And this continued right through the late 1960s and 1970s. The nosedive did not start with NewMass, concocted by a coven of liberals led by a Freemason and advised by six Protestant ministers; no, that merely helped the decline. But it started with the rendering of the Mass into the vernacular languages, an idea urged but only partially, by . . . Vatican II.
It is reasonable to conclude that the Council was a cause of the decimation, even the chief cause. After all, it claimed to be a pastoral council and openly aimed to address the problems of the modern world so as to revive faith and usher in "a new springtime". Instead, what followed was an ice age, like the endless winter sans Christmas in Narnia. The gardens of delight of the scholastics have been replaced by a desert and a wasteland symbolised by 'ugly as sin' modern church designs and complicated by various subjectivist philosophies.
When you suffer a 95% decline in vocations from 1965 to 2000 and vocations were *increasing* between 1945 and 1965, it is not unreasonable to conclude that this major Council they blather about endlessly was responsibe. The Council opened in 1962, during a period of growth, and it closed in 1965, the very year the decline apparently began. One priest in a documentary in Quebec testified (I'm translating from the French) that, at the beginning of 1966, his downtown Montreal church was full; at the end of the same year, it was more than half empty. Just like magic!
It's called 'the order of causes': Vatican II kills faith and vocations dead.
This does not mean that the Council contains heresy. With the exception of D.H., I think that there is no heresy (and in the case of D.H. I'm not convinced one way or t'other). But people fail to see that expressive errors are abominable in the strict religious meaning of that term. The Church has the SACRED duty not only to proclaim the truth but to do so unequivocally so that souls will not be led astray. This is the very highest sacred duty: salus animarum lex suprema est.
Since the Council fathers clearly failed in their sacred duty, it will now take several decades of clarifications from the C.D.F. to resolve this disaster. In the mean time, the best course is to avoid perusing the poison of Vatican II, for an expressive poison is just as much poison as is a doctrinal one, since BOTH are discordant with truth.
God does not equivocate. Let us, like him, confess the faith "in words as hard as cannonballs". That is what converts the world. The liberals are not Catholic in spirit. They and we do not belong to or profess the same religion.
P.K.T.P.
Jordanes writes:
"That’s not the only way that the Church teaches infallibly, it’s just the clearest and most authoritative way."
Sorry, but in the case of an extraordinary exercise of the Sacred Magisterium, definitions must be rendered and the Magisterium must register its intention to proclaim truth infallibly.
There are other ways to infallibility but they don't come out of written documents at Councils; they come from unanimity in past teaching.
P.K.T.P.
Jordanes writes:
"I thought Vatican I laid down the conditions for papal infallibility, not conciliar infallibility. I’m not contending that Vatican II did supply new infallible teaching, but just saying that we can’t absolutely affirm that it didn’t. For all we can tell at this time, we could yet see explicit definitions of some of Vatican II’s apparently new teachings."
Jordanes is right here in the strict sense because it is the Church's Magisterium, and not we, who decides whether or not any new infallible teachings have been rendered in conciliar documents.
However, we are not bound to believe that such teachings have been rendered if that is not apparent, until told otherwise by the Magisterium, which hasn't happened. Canon 749.3: "No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated".
P.K.T.P.
Jordanes
I understand your comment. I should mention however that I've been appalled by some of the anti-Jewish and anti-semitic commentary on this site the last couple of weeks. I don't think any of the uses fall into the traditional understanding esp. from PKTP, an open holocaust revisionist.
Son of Trypho, I share your dismay at some of the recent commentary to which you refer. Moderating is often a tricky business, and it’s hard sometimes to know which comments to approve for the sake of discussion and which go over the line of sound and edifying discourse. We screen out blatantly antisemitic comments at Rorate, but on the holocaust denial/revision topic many comments that were borderline at best were approved for the sake of ongoing discussion and debate, certainly not because of agreement with their content.
