Rorate Caeli

The Council, in Continuity with Tradition:
People of God and Body of Christ
[UPDATED]


The Second Vatican Council, wishing to pass on the pure and integral doctrine on the Church, matured over the course of two thousand years, gave it "a more meditated definition", illustrating mostly its mysterious nature, that is, as "a reality imbued with the divine presence, and for this always capable of new and deeper explorations" (Paul VI, Opening Address to the Second Session, September 29, 1963).
That is, the Church, which has her origin in the trinitarian God, is a mystery of communion. As a communion, the Church is not a solely spiritual reality, but lives in history, that is to say, in flesh and blood. The Second Vatican Council describes her "as a sacrament, or sign and instrument of the intimate union with God and of unity with the entire human race" (Lumen Gentium, 1). And the essence of the sacrament is exactly that [in it] the invisible is touched in the visible, that the touchable visible opens the door unto God himself. The Church, we said, is a communion, a communion of people who, through the action of the Holy Ghost, form the People of God that is, at the same time, the Body of Christ.
Let us reflect a little on these two key concepts. The concept of the "People of God" originated and developed in the Old Testament: to enter in the reality of human history, God elected a particular people, the people of Israel, so that it could be his people. The intent of this particular choice is to reach, through the few, the many, and through the many, all. The intent, in other words, of the particular election is universality. Through this People, God truly enters history in a concrete manner. And this opening to universality is effected on the Cross and by the resurrection of Christ. On the Cross, thus says Saint Paul, Christ destroyed the wall of separation. Giving us his Body, He reunites us in this his Body to make us one single thing. In the communion of the "Body of Christ", all become one single people, the People of God, where - to quote Saint Paul anew - all are one single thing, and there is no longer a distinction, a difference, between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, Hebrew, but Christ is all things in all. He destroyed the wall of distinction of peoples, of races, of cultures: we are all united in Christ. Thus, we see that both concepts - "People of God" and "Body of Christ" - complete each other and jointly form the concept of Church of the New Testament.
And, while "People of God" expresses the continuity in the history of the Church, "Body of Christ" expresses the universality established on the Cross and in the resurrection of the Lord. For us Christians, therefore, "Body of Christ" is not only an image, but a true concept, because Christ gives us the gift of his real Body, not only of an image. Risen, Christ united us all in the Sacrament to make us one single body. Therefore, the concepts of "People of God" and of "Body of Christ" complete each other: in Christ we truly become the People of God. And "People of God" means, therefore, "all": from the Pope to the last baptized infant.
The first Eucharistic Prayer, called the Roman Canon, written in the Fourth Century, distinguishes between the servants - "we Thy servants" - and "plebs tua sancta" ["Thy holy people"]; therefore, it wills a distinction, it speaks of servants and of plebs sancta, and the expression "People of God" expresses all together in their being the Church in common.
Following the Council, this ecclesiological doctrine was widely welcomed and, thanks to God, many good fruits matured in the Christian community. We must also recall, however, that the reception of this doctrine in the praxis and, therefore, its assimilation by the tapestry of the ecclesial conscience did not take place always and everywhere without difficulty and according to a just interpretation.
As I had the occasion to clarify in the address to the Roman Curia of December 22, 2005, an interpretive current, appealing to a supposed "spirit of the Council", intended to establish a discontinuity and even a contraposition between the Church before and the Church after the Council, at times confusing the very objectively existing boundaries between the hierarchical ministry and the responsibility of the lay faithful in the Church.
The notion of the "People of God", in particular, was interpreted by some according to a purely sociological vision, with an almost exclusively horizontal severance, which excluded the vertical reference to God. This position was in open contrast with the word and the spirit of the Council, which did not will a rupture, another Church, but a true and deep renewal, in continuity with the one subject, the Church, which grows in time and develops herself, yet remaining always the same, the one subject of the People of God, on a pilgrimage.
Benedict XVI
May 26, 2009

102 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't like much the opening words, "The Second Vatican Council". They are such unpleasant words.

Other terms I entirely dislike are "The People of God" for God's people (liberals invert it to mention man before God because they follow the Cult of Man); "Liturgy of the Herd" um, I mean, "Word"; "dialogue", especially when misused as a verb; "Justice and Peace", for the correct pairing justice and mercy; "We be church", um, I mean "We are [the] Church"; "outreach" (not a word, and it sounds like an attempt at wallet-snatching), "anger management" for self-control, "closure" when used in reference to problems (correct usage: "after the closure of the beautiful old church sold off by the bishop, demolition began"); "issue", when misused to mean problem (as in "she has issues"), "survivor" in reference to emotional problems, as in "she's a survivor" (to me it conjures up images of overweight people reaching for life rings in the water); "caregiver" (the opposite of caretaker?: someone who throws garbage all over the ground, a synonym for polluter), "grief counsellor" (who would want a perfect stranger to 'counsel' him after a tragedy?); "values" for virtue; "Judeo-Christian standards" for Christian standards (adding Judeo- is superfluous, since Christians are the true Jews and the O.T. is a Christian text); "outage" (not a word: use power failure or blackout); "doable" (not a word: use achievable; it also looks like something being uttered while the mouth is full of food), &c..

We don't need any of this nonsense. We also don't need Vatican II. We can just ignore it. The errors which its ambiguities have spawned only harm the faith. Better just to read Trent, Vatican I, Nicæa and my favourite Councils, Florence and, Lateran IV of 1215. If I were a priest, I'd quote Lateran IV constantly from the pulpit. It would be all "Lateran IV" this and "Lateran IV" that. Parishioners would say, "If I hear one more reference to Latern IV, I will surely scream. Good grief! You'd think it was the only œcumenical council of all time! What does this nut think? Does he think the Church was founded in 1215?".

Here is a favourite quote from a Lateran IV document:

"Catholics who assume the cross and devote themselves to the extermination of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence and privilege as those who go to the Holy Land". I must go, I'm flying to Germany tomorrow to meet Cardinal Kasper.

Is this entry meant to be taken as humourous commentary? Of course it is.

P.K.T.P.

John L said...

P. K. T. P.; since the original address was in Italian, your comments on the associations of the words would need to discuss the Italian text. Even if it was in English, your criticisms of the bad associations that its words have for you personally are not really to the point. In interpreting every speaker, you have to consider what the words mean in the context they use them, not the subjective impressions they leave on you. This basic courtesy is all the more necessary in discussing the words of the successor of the Apostle Peter. I have to say that your comments are arrogant and unfilial.

Chris said...

Again, maybe it's just me, but it seems like very vague and confusing terminology and language. In the end I end up just scratching my head and moving on. Church as a sacrament. People of God, "Body of Christ" all given some nebulous redefinitions...

It's just frustrating. The problem with these addresses is that people can give them whatever meaning they want to, just like VCII.

In this time of unparalleled confusion we need crystal clear, unambiguous, direction.

Again maybe it's just me. maybe I'm simply not enlightened enough or have not studied my existential philosophy, but these addresses simply do nothing for me. It seems like a little of this, a little of that, some verbiage thrown in here and there and voila, an address!

M.A. said...

Add this one to your list, PKTP: "The children will be celebrating First Eucharist."

Rick DeLano said...

Man, am I glad to hear this from the Holy Father. It seems to be the case that some Traditionalist types imagine that if they just hold the fort long enough that the SSPX is going to......what? Undo Vatican II?

May I say that this is childish absurdity.

The Pope has outlined the correct solution. The "hermeneutic of continuity" offers the Church the best way- the only way- forward.

I am honored to be able to stand with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, I wish him success now that the forces of darkness have apparently expended their energies for the present.

May the Pope find time to assist the good people of Germany to understand that Christ died for our sins, a truth of Faith the head of their national episcopal conference has scandalously failed to proclaim and defend.

Prodinoscopus said...

'The Second Vatican Council, wishing to pass on the pure and integral doctrine on the Church ...'

He must be kidding, right?

No? He is serious?

Sigh ...

Virgo Potens said...

P.K.T.P.: Hilarious! Please accept the thanks of one of the biggest Pope Innocent III nuts you'll ever meet.

LeonG said...

"a reality imbued with the divine presence, and for this always capable of new and deeper explorations"

The "new" & "deeper" insertions are characteristic vehicles, as are others, for liberal interpretations, let no one be misled. This is a key concept straight out the modernist school of thought. Reading Rahner, Kung, Chenu and their liberal predecessors demonstrates the need for caution where these are concerned. Use of "deeper" is often as though this era is more capable of understanding The Faith better than our illustrious Roman Catholic ancestors. The "newness" cannot disguise the recourse to novelties and passing fashions that have distorted the meanings and significations of The Roman Catholic Faith in the postmodernist post-conciliar epoch.

Liturgy, administration and popular conceptions of doctrine, to cite but three examples, have all succumbed to dramatic paradigm shifts and characteristic post-conciliar infrastructural decay. This is symbolised by systemic disobedience throughout the modern church unfortunately modelled for catholics by its own hierarchy and presbyterate; universal liturgical chaos and profound misunderstandings and malformations of what constitutes The Catholic Faith among not only the laity but also among its bishops and priests.

Little wonder, therefore, that Our Blessed Lady stands before us in our own times, crying "prayer, penance, sacrifice; to pray much for the Holy Father and to admonish a compromised hierarchy who are deeply divided and can no longer camouflage the fact.

The post-conciliar church is inextricably bound up with the supposedly "new" philosophies of the postmodernist age. these are merely old enemies wrapped in modern disguises. It has also learned to employ the language that accompanies this process using the same media forms as the secular world with which it seeks common ground.

Certainly, the holy father may imply a particular meaning by what he states in this case, but to other more liberal-minded colleagues who are too numerous to account for, it can mean something entirely different and does. In this, we understand the post-conciliar tendency for equivocation and consequent lack of clarity. It is in this that we can fully comprehend why there must be thoroughly detailed discussions about conciliar meanings and significations.

It has to be respectfully but imperatively suggested that the hermeneutic of continuity hypothesis is seriously deficient as the objective testimony of 45 post-conciliar years would themselves suggest. The critical hand of modernism has left its signature on every page of its conclusion.

Isabelle said...

"Following the Council, this ecclesiological doctrine was widely welcomed and, thanks to God, many good fruits matured in the Christian community."

Nonsense! Show us these many good fruits, Holy Father, please!

"We must also recall, however, that the reception of this doctrine in the praxis and, therefore, its assimilation by the tapestry of the ecclesial conscience did not take place always and everywhere without difficulty and according to a just interpretation."

Huh? "...reception of this doctrine in the praxis..."; tapestry of the ecclesial conscience"? What does this mean? Do the masses know what this means? I can read with ease and full underrstanding the encyclicals and writings of the earlier, pre-VII popes. This is gobbledygook.

Angelo said...

P.K.T.P

Thank you.

This conciliar jargon has invaded nearly all professions and especially the upper echelons of education. It is pervasive.

Anonymous said...

I can read books like: Intro. to the Devout Life, The Imitation of Christ, Holy Bible, The Popes Against Modern Error...etc and be totally inspired in faith, hope, and love but be totally confused by this typical Vatican II "explanation".

Jordanes said...

Isabelle, you seem to be under the impression that the Holy Father was talking to you. If you do not understand his meaning, it might be that he was directing his comments to those who he expects would understand it. Consider his audience and the occasion on which he delivered the address, and then his choice of words can be better appreciated, I think.

While I'm at it, I'd like to remind everyone to refrain from personal attacks. Interact with the ideas, and keep the person out of the crosshairs please.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes, I would have thought that the Pope addresses the whole church when he speaks in public and so should be able to be understood by any of The Pilgrim [Easter] People Of God.
I can remember with what fear and trepidation I first tried reading a pre-V II encyclical and found it clear and easy to understand ; the same when I first read something by Fr Garrigou-Lagrange. Clear,clear,clear and certain.
What about: "our young friends celebrating first reconciliation" ? Alan Robinson

LeonG said...

".....In Catholic milieus, the Second Vatican Council encouraged the accord with that general tendency [optimism toward the world]. Prior to it, the awakening of theology and an entire new understanding of Scriptures, the Fathers, Liturgy, and an openness in relations among divided Christians had raised a new enthusiasm for science. It had even set back the traditional pragmatism of a great part of theology students. Such theological knowledge appeared to them as a promise of new possibilities for the faith, new roads for the Church.

The signal sent by Teilhard went further. In a bold vision, he included the historical movement of Christianity within the cosmic process of evolution from Alpha to Omega. This process was conceived as the Noogenesis, that is to say, the development of consciousness in the evolution of men, to form a Noosphere above the Biosphere.

This means that evolution is henceforth understood as a type of technical and scientific development in which Matter and Spirit, the individual and the society constitute a global ensemble, a divine world. The conciliar constitution on the Church and the Modern World [Gaudium et spes] followed the same train of thinking. The Telhardian maxim: "Christianity means more progress, more of the technical" was what encouraged the Conciliar fathers from both wealthy and poor countries to feel a more facile and concrete hope to translate and spread this notion rather than the complicated discussions about collegiality of Bishops, primacy of the Pope, Scriptures and Tradition, priests and lay people.

Taken from Cardinal Ratzinger, "Les Principes de la Theologie Catholique - Esquisse et Materiaux, Paris: Tequi, 1982, pp. 374-375).


This is a new paradigm for a new church.

This is exactly part and parcel of the post-conciliar process of "razing bastions". The new paradigm imposed is Chardinesque but it has a decidedly Balthazarian objective. Judging by the current miserable state of the missions to "poor countries" once again we can conclude that aforesaid hypothesis lacks validity. The conciliar penchant for liberal liturgical and pastoral approaches has been a lamentable failure. Even Rahner's "anonymous christian" merging with its evolving spirit towards Omega point appears to be opting out alongside many neo-catholics, statistics conclude.

Indeed, the audience understands only too well and feels entirely free to take what it wants from the propositions being made. Modernists are adept at this as the current condition of the contemporary church attests. It can no longer be concealed.

Anonymous said...

John L.

Good grief! Didn't you notice my closing comment? It was supposed to be comic relief and that's all. You people are so bloody serious about everything.

P.K.T.P.

Prodinoscopus said...

'I am honored to be able to stand with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI ..'

Well, I wouldn't be very proud to stand with him holding hands in prayer with schismatics, heretics, and infidels. I'm sure that you've already seen that ghastly video.

Someone remarked that at least they gave the Pope a throne in center. At best, it made him look like the head of a pantheon of religions.

Jordanes, gobbledygook is gobbledygook, irrespective of the audience.

Jordanes said...

Jordanes, I would have thought that the Pope addresses the whole church when he speaks in public and so should be able to be understood by any of The Pilgrim [Easter] People Of God. *** Why would you think that? The pope only addresses the whole Church when he addresses the whole Church. Just because he says something in public does mean he's talking to the whole Church. (And even if a pre-Vatican II encyclical is clearer in diction and style, that still doesn't mean that an encyclical addressed to the Church's bishops is also addressed to the average layman.)

But of course anyone in the Church can, with adequate preparation, understand anything any Holy Father says to anybody. I understand perfectly well what the Holy Father is referring to when he says "the reception of this doctrine in the praxis and, therefore, its assimilation by the tapestry of the ecclesial conscience did not take place always and everywhere without difficulty and according to a just interpretation." Even Isabelle and Prodinoscopus can figure it out if they give it a try and overcome their disdain for scholarly jargon. He's talking about the fact that Vatican II's teachings and documents were often misinterpreted, misapplied, or not implemented properly or at all.

Prodinoscopus said...

The Pope can assert the "hermeneutic of continuity" until he's blue. The reality of rupture is there for all of us to see.

The origin of the rupture is in the very proceedings and documents of the Second Vatican Council. Until the Pope admits it, his rhetoric about the "hermeneutic of continuity" will continue to ring hollow, like so much political spin and damage control.

Jordanes said...

Thankfully it is the Pope and Magisterium, not individual laymen such as Jordanes and Prodinoscopus, who are the authentic interpreters of a valid oecumenical council. The Church will never, ever endorse the view that Vatican II is a clear, radical, definitive break with Tradition that cannot be reconciled with the Church's faith. We should listen to the Church. She usually understands these things a whole lot better than we do.

Isabelle said...

Jordanes: "I understand perfectly well what the Holy Father is referring to when he says "the reception of this doctrine in the praxis and, therefore, its assimilation by the tapestry of the ecclesial conscience did not take place always and everywhere without difficulty and according to a just interpretation." Even Isabelle and Prodinoscopus can figure it out if they give it a try and overcome their disdain for scholarly jargon. He's talking about the fact that Vatican II's teachings and documents were often misinterpreted, misapplied, or not implemented properly or at all."

Yes, I can get the gist of what His Holiness is saying, and I do not have a "disdain for scholarly jargon." I have a disdain for superfluous, flowery speech when direct words which are impossible to misunderstand would suffice. "Tapestry of the ecclesial conscience"? Give me a break! He's in denial, pure and simple. The documents of VII were NOT misinterpreted. They were interpreted exactly in the manner which the modernists wished them to be interpreted. And I'm sorry, Jordanes, but your suggestion that the Holy Father can only be understood by those he is addressing is ridiculous.

Jordanes said...