I also want to say that, while I don’t see eye-to-eye with Mr. Perkins on various subjects, in his defense I’m not sure it is entirely accurate or fair to characterise him as “an open holocaust revisionist.” He seems to be perhaps more of an agnostic. Mr. McFarland, however, certainly is a revisionist or denier, based on comments he has posted here recently.
An "open Holocaust revisionist"? This is what Son of Trypho calls me. So, I'll lay my position:
1. First, I don't think much in terms of these terms recently invented by the Holocaust industry, and which I had never even heard of until I read this blog. To me, a denier is someone who disregards weater reports for Vancouver Island. Also, I am confused about the term 'revisionist'. I had always thought that it referred to the positions of he Holocaust industry itself, not the reverse. The idea there was that they had revised history to give to the Holocaust a prominence which is out of proportion to historical truth. The Second World War was not fought over the Holocaust; in fact, most Germans didn't even know it was going on at the time.
2. I don't see the Holocaust as the centre of world history or of twentieth century European history. It's a peripheral event. That's because it was not part of any known policy at the time.
3. Unlike Mr. McFarland, I believe that the Holocaust was a deliberate policy of genocide planned by Hitler and some leading Nazis. However, I am not an expert in this subject and I am open to re-consideration of that.
4. I think that the number six million is too low. In Moral Law, we are responsible for all the people we intend to murder, not only those we succeed in killing: Even to look at a woman with lust in your eye is to commit adultery with her in your heart. Since Hitler et al. meant to kill all the Jews of Europe, he is really responsible for the murder of all of them, including those who escaped (just as the man who drives the getaway car is also guilty of robbery).
5. AS for the number actaully killed in the Holocaust, the number six million was fabricated by the Holocaust industry. All you need to do is to consult various almanacs of the twentieth century. They indicate massive emigration of Jews from Europe during and after the War but no substantial decrease in their number.
Incidentally, I discovered this fact on my own years ago, while looking up something else in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I have the 1907 version with the 1922 supplement. When I saw a 1911 estimate of the total number of Jews in the world as "ten millions", and then compared this to other figures for other years, I couldn't figure out how six million could have been killed. But I didn't give this more thought at the time and accepted the six million number as authoritative.
Then, a few months ago, I looked into this further. I'd now say that the number killed by the Nazis could not have been more than 1.6 million. But this number is wildly high. 1.2 million is more likely. What of Williamson's figure of about 300,000? As far as I can tell, he might be right.
6. On gas. I think that gas was used at least experimentally on the Jews and others, especially in trucks. I have no opinion one way or the other about whether or not there were gas chambers. I do think, however, that Jews were deliberately murdered in large numbers just for being Jewish.
So, I guess this all makes me a 'reductionist'. I might be a reductionist. I did lose some weight last year. More likely, Abe Foxman and company are increasionists.
P.K.T.P.
Jordanes
I draw your attention to point #5 of PKTP's response - quote open about his views and I think its perfectly fair to clearly call him a revisionist/negationist.
I'd also draw you to PKTP's methodology of using antiquated almanacs to argue as proof of his positions - absolutely absurd.
On Jordanes's comments
And I don't see eye-to-eye with Jordanes on various subjects either!
I'd like to step back for a moment and consider positions as positions on various issues.
First of all, Mr. McFarland has rightly warned us against my choosing a sort of via media, as if the truth must be found between two extremes. I agree with him that this is a dangerous notion and suggests Marxist thinking regarding a synthesis.
Yes, it's true: sometimes the truth itself is miscast as an 'extreme'.
On the other side, there certainly are cases in which the truth is generally (dis)regarded as a 'moderate' position between two extremes.
Now that we have that settled, I just call them as I see them. I'll be honest. I really don't like that group in the Church whom I call 'neo-conservatives' or else that group of 'semi-traditionalists'. I would put such characters as Fr. Zuhlsdorf in that category--and many others.