I have a disdain for superfluous, flowery speech when direct words which are impossible to misunderstand would suffice. ***

There's plenty of that "superfluous, flowery speech" throughout Holy Scripture, the writings of the Fathers, and the magisterial documents of the Church of the past two millennia.

He's in denial, pure and simple. ***

Have you ever considered the possibility that he might know a little something about the Church's intent at Vatican II and how its documents should be interpreted?

The documents of VII were NOT misinterpreted. They were interpreted exactly in the manner which the modernists wished them to be interpreted.I suspect the Holy Father would see that as another way of saying they were misinterpreted.

And I'm sorry, Jordanes, but your suggestion that the Holy Father can only be understood by those he is addressing is ridiculous. ***

I neither stated nor suggested any such thing. What I said was he can only be understood if one remembers to consider the occasion on which he is speaking and its nature, and the audience to whom he is addressing his words.

Prodinoscopus said...

Jordanes,

You know, it's interesting how Pope Benedict XVI continuously asserts that there is a "hermeneutic of continuity", yet he never actually puts that hermeneutic into practice himself by EXPLAINING to the faithful exactly how, say, Dignitatis Humanae can be reconciled with Tradition. Instead, he praises the "healthy secularism" of officially agnostic governments and the beauty of "religious freedom" -- thereby reinforcing the LIBERAL INTERPRETATION of the Council documents. Could it be that the Pope is interpreting those documents exactly as they were meant to be interpreted by the modernist architects of the Council?

Let's face facts: the "hermeneutic of continuity" is all smoke and mirrors.

Rick DeLano said...

Jordanes is spot on and absolutely down the middle when he points out the altogether over-the-top position of some here that because they personally find a turn of phrase- or even a style of writing- not sufficiently pleasing to Themselves, that it is therefore a mark of catholicity to tear into the Holy Father and indeed Holy Mother Church Herself.

Pathetic.

It is one thing to struggle in conscience with substantive questions of continuity.

It is quite another to set oneself up as judge and jury over Holy Mother Church and Our Sovereign Pontiff.

John McFarland said...

Note that the Pope premises his analysis on the novel ecclesiology of Vatican II.

If you effectively define the traditional doctrine out of the discussion, there is indeed continuity. Neo-modernism, like everything else, is continuous with itself.

But the Church is not the sacrament of the unity of the human race, and so there is discontinuity -- profound discontinuity.

Isabelle said...

Jordanes said: "There's plenty of that "superfluous, flowery speech" throughout Holy Scripture, the writings of the Fathers, and the magisterial documents of the Church of the past two millennia."

Do you really consider Holy Scripture to be superfluous and flowery? That's certainly not what I'd call it. It may be different from how we speak now, which some may characterize as flowery, but it's definitely not superfluous.

"Have you ever considered the possibility that he might know a little something about the Church's intent at Vatican II and how its documents should be interpreted?"

I believe that the Pope knows very much about the Church's intent at VII. How could he not? VII is his baby. Therein lies the problem with this pope. He will be forever justifying VII, despite the overwhelming evidence of it's failure.

Chris said...

The objection to the "hermeneutic of continuity" can be aptly summarized by a quote from the learned Judge Judy..

"Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining."

Jordanes said...

Could it be that the Pope is interpreting those documents exactly as they were meant to be interpreted by the modernist architects of the Council? ***

It's possible, as it's also possible for the stopped watch of the modernists to tell the right time twice a day. As problematic a document as DH is, though, I've seen traditionalists (Storck, Harrison, and Palm are the three that I recall offhand) take on DH and suggest ways to see it in continuity with Tradition instead of irreconcilable conflict. But it will be a great blessing if the Church's Magisterium looks into the problem and formally proposes an official synthesis.

the Church is not the sacrament of the unity of the human raceThe only true and proper unity the human race can have, the unity that God has always intended for His children, unity in spirit and in truth, in charity and in grace, may only be received by membership in the Catholic Church. It is God's will that the peoples alienated from him through sin be reconciled to Him, cleansed of their sins, endowed with divine grace and virtue, and brought into Catholic unity in Christ's Mystical Body, the Holy Catholic Church. Therefore the Church is, just as She says She is, the sacrament of the unity of the human race.

Jordanes said...

Do you really consider Holy Scripture to be superfluous and flowery? ***

No, but it's what you should consider it to be, given your impatience with Pope Benedict XVI's loftier high style of speech in this address.

It may be different from how we speak now, which some may characterize as flowery, but it's definitely not superfluous. ***

That's precisely my point. You object to the pope's style, which is an insubstantial criticism. Focus on the substance of what he said, not his manner of speaking.

I believe that the Pope knows very much about the Church's intent at VII. How could he not? VII is his baby. Therein lies the problem with this pope. He will be forever justifying VII, despite the overwhelming evidence of it's failure. ***

I can't conceive of any future pope tossing out the "hermeneutic of continuity" and just throwing Vatican II overboard. The council must be interpreted in light of the Church's perennial faith and tradition, as the only real alternatives are the modernistic "sing a new church in being" vomit, the heretical claim that the Church has defected, or else concluding that the council is not an authentic act of the Church's magisterium -- and I don't see how any of those alternatives can be supported.

Mike B. said...

Many of us did not know that Eucharistic Prayer I comes from the Fourth Century. That is very indicative of the Pope's intentions to educate the Faithful who desire to understand and appreciate the continuity of Catholicism. However others prefer the curious fixation on the Papal State heritage that skewered respect for free will.

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg FL

Prodinoscopus said...

Rick,

For me it is not a matter of a turn of phrase or style of writing. It is a consistent pattern of behavior, i.e., constantly asserting a "hermeneutic of continuity" without proving it and, worse, acting in ways that contradict it, e.g., joining hands in prayer with schismatics, heretics, and infidels.

By the way, did you know that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger had the following to say about Traditionalists while he was head of the CDF:

'Was the Council a wrong road that we must now retrace if we are to save the Church? The voices of those who say that it was are becoming louder and their followers more numerous. Among the more obvious phenomena of the last years must be counted the increasing number of integralist groups in which the desire for piety, for the sense of mystery, is finding satisfaction. We must be on our guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly. But we must likewise ask ourselves, why such contractions and distortions of faith and piety have such an effect and are able to attract those who, by the basic conviction of their faith as well as by personal inclination, are in no way attracted to sectarianism. What drives them into a milieu in which they do not belong? Why have they lost the feeling of being at home in the larger Church? Are their reproaches not unfounded? ... Let it be said again: we should not adopt a sectarian attitude, but neither should we omit the examination of conscience to which these facts compel us.' [Emphasis added.] (Principles of Catholic Theology (Ignatius Press, 1987), pp. 389-90)

Summorum Pontificum is undoubtedly a fruit of that "examination of conscience" -- yet can we doubt that Pope Benedict XVI also remains firm in his resistance to Traditional ("integralist") Catholicism? Can we really blame the SSPX for distrusting the Pope? Again, the words and actions speak for themselves: avoiding the Holy Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ when speaking to the Jews, encouraging Catholics to get in touch with the "semantic cosmos" of those who despise Our Blessed Lord and Holy Mother, making the "Shoah" dogma a criterion for exercising episcopal ministry in the Church, allowing himself to be filmed participating in a crypto-Masonic chant with the enemies of Christ, posing (as it would seem to outsiders) as the head of an inter-religious pantheon, etc.

Pray for the Pope, love the Pope, but for heaven's sake, stop making excuses for him.

Anonymous said...

Those who are interested in continuity might like to read some of the theological essays of a "conservative" theologian of Opus Dei: Martin Rhonheimer: CHANGING THE WORLD(Scepter,2009). I read his essay on church and state in this volume expecting a full and useful defence of the continuity. In fact he attacks Fr Basile's(of Le Barroux) monumental work attempting to prove the continuity of D.H. with pre-conciliar teaching and also Fr Brian Harrison. He explains, very convincingly, that it is new developed teaching, "authentic novelty".It is interesting and I do not do it justice here in these few lines, coming from a conservative writer. It's wonderful what you can do with words. Alan Robinson

Paul Haley said...

"As I had the occasion to clarify in the address to the Roman Curia of December 22, 2005, an interpretive current, appealing to a supposed "spirit of the Council", intended to establish a discontinuity and even a contraposition between the Church before and the Church after the Council, at times confusing the very objectively existing boundaries between the hierarchical ministry and the responsibility of the lay faithful in the Church."
"The notion of the 'People of God', in particular, was interpreted by some according to a purely sociological vision, with an almost exclusively horizontal severance, which excluded the vertical reference to God. This position was in open contrast from the word and the spirit of the Council, which did not will a rupture, another Church, but a true and deep renewal, in continuity with the one subject, the Church, which grows in time and develops herself, yet remaining always the same, the one subject of the People of God, on a pilgrimage".We have to remember, I submit, that the Pope is trying to reconcile the views of all Catholics, including those formed before the council and those after. As someone once said, he is the Great Synthesizer, taking two opposites and making middle ground between the two. Will he be successful? I dunno but I will say he's obviously trying hard to make sense of the last 40 years. It seems that we must give him the benefit of the doubt in this case.

Anonymous said...

"LUMEN GENTIUM, CHAPTER I, THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH. 1. Christ is the Light of nations. Because this is so, this Sacred Synod gathered together in the Holy Spirit eagerly desires, by proclaiming the Gospel to every creature,(1) to bring the light of Christ to all men, a light brightly visible on the countenance of the Church. Since the Church is in Christ like a sacrament or as a sign and instrument both of a very closely knit union with God and of the unity of the whole human race, it desires now to unfold more fully to the faithful of the Church and to the whole world its own inner nature and universal mission." This is explicitly addressed to us sheep, as are other V2 documents. It is nonsense to insist that the Church must interpret it for us. It is, in fact, poisoned with ambiguity and novelty including the infamous "subsists". It is, therefore, not the authentic voice of the Shepherd, Whose voice the sheep know. The sheep should just ignore it, and all other garbled writings of churchmen. Louis.

LeonG said...

"They were interpreted exactly in the manner which the modernists wished them to be interpreted."

Isabelle.

Exactly correct: he knows it and they know it! The literary embellishment is a characteristic modernist intellectual smoke-screen. His predecessor was the model for this post-conciliar papal audio-visual ambivalence. This helps explain why the same person can preach The Christ to one audience and then in the following space propagate interreligious eclecticism by other means.

Actions may be interpreted not only through audible words but through symbolic representations and behaviours. Interpretivism furnishes this school with every weapon available for this "new" and "evolutionary" approach to the evangelisation of relativism. The recent voyage to Israel is replete with these signs. It also explains why one message appears to encourage male-only priesthood while another from the same person stands alongside the female "priest" in another sect in public signalling otherwise; the church, the mosque, the synagogue and the temple are all manipulated with similar pantheistic intention and the exploitation of jargon, which you quite aptly recognise, indeed, the language of the supposedly new philosophic school. Compare and contrast the clear unambiguous language of the catechism of The Council of Trent as a vehicle forinstruction and the frequent floridness of the "New" which often requires clarification.

How appropriately the new liturgy suits the new paradigm for the new church; the new system of governance benefits the new way of the modernist catechumenate and how fitting the malleable "new" vulgarised language accommodates itself to the equivocation of the modern "Latin" tongue.

Read well and attentively the modernist and postmodernist philosophers. Study language and its employ in all its environments. There resides the key to deconstructing post-conciliar tendencies and their objectives. It has nothing to do with continuity. Rather it is an ambitious project intending to do what its spokespersons have proclaimed in public - "destroy bastions" in The Church and to realise the collective self in a revolutionary universal brotherhood regardless of belief through interreligious dialogue" and uncontrollable ecumenism which has lost its traditional purpose.

Holy Scriptures and the prophets validate. Let him who has ears hear.

Anonymous said...

This commentary is all very interesting but it's the Pope's hat which rivets my attention. I want one! I must have that hat. If he keeps dressing so well, tradition will follow. The clothes make the man. He who dresses traditionally will become by degrees a traditionalist. Sounds like lex orandi something or other. . . .

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Quote:
The Church, we said, is a communion, a communion of people who, through the action of the Holy Ghost, form the People of God that is, at the same time, the Body of Christ.

Quote:
And "People of God" means, therefore, "all": from the Pope to the last baptized infant.

So for Benedict XVI, infants validly baptized into, say, Protestant sects are in "the Church", which is identical to the "People of God" and "the Body of Christ." This is not Catholic, it is the religion of ecumenism. It is an irreformable dogma of Faith that the Church is comprised of baptized who hold divine and Catholic Faith whole and entire and submit to the Pope as vicar of Christ.
Lord, grant us relief from this madness. D. L. R.

John L said...

Yes, sorry about that P.T.K.P. Irritation with a tendency among some people to accuse the Pope of being a modernist or espousing modernist views (see thread) led me to miss your point.
The quotation from Ratzinger's Introduction to Catholic Theology would be a fairly damning indictment of its author ... if it was the case that the author was approving the Teilhardian influence on the council, rather than simply (accurately) describing it. But this same Ratzinger criticised the Council, and Gaudium et Spes in particular, as having a falsely positive view of the modern world. It seems questionable therefore to assume that Ratzinger was endorsing Teilhard and his influence. Indeed I cannot believe that someone of his undoubted intelligence could take Teilhard seriously or see him as anything other than the charlatan he was.
As for the content of the address; the main assertions made in it are these -

'As a communion, the Church is not a solely spiritual reality, but lives in history, that is to say, in flesh and blood.'

'For us Christians, therefore, "Body of Christ" is not only an image, but a true concept, because Christ gives us the gift of his real Body, not only of an image. Risen, Christ united us all in the Sacrament to make us one single body.'

Here he is saying that the Church is a visible human community rather than an invisible spiritual group, that Christ is really rather than symbolically present in the Eucharist, and that the Real Presence in the Eucharist, because it is Christ's real body, acts to make those who receive it part of his mystical body the Church. These are ecclesiological ideas elaborated before the Council by such authors as Emile Mersch in his book 'The Whole Christ', and taught by Pius XII in his encyclical 'Mystici Corporis Christi'. The promoters of these ideas argued that although part of Catholic tradition, they had been neglected because of concentration with polemics with Protestants, and that the Church would benefit from their being revived and deepened. This is what Benedict XVI is referring to in his address; you have to have some familiarity with the theological background to identify this, as was noted on this thread. He is exaggerating when he claims that teaching this idea was the main purpose of the Second Vatican Council, but it is true that it had some influence.

Jordanes said...

Louis said: This is explicitly addressed to us sheep, as are other V2 documents. ***

That doesn't mean all of the sheep are equipped to understand and interpret it.

It is nonsense to insist that the Church must interpret it for us. ***

Reeking Protestantism. If there is ever a question about the interpretation of one of the Church's documents, the Church alone has the authority and the charism to interpret it. It is damned and damnable nonsense to say otherwise, Louis.

It is, in fact, poisoned with ambiguity and novelty including the infamous "subsists". ***

I've yet to find a single thing in LG that is not in clear continuity and perspicuous agreement with Tradition.

It is, therefore, not the authentic voice of the Shepherd, Whose voice the sheep know. The sheep should just ignore it, and all other garbled writings of churchmen. Louis. ***

Thus saith the Louis. I am confident that yours is not the authentic voice of the Shepherd, and I would advise my fellow sheep to ignore your voice. You are not thinking with the mind of the Church.

Chris said...

Good post Leon. These addresses are like cloud formations. Everyone can see what they want to see. The fact that anyone actually has to continually clarify language for 40+ years is a huge red flag that there is something wrong.

The problem with the modernists is that they are two headed monsters. They make orthodox and heterodox statements intertwined in ambiguous verbiage so they can never be nailed down to one view of the other. Then the conservatives defend a conservative interpretation of the verbiage and meanwhile 90% of churchmen, by their actions, live out the heterodox interpretation.

This is why we have a de facto schism. Ambiguous addresses and documents lead to an ambiguous faith. 90% of the Church is acting out and has been acting out errors. The pope issuing more ambiguity, even with conservative talking heads constantly telling us the conservative message the Pope "really meant" does nothing to help the cause.

Jordanes said...

Of course in this case, the objection isn't really that the pope has said anything ambiguous -- after all, "superfluous, flowery language" or not, there's no confusion about what he is referring to. Rather, the objection is that he is simply wrong to believe that Vatican II's teachings can be interpreted in continuity with Tradition. That is, the argument being advanced boils down to a claim that Vatican II does not teach the Faith, and that the Successor of St. Peter is mistaken to say that it does.

Anonymous said...

"Pray for the Pope, love the Pope, but for heaven's sake, stop making excuses for him." Prodinoscopus

Bravo!!!

Rick DeLano said...

DLR says:

It is an irreformable dogma of Faith that the Church is comprised of baptized who hold divine and Catholic Faith whole and entire and submit to the Pope as vicar of Christ.
Lord, grant us relief from this madness.

>>The madness, sir, is to imagine that a child baptized validly is not a member of the Body of Christ. It is also an irreformable doctrine of the Faith that even heretics can baptize validly, so any child validly baptized is, by definition, baptized into the Catholic Church.

This means, sir, that the Pope's words are precisely correct, and your attack upon them is precisely wrong.

Imagine that.