It seems to be that such people start an argument with the conclusion, which they are determined to hold owing to emotions. The conclusion approaches papolatry and sees the papacy in a post-mediæval and Tridentine (and therefore bad) way. These sort of people can love all things traditional but simply refuse to accept data about a pope, say, if it does not fit neatly into their dream-world. The fact, for example, that Benedict XVI was a disciple of Rahner and the fact that he has actually worshipped with infidels in synagogues and mosques simply does not register for such people. Its implications do not register, even though they know damn well that Pope St. Pius X would have preferred martyrdom to what the last two popes have done in this regard.
Such people also want to 'find' that Vatican II is all sweeetness and light, a good thing badly misinterpreted; and they want to find (for example) that six million really were murdered and it is anathemas to suggest otherwise. They want traditional Catholicism to fit neatly into a dream-world in which it becomes at least palatable to our worst enemies. And that is wildly irrational. It is Obama-style dreaming.
On the other side, we have what I call 'archtraditionalists'. They tend to ignore the fact that people such as, say, Benedict XVI, may have changed their minds over various things. They distrust him totally: he is a Modernist entire.
These people think that it is perfectly justifiable to operate independently of the Church hierarchy established by Christ until the Pope himself is converted to their magisterium. Who ultimately decides what tradition is and what comports with it? They do. Even when there is a way to work within Church structures, they refuse on the grounds that the Pope can't be trusted and that it isn't safe. Well, guess what? It will never be safe. We now know how bad things can get, and it will never be 'safe' to trust a pope. But we Catholics don't worry overmuch about it because we put our faith in God, not in the Pope.
I argue in favour of regularisation for the Sociey NOW because this is what I think is morally required of the Society. However, I haven't much urged this lately, since I can see clearly that it is 'off the table'. So, instead, I urge the Pope at least to grant the Soceity clerics faculties until a reconciliation can be effected.
Sadly, this also seems to be less and less a prospect. But I don't blame Williamson. Clearly, the Williamson Affair was planned by our enemies, the liberals. Had they failed to sucker him into that interview, they would have simply cobbled together his past public statements: they are not hard to find!
I think it arguable that, in this period of time, regularisation would not be good, since Rome is still too much under the influence of the Modernists. It may be that a granting of faculties by the Pope for a very long interim (e.g. at least fifty years) would be best. Even under this scheme, the Society would not abandon its argument for supplied jurisdiction but would, for prudential reasons, thank the Pope for granting the faculties. The parallel is their note of thanks for lifting the censures of excommunicaton, in which they affired that they had never accepted the validty of any excommunications in the first place.
While I still pray for something to happen this Thursdays, the Commemoration of St. Gregory the Great, I must say that it now looks as if there will be a cooling off period, for the Society, thanks to the liberals, is now regarded as 'toxic waste'.
What has really happened is that the liberals were 'angry as a nest of hornets' over the decree of 21st January. It seemed to legitimate the Society. To the 99% of non-canonist Mrs. McGillicudys out there, the January decree seemed to 'rehabilitate' the Soceity. Ignorant secular newspapers drew the same conclusions and published them. Therefore, the liberal bishops had to reverse this misconception and also obstruct any further reconciliation.
A dramatic exit from the Society by Williamson would throw a wrench in the liberals' plans. It would give a pusillanimous Pope the opportunity he needs to grant faculties. But it would also risk dividing the Society and breaking its appearance of unity: Archbishop Lefebvre chose four bishops and we still have four. If you parse Rome's words carefully, they never said that W. must exit. They said that he cannot exercise 'priestly ministry', which is a different thing altogether.
The Pope won't want to jeopardise his May visit to Jerusalem, but he also needs to avoid the embarrassment of 're-excommunications in late June in Germany, when the German bishops have threatened to act against Society priestly ordinations. So the decree I am hoping for may come in May or early June, or it may come this Thursday. Let's pray for it. Imagine the situation if obstructionist local bishops could no longer deny that Society Sacraments are licit.
Meanwhile, as the old Celtic saying goes, the Pope 'turns over he sod with his hoe', meaning that the worst of the liberal prelate-heresiarchs are being retired.
P.K.T.P.
I stand corrected, Son of Trypho, thanks to Mr. Perkins refreshing my memory.
Post a Comment