I shall try to recover from my shock somehow.

Rick DeLano said...

Prodinoscopus wrote:
For me it is not a matter of a turn of phrase or style of writing. It is a consistent pattern of behavior, i.e., constantly asserting a "hermeneutic of continuity" without proving it

>>The Pope need not prove the Council, rightly interpreted, is in continuity with Tradition. Only a heretic would assert that a valid ecumenical Council teaches heresy.

There are a whoooooole lot of folks verging on heresy lately, no doubt because they have found themselves suddenly tempted to sin against the Faith in light of awful scandals such as the heretical and uncondemned falsehoods of Msgr. Zollitsch.


When one begins to assert that a valid ecumenical Council has bound the conscience of the faithful to heresy, then one begins to verge upon heresy themselves.

A schismatic spirit is a deadly and dangerous thing to imbibe, since it feels so logical and persuasive, once we simply swallow the Kool Aid, and convince ourtselves that the Council taught heresy, and the Pope is therefore to be disregarded and indeed attacked should he defend it in light of Tradition.
**


and, worse, acting in ways that contradict it, e.g., joining hands in prayer with schismatics, heretics, and infidels.

>>If you are scandalized by the Pope praying with non-Catholics, then I suppose you would have been even more scandalized that Our Lord ate with publicans and sinners and offered salvation to a Samaritan woman.
****

By the way, did you know that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger had the following to say about Traditionalists while he was head of the CDF:

'Was the Council a wrong road that we must now retrace if we are to save the Church? The voices of those who say that it was are becoming louder and their followers more numerous. Among the more obvious phenomena of the last years must be counted the increasing number of integralist groups in which the desire for piety, for the sense of mystery, is finding satisfaction. We must be on our guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly. But we must likewise ask ourselves, why such contractions and distortions of faith and piety have such an effect and are able to attract those who, by the basic conviction of their faith as well as by personal inclination, are in no way attracted to sectarianism. What drives them into a milieu in which they do not belong? Why have they lost the feeling of being at home in the larger Church? Are their reproaches not unfounded? ... Let it be said again: we should not adopt a sectarian attitude, but neither should we omit the examination of conscience to which these facts compel us.' [Emphasis added.] (Principles of Catholic Theology (Ignatius Press, 1987), pp. 389-90)

>>This Pope is extremely wise, and his words above are simply another vindication of his wisdom. The more I frequent "Traditionalist" websites, the more his words above shine through as clear and compelling triuths. The "Traditionalist" wing of the Church is starting to reek, in my nostrils anyway, of a schismatic and Protestant tendency to reject the indefectibility of the Catholic Church.
****

Summorum Pontificum is undoubtedly a fruit of that "examination of conscience" -- yet can we doubt that Pope Benedict XVI also remains firm in his resistance to Traditional ("integralist") Catholicism?

>>He remains firm in his resistance to the narrow, unCatholic, bitter sectarianism that aserts in arrogant Protestant self-certainty that the Catholic Church has failed, that the Holy Spirit has failed to protect her in solemn Ecumenical Copuncil from teaching and binding the faithful to error.

I say thank God, he is right, and the dangers of this neo-Jansenism are, to my mind, rapidly approaching the dangers of the modernist termites in the hierarchy.

We need more Catholics.

John L said...

How about distinguishing claims:

1) Vatican II cannot be interpreted as agreeing with Catholic tradition.

2) Vatican II ought not to be interpreted as agreeing with Catholic tradition.

With the exception of the teaching on the right to religious liberty, can a single assertion of that council be described as incompatible with tradition? (This is not to say that it is impossible to interpret Dignitatis Humanae as compatible with tradition, only that it must be accepted that on the fact of it, it is not.) Examples of such incompatibility are not available - because the strategy of the modernists at that council was to put ambiguous statements into the documents that could then be interpreted in heterodox fashion; a strategy called attention to by Abp. Lefebvre at tht time (see his J'accuse le Concile).

So on to 2); some traditionalists seem to agree with modernists that the answer to this question is 'no'. But that cannot be the right answer. An ambiguous statement, by its nature, is susceptible of different meanings. The ambiguous statements of the council can therefore be clarified and given a clear orthodox meaning by the authority with the right to do this. That authority is the Pope. The basic project of the Holy Father, that of asserting that the statements of the council are orthodox and giving an orthodox meaning to them, is therefore a correct one. The implementation of this strategy can be faulted; and in fact this strategy cannot succeed without having resort to the precision of scholastic thought and concepts, which Benedict XVI is not likely to do. But he should be given credit for at least embarking upon the right approach to the council.

Chris said...

Let's say the Pope officially interprets VCII in accord with Tradition (or perhaps corrects it in the case of Dignitatis Humanae). (I suppose this is the hope of the SSPX discussions.) Then we are left with a continuity true, but entirely on paper. I suppose it is a good first step.

The problem is that, out there in reality, the clerics who violate Tradition by their actions, and some would say the Pope does this by his joint prayers, are not disciplined. The de facto disobedience will continue to roll on. If this happens then the paper is meaningless.

If Pope Benedict really sees absolutely no break with 2,000 years of Tradition why are priests and Bishops in clear defiance of that Tradition allowed to exist within the Church with impunity?

A law with no enforcement may as well not be a law. What signs do we have from our leadership that Tradition rules in matters of ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, the New Mass?

I fear that what the Holy Father is proposing is an ecumenical hermeneutic whereby we raise above Tradition and novelty to some sort of super-idea that encompasses them both and in that way, along with many nice vague phrases, come forward with some new synthesis where we understand that Tradition and novelty are not really at odds.

This has been the practice of the ecumenical movement towards the Lutherans and Orthodox so why not the Trads as well? It's a false sort of unity whereby both sides get to claim to believe contradictory things, but yet at the same time say they are non-contradictory. If that is continuity, count me out!

Dan Hunter said...

Jordanes,

I do not think that the argument is at all that the Vatican Council Documents cannot or should not be interpreted in the light of Tradition.
Both Archbishop Lefebvre and now Bishop Fellay believe that they can and Bishop Fellay is asking that the Holy Father clarifies them in this light.

I think that the problem that everyone is experiencing here, is that the Truths of the Church are not being enforced by the Church.

The problem seems to be that Orthodoxy is not being upheld, as in the Notre Shame case.

We hear a good game being talked but the Holy See must use Her God given authority to back up and enforce condemnation and removal of heterodox prelates and teachers the likes of Father Jenkins and Father McBrien.

The problem that people have, here, could be helped a long way if the Church would enforce Her teachings.
The way they were enforced under Pope St Pius X with the anti-modernist oath and its implementation etc.

Gideon Ertner said...

"Actions may be interpreted not only through audible words but through symbolic representations and behaviours."

I'd be very careful assuming anything about a person's belief or state of mind from either his actions or his words. What signifies one thing for one person may signify something completely different for another.

I talked to a Baptist Christian yesterday who related how profoundly off-putting it had been for him to go to an Orthodox church and see people kissing icons; for him, it reeked of idolatry. I made the above point to him, and he understood.

Along with many others here, I sure would like the Holy Father to be more forceful against the modernists and heretics - i.e. I disprove of some of his METHODS (but then I don't have his job and I don't have to take all the issues into consideration that he has to) - and I believe all of us have the right to disagree with him in this regard. However, we don't have the right to judge his fidelity to the Catholic faith.

And, frankly, I think it is both completely unreasonable and utterly uncatholic to doubt that he is in fact absolutely faithful to the teaching of Christ in its entirety.

Kevin said...

"I've yet to find a single thing in LG that is not in clear continuity and perspicuous agreement with Tradition."

I agree, Jordanes. Recently I decided to pick up the documents of Vatican II and read them for myself from beginning to end--so far "Lumen Gentium" has been a wonderful supplement to my understanding of the Church.

Gideon Ertner said...

"If I were a priest, I'd quote Lateran IV constantly from the pulpit."

In all seriousness, I'm not so sure that former councils did a terribly better job of teaching the Catholic faith as Vatican II.

Yes, I agree that the wording of the documents of Vatican II is sometimes ambiguous, sometimes unfortunately so, but that is hardly surprising given that it cencerned itself with the more mystical aspects of theology - you'll also find plenty of ambiguous statements in the works of St. John of the Cross, for instance.

Former councils did a great job of defining doctrine, of clearly spelling out in what sense truths of the Faith should be believed. But that does not necessarily entail teaching the Catholic faith, broadly speaking.

I can absolutely understand that people found a need to formulate the truths of the faith in a more comprehensive and comprehendable manner, especially as it seems to me that the world was rapidly changing and that the style which had characterized ecclesial discourse for centuries was increasingly perceived as alien. As to what came out of it, well, we all now that the quasi-Modernists tried to pull in a certain direction, and I really don't know how successful they were. I'll leave that up to the Magisterium to decide. So far there have been no Magisterial condemnations of the Council in question, only qualifications.

Gideon Ertner said...

"The problem that people have, here, could be helped a long way if the Church would enforce Her teachings.
The way they were enforced under Pope St Pius X with the anti-modernist oath and its implementation etc."

Which worked brilliantly, huh?

Anonymous said...

Cardinal Ottivani(sp) had a good solution for solving the crappy wording or the V2 documents.

He suggested having two versions of each document - one version that speaks to the modern layman and another to the priests/theologians.

He suggested writing a lighter version for the layman and a detailed, deeper version for the theologians.

As we know this advice was ignored and the modernists got their way...and we now have the very problems the cardinal complained about.

The traditionalists at the counsel thought the cardinal's idea was a good solution.

Source, Archbishop Leferbre, "I Accuse the Counsel".

Anon 23

Chris said...

The Neo-Modernists would never have agreed to a Thomistic defining of their Council because it would have shut down the wiggle room they needed to foist their trojan horse on the Church.

Prodinoscopus said...

'If you are scandalized by the Pope praying with non-Catholics, then I suppose you would have been even more scandalized that Our Lord ate with publicans and sinners and offered salvation to a Samaritan woman.'

Ridiculous. It's not even close to the same thing. Our Lord did not join hands with the adherents of false religions in praying for worldly "peace" to some vague "Lord" whose name meant something different to everyone.

Anyway, I go back to the opening words of the Pope's address:

'The Second Vatican Council, wishing to pass on the pure and integral doctrine on the Church ...'

I don't know how he can say those words with a straight face.

Jordanes said...

I don't know how he can say those words with a straight face. *** My guess is that he believes that the Church is what Jesus says She is.

Chris said...

'The Second Vatican Council, wishing to pass on the pure and integral doctrine on the Church ...'***

I'm still waiting to hear a clear official statement as to what pure and integral doctrine on the Church it passed on.

As Prodinoscopus has said, the Pope seems to make statements of fact with absolutely no evidence or explanation. It's madness. It's almost as if he does not want to define anything and to perpetuate the ambiguity & confusion.

Prodinoscopus said...

My guess is that he believes that the Church is what Jesus says She is.***So we come 'round again to the question of indefectibility. "Upon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Does Our Lord's promise to Peter mean that each and every Pope from Peter until the last will never defect from the Faith? Or does it mean that, in the End, the Church will triumph, with a true Pope as her visible head? I tend to think the latter. The last in the line of succession will keep the Faith. HE will not defect. I don't think that Pope Benedict XVI is the last in line.

I still don't see how Pope Benedict XVI can say with a straight face that Vatican II wished to pass on the PURE and INTEGRAL doctrine of the Church. The empirical evidence makes such a claim laughable. Sure, some points of Traditional doctrine were affirmed at Vatican II, yet many elements of doctrinal impurity and disintegration were passed along with those points.

Rick DeLano said...

I thank you for letting all the other points pass without response, Prodinoscopus. I certainly hope that your decision to ignore them indicates you have received them.

As to this last one, which did cause you to demur:

I originally responded to your criticism of the Pope praying with non-Catholics as follows:

'If you are scandalized by the Pope praying with non-Catholics, then I suppose you would have been even more scandalized that Our Lord ate with publicans and sinners and offered salvation to a Samaritan woman.'

You respond:

Ridiculous. It's not even close to the same thing.

>>Now first off let me say that you are right in one sense. It is not, strictly speaking, the same thing, since we are not told in Scripture that Our Lord specifically prayed with either the publicans or the sinners or the Samaritan woman.

However, I think it is logical that He must have done, certainly in the case of the publicans and sinners, since it is unthinkable He would have eaten with them without praying with them.

But this speaks merely to sinners, not unbelievers or schismatics.

The Samaritan woman, however, would be analogous to a schismatic.

So what did He say to her?

You continue:

"Our Lord did not join hands with the adherents of false religions in praying for worldly "peace" to some vague "Lord" whose name meant something different to everyone."

>>Here I think you go too far, since it is certainly the case that the Samaritan woman prayed to a "Lord" Whose Name meant something different to her than it did to Him.

But does He therefore condemn her?

He does not.

John Chapter 4:

19 The woman saith to him: Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. 20 Our fathers adored on this mountain, and you say, that at Jerusalem is the place where men must adore.

(Note: "This mountain"... Garizim, where the Samaritans had their schismatical temple.)

21 Jesus saith to her: Woman, believe me, that the hour cometh, when you shall neither on this mountain, not in Jerusalem, adore the Father.

(Note: Our Lord affirms that the schismatics adore THE FATHER)


22 You adore that which you know not: we adore that which we know; for salvation is of the Jews.

So the schismatics adore the Father, if imperfectly, and Our Lord invites, through patient and friendly discourse, the purification of the schismatics' Faith.

I see a whole lot more of Benedict's approach here, than you do.

I also understand the temptation to anger and bitterness, in light of the uncondemned scandalous heresies of certain reprobate prelates.

The solution is the hermeneutic of continuity, and not schism.

Prodinoscopus said...

Amendment to my last comment: the Church will triumph, with a true and faithful Pope as her visible head. Pope Benedict XVI is a true Pope.

Anonymous said...

Maybe B16 is going to do something of a catechetical series on an interpretation of Vatican II...Wednesday audiences?

Anonymous said...

Mr. DeLano,

I stand corrected. Infants validly baptized, even by Protestants, are of course members of the Catholic Church as you say. I apologize for my misstatement.

DLR

Dan Hunter said...

"The problem that people have, here, could be helped a long way if the Church would enforce Her teachings.
The way they were enforced under Pope St Pius X with the anti-modernist oath and its implementation etc."

Which worked brilliantly, huh?

Gideon,
Yes it did, until it was discarded by the Holy See in 1967.

Jordanes said...

Yes it did, until it was discarded by the Holy See in 1967. ***

But the allegedly modernist Second Vatican Council closed in 1965, two years before the Oath against Modernism was dropped. Mind you, I think that oath ought to be brought back, but let's not think that the oath was any kind of silver bullet against the problem of Modernist heresy.

So we come 'round again to the question of indefectibility. ***

Sort of, but not the aspect of it that you discuss. The Church is by divine institution the Teacher of the Truth upon earth. When her magisterii gather formally and lawfully in council, it cannot be for any other reason than to "pass on the pure and integral doctrine on the Church." All valid, authentic councils do that, some with greater success than others.

I still don't see how Pope Benedict XVI can say with a straight face that Vatican II wished to pass on the PURE and INTEGRAL doctrine of the Church. The empirical evidence makes such a claim laughable. ***

The historical evidence makes clear that was exactly what Blessed John XXIII said Vatican II was convened to do. What evidence you do have that Vatican II's purpose and intent was to corrupt the Faith?

Again I have to side with the Pope on this one.

"Upon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Does Our Lord's promise to Peter mean that each and every Pope from Peter until the last will never defect from the Faith? ***

Maybe, but not necessarily. Still, no Pope has ever formally defined a doctrinal error as binding on the Church.

Or does it mean that, in the End, the Church will triumph, with a true Pope as her visible head? ***

It would entail that to.

Rick DeLano said...

Prodinoscopus:

"Does Our Lord's promise to Peter mean that each and every Pope from Peter until the last will never defect from the Faith? Or does it mean that, in the End, the Church will triumph, with a true Pope as her visible head? I tend to think the latter."

While this is obviously heresy, we can have excellent grounds to hope it is not obstinate.

Since you have apparently overlooked the next verse, Pro, let's give it to you now. It is conclusive:

19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Therefore it is not just Popes to Prodinoscopus' linking whose acts of binding and loosing are vindicated from heaven, but ALL Popes.

John McFarland said...

The issue regarding Vatican II is not whether it was a validly convened ecumenical council, but what it did after it was convened.

Since no one had ever seen a "pastoral" council before, and no one at Vatican II or thereafter has ever provided anything resembling a coherent account of what a pastoral council is, it seems to me rash to accept any of its acts unless, until and to the extent that it can be shown to be consistent with the authoritative doctrine of the Church prior to its convention.

Unfortunately, the Pope's latest try at demonstrating that consistency is more detailed, but no more plausible, than his December 2005 effort. The Vatican II definition of the Church he cites is novel. The term "people of God" is not novel, but his definition is novel. I have no idea what it means to say that "the touchable visible opens the door unto God himself" -- or rather, it could mean almost anything, and hence for all practical purposes means almost nothing.

Above all, the analysis leaves out faith, which is the only thing that makes the universality of which the Pope and the post-conciliar establishment in general is so fond, of any use in saving us from our sins. But then the analysis doesn't mention sin either.

It is all an intellectual fast shuffle. No doubt the Pope is also fast-shuffling himself, and has he has been doing so for a long time. But sincerity is no substitute for truth.

Chris said...

No VCII Pope has bound anything. The Holy Spirit at work!

The one saving grace we have is that the Neo-Modernists are against infallible declarations so they don't make any. Whew!

LeonG said...

Prodinoscopus

"I don't know how he can say those words with a straight face."

Fasther Ratzinger was in the liberal modernist camp at The Councils. He has said so himself later that in this he did not change but others like Kung, for example, else did. he is a modernist straight out of the true mould of his type. He is still willing to dialogue with tradition. However, he is not a traditionalist which many neo-conservatives are unable to understand. They have mistakenly read conservative and there are some here who think one Motu Propriu and a change of processional cross with a few dalmatics represents a return to tradition. Not so. Not so.

Most neo-catholics are entirely unaware of his very critical stance on The Holy Mass in Latin & traditional devotions prior to more recent statements on his critique of the "fabricated" vernacular liturgy. In many respects, as I have said before this many times here and elsewhere, while the Summorum Pontificum gives the traditional liturgy the public approval required to overcome the preposterous lies about its supposed abrogation, it also exposes the Latin liturgy to liberalising abuses. These are becoming apparent already. It is a Trojan Horse and those who hate it know it.

If anyone believes this is a traditional papacy then ask yourselves why the holy father has not celebrated one such Mass in public.

The symbolism, the language, the liturgical form and all else demonstrates a liberal papacy and one with which Pope Pius X would most certainly have taken issue. This is why no one in Rome celebrates the anniversary of his critical encyclicals on modernism. The Conciliar drum is banged incessantly because if it is beaten long enough everyone will begin to believe it.

Jordanes said...

No VCII Pope has bound anything. ***

I'm not so sure about that, and anyway Catholics aren't permitted to just pick the dogmatically binding stuff and toss out the rest.

The one saving grace we have is that the Neo-Modernists are against infallible declarations so they don't make any. ***

Which pope or popes do you believe are or were Neo-Modernist heretics?

Since no one had ever seen a "pastoral" council before, ***

Except the Council of Vienne, that is, which issued hardly anything doctrinal. It was almost entirely disciplinary or "pastoral."

The Vatican II definition of the Church he cites is novel. ***

Not really, and anyway "novel" is not the same thing as "wrong" or "in conflict with the faith of the Church."

I have no idea what it means to say that "the touchable visible opens the door unto God himself" -- or rather, it could mean almost anything, and hence for all practical purposes means almost nothing. ***

You and Isabelle and Prodinoscopus seem to have difficulty understanding the pope's words, but I'm not having any difficulty identifying his reference to Catholic incarnational theology and sacramentalism.

As for LeonG's comment, of course Pope Benedict is not a traditionalist. He's not obligated to a traditionalist, just faithful, obedient, and orthodox.

Gideon Ertner said...

Prodinoscopus, you have a strange reading of Matthew 16. Christ never did promise that any Pope would not defect from the Faith. The promise of indefectibility - "the gates os Hell shall not prevail against it" - pertains to the Church as a whole, not to Peter (who was himself not completely faithful to his own teaching) nor any of his successors. If the Church at the end of time happened to be led by a heretic it would be of no consequence in this context since her faith would still be intact and she would still be the spotless bride of Christ.

But more ominously, it seems to me that you are harbouring a near-sedeprivationist mentality. Forgive me if that is not the case, but you openly state (by omission) that this Pope is 'unfaithful' and believe that at some point there will be a 'faithful' one. What do you mean by that characterisation? I don't think one can reasonably believe that any Pope can be absolutely faithful to the teaching of the Church in the sense that he will always act in a manner which is in complete conformity to that teaching - that would entail impeccability. So when is a Pope 'faithful' enough?

Gideon Ertner said...

"The symbolism, the language, the liturgical form and all else demonstrates a liberal papacy and one with which Pope Pius X would most certainly have taken issue."

Yes, just like more than a few of St. Pius X's predecessors would likely have 'taken issue' with Pius' own drastic curial and liturgical reforms.

Gideon Ertner said...

"he is a modernist straight out of the true mould of his type."

You mean like all those other Modernists who elaborate extensively on the importance of such things as worship ad orientem, fidelity to liturgical rubrics, the integrality of liturgical texts, the Rosary, Eucharistic adoration, Stations of the Cross, Augustinian theology, theological fidelity to Holy Scripture and Tradition, traditional marriage, and much more.

Chris said...

No Pope can bind anything that is not Traditional, so in that sense we need not worry. However, we have been fortunate that no VCII Pope has solemnly declared anything infallibly. Whatever the VCII Popes have taught via the authentic Magisterium that is novel and not in accord with the universal and ordinary Magisterium is not binding on Catholics; i.e. praying jointly with heretics and schismatics; though it should be at the least respected as the personal theological opinion of a valid Pope and not dismissed out of hand.

Do I believe Paul VI, JP I, JPII, and Benedict XVI (possibly John XXIII)were/are proponents of the "New Theology" which in its essence is heretical and modernism repackaged? Yes.

Do I think they realize this theological view is, in it's essence heretical? No.

Do I think VCII Popes have committed formal heresy? No, because it is the very nature of the New Theology to be elusive and evasive and ambiguous so one can never nail down a heresy. One statement in an address will appear to be heretical and then another will appear to be orthodox and say the exact opposite. It's a shell game.

The Popes honestly think that they are doing the Church a service by synthesizing opposites to build "unity" and "peace", but in the objective order they are doing nothing but fostering confusion and fanning the flames of the crisis.

It is indeed the diabolical disorientation Sr. Lucia spoke of. The modern Popes (and almost all of the curia for that matter) are simply not thinking straight having, in my opinion, adopted false premises of modern philosophy.

The indefectability argument only goes so far. In my view it is a negative protection against the Pope formally teaching heresy. But so what? Satan has found a loophole whereby all of the Church's teaching can be completely gutted without "officially" gutting it.

It seems conservatives continually beat the drum that all contradictions can be explained away on paper, but that is meaningless. What matters is if the true Faith is being preached and taught and believed and errors and those who teach them are condemned.

LeonG said...

"....orthodox."

According to the new paradigm and the new philosophies he is "orthodox". And "obedient" to his vision of the post-conciliar church which he insists is in continuity but which quite clearly is not. Just studying the council on liturgy and the sequel outcome is enough to put that in the shadows. he is certainly "faithful" to this.

The facts speak louder than the post-conciliar drum that keeps being continually banged. Compromise and division with no clarity and little if any discipline. A devastated church and a disorientated clergy for the most part. What is there that is orthodox, faithful and obedient about that.

Prodinoscopus said...

Christ never did promise that any Pope would not defect from the Faith.***Gideon, that is precisely my point. The CHURCH, with the Pope (personally orthodox or heretic) visibly the head of her, will triumph. CHRIST will triumph, even if his chosen Rock doth crumble.

Rick, even a heretic Pope has the power to bind and loose.

Interesting point, though, about Our Lord's dialogue with the Samaritan woman. You've got me thinking on that one.

So when is a Pope 'faithful' enough?***When he promotes missionary activity among the Jews and is not afraid himself to preach salvation through Our Lord Jesus Christ openly in their midst -- face to face, not obliquely in sermons addressed to Christian audiences.

Rick DeLano said...

Prodinoscopus writes:

Christ never did promise that any Pope would not defect from the Faith.***Gideon, that is precisely my point. The CHURCH, with the Pope (personally orthodox or heretic) visibly the head of her, will triumph. CHRIST will triumph, even if his chosen Rock doth crumble.

>>You are wrong, Prodinoscopus, in this precise way: it is impossible that any Pope, faithful or heretic, shall ever bind the faithful to error in matters of faith or morals.

To deny this is heresy, because to deny this is to deny Christ's specific promise to His Church:

19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

This means, exactly, what it says. It means, exactly, that Christ Himself will not permit any Pope- faithful or heretic, saint or sinner, to bind the conscience of the Catholic to error in matters of Faith and morals.

Period.

It does not mean something else.

It is astounding to me how many people apparently have managed to convince themselves that Christ must have meant something else.

Ironic, isn't it, that the modernists and the defectibilists (to coin a not very adroit phrase) must both depart from the plain meaning of Scripture in order to concoct "interpretations" tailor-fitted to their own prejudice?
****

Rick, even a heretic Pope has the power to bind and loose.

>>He sure does. What is rather more important, is that even an heretic Pope will never bind and loose the Catholic in opposition to heaven's immutable Truth.

This is not because of the Pope's virtue or lack thereof.

This is because Christ Himself so constitutes His Church, that the successor of Peter will be prevented from binding us to error in matters of Faith and morals.

Isn't that wonderful?

Isn't it an astounding thing that God has made us Catholic, and given us the sure Light of His promise?

Now it is indeed a challenge in these awful times to distinguish the authentic acts of binding and loosing from the false attempts to supplant them with the opinions of men.

But it can be done.
********
Interesting point, though, about Our Lord's dialogue with the Samaritan woman. You've got me thinking on that one.

So when is a Pope 'faithful' enough?***When he promotes missionary activity among the Jews and is not afraid himself to preach salvation through Our Lord Jesus Christ openly in their midst -- face to face, not obliquely in sermons addressed to Christian audiences.

>>> This is a pastoral decision and it is the easiest temptation to sin against Faith imaginable: why isn't Peter doing this the way I think Peter should? Why doesn't he do it the way Pope Such and So did?

The Pope may indeed fail to pastor the Church in the best way or even in an adequate way. In those times we get to follow the example of every Saint, including St Francis, who, according to one story, approached Our Lord in the tabernacle after having despaired of a carousing, womanizing, drunkard priest.

"I am leaving, Lord", St. Francis says, and as he is on his way out of the Church he hears a Voice:

"That's alright Francis. I am staying."

We need more Catholics.

Isabelle said...

Jordanes: "Not really, and anyway "novel" is not the same thing as "wrong" or "in conflict with the faith of the Church.""

I don't believe you know what you are saying here. The definition of novel:
of a new kind; different from anything seen or known before: a novel idea.

Galatians 1:8, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a Gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be Anathema."

Now, how can something "novel" not be in conflict with the Catholic Faith?

"As for LeonG's comment, of course Pope Benedict is not a traditionalist. He's not obligated to a traditionalist, just faithful, obedient, and orthodox."

Well, at least you got that right. The Pope is not a traditionalist. What a sad truth. If he is not faithful to tradition, what exactly is he faithful to?

Michael said...

"That is, the Church, which has her origin in the trinitarian God, is a mystery of communion. As a communion, the Church is not a solely spiritual reality, but lives in history, that is to say, in flesh and blood. The Second Vatican Council describes her "as a sacrament, or sign and instrument of the intimate union with God and of unity with the entire human race" (Lumen Gentium, 1). And the essence of the sacrament is exactly that [in it] the invisible is touched in the visible, that the touchable visible opens the door unto God himself. The Church, we said, is a communion, a communion of people who, through the action of the Holy Ghost, form the People of God that is, at the same time, the Body of Christ."

Pope Benedict XVI speaks to a "more meditated" understanding of a communion that inherently is a mystery and is folly to human comprehension: 'the invisible is touched in the visible'
Yet he and we have seen it and known the People of God worshiping inside the Body of Christ. That is an action of the Holy Ghost, which is self or group deception to the
materialist observer.
Jesus Christ required a specific action to enter into communion with the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The entire reality requires a poetic depth to communicate because it is human/materialist folly to contemplate.
In addition, my limitations required four readings of the Pope's words to reach down and comprehend because the nature of the revelation we believe is mystery.
BTW, many of us are grateful for Jordanes 'heads up' comments. They were very necessary in this dialogue.

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg, FL

Jordanes said...

I don't believe you know what you are saying here. The definition of novel:
of a new kind; different from anything seen or known before: a novel idea. . . . Now, how can something "novel" not be in conflict with the Catholic Faith?
***

Before A.D. 325, "homoouision" was not in the Creed, but after Nicaea I the novelty of confessing that the Son is consubstantial with the Father was the definition of orthodoxy.

As I said, "novel" is not the same as "wrong" or "in conflict with or contrary to Catholic tradition." Novelties can be right or wrong, in continuity with what went before or irreconcilably opposed with what went before. Criticising Vatican II for introducing novelties is a non-starter. The novelties must be individually examined to see if they fly in the face of the faith.

The Pope is not a traditionalist. What a sad truth. If he is not faithful to tradition, what exactly is he faithful to? ***

Again, "traditionalist" doesn't necessarily mean "faithful to Tradition."

Isabelle said...

Jordanes, a novelty is something new. Completely new. Your example regarding consubstantiation, and similarly the declaration of the Immaculate Conception, is not novelty. These are clarifications of already affirmed truths. In the Catholic Church, anything "novel" must be wrong.

Your last comment is a lame attempt to skirt around my question. What exactly is a traditionalist (the legitimate definition, not your own skewed idea of it), but someone faithful to tradition? So, you said it yourself - the Pope is not a traditionalist. That makes him a modernist.

LeonG said...

"If he is not faithful to tradition, what exactly is he faithful to?"

He is faithful to his personal "continuity hypothesis". He can be as pope or in any other capacity. However, the observable, objective and empirically researched facts demonstrate otherwise. Both the malleable "fabricated" post-conciliar liturgy and its disastrous consequences as well as the post-conciliar pastoral chaos documented throughout the neo-catholic world illustrate amply that there is almost no continuity with the pre-conciliar model. You have to be a real wishful thinker or, of course, a phenomenologist to be able believe that. There is nothing orthodox about this nor is there very much that is faithful about the new pantheistic style ecumenical and interreligious policies to what The Roman Catholic Church had achieved prior to the 1960s. Even the leading indicators of the contemporary church reveal a catastrophe since the councils.

There is an ever-yawning gulf, that needs some dramatic attention by our leaders but they have been drawn away towards illusory culturally relativised goals.

Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with different seeds, lest both the seed that thou hast sown and the fruit of the vineyard be sanctified together. (Deut 22:9)

Have I not hated them, O Lord, who hated Thee? [...] I have hated them with a perfect hatred, and they have become enemies to me. (Ps138:21-22)

Do not work together with unbelievers, for what does justice have in common with injustice? (II Corinthians 6:14).

Prodinoscopus said...

Immutable Tradition also speaks against Pope Benedict XVI's inter-religious escapades:

***If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion. (II Council of Constantinople)

No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics. (Council of Laodicea)

We decree that those who give credence to the teachings of the heretics, as well as those who receive, defend or patronize them, are excommunicated. [...] If anyone refuses to avoid such accomplices after they have been ostracized by the Church, let them also be excommunicated. (IV Lateran Council)

Wherefore, since outside the Catholic Church there is nothing perfect, nothing undefiled, the Apostle declaring that "all that is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23), we are in no way likened with those who are divided from the unity of the Body of Christ; we are joined in no communion. (Pope St. Leo the Great)

Jordanes said...

Jordanes, a novelty is something new. Completely new. Your example regarding consubstantiation, and similarly the declaration of the Immaculate Conception, is not novelty. These are clarifications of already affirmed truths. ***

Isabelle, prior to A.D. 325 the Church had NEVER had a Creed with any non-scriptural words in it. After that date, She did. In addition, "homoousios" originally had an heretical meaning and connotation. These are among the reasons why so many were very resistant to the novel doctrine of Nicaea I, and the heretics were able to take advantage of that traditionalism to try and bring in their own ideas.

In the Catholic Church, anything "novel" must be wrong. ***

Rubbish. At one time Latin liturgy was a novelty. So was mandatory priestly celibacy. So was having the pope elected by the College of Cardinals. So was having bishops appointed directly by the pope instead of being elected by the chapter.

Your last comment is a lame attempt to skirt around my question. ***

Seems to me that's what you're trying to do with your declaration that some novelties aren't really novelties. In your words, you have a skewed idea of "novelty."

What exactly is a traditionalist (the legitimate definition, not your own skewed idea of it), but someone faithful to tradition? ***

A traditionalist is someone who believes that tradition must hold a central place, or even the most prominent place (i.e., tradition is normative and all other things must be subordinated to it). But holding that belief and being faithful to tradition are not the same thing.

So, you said it yourself - the Pope is not a traditionalist. That makes him a modernist. ***

Wrong again. It's not a dichotomy between two exclusive sets, traditionalists and modernists. What counts is orthodoxy and fidelity. A traditionalist who is not orthodox or faithful is no better than a modernist heretic. If a non-traditionalist is faithful and orthodox, then he is faithful to Apostolic Tradition, -- and it's fidelity to Apostolic Tradition, not being a traditionalist, that is obligatory for Catholics. "Traditionalism" is not a part of the deposit of faith.

Jordanes said...

Canons are not immutable, but can be altered or rescinded, as those canons were. The teachings on which they are based and which they enshrine are immutable, not the canons themselves.

Borromeo said...

I would like to quote something that was written in the FSSP newsletter in April. It was written by D.Q. McInerny, Ph.D. I think it is not only relevant to what is going on here in this discussion on this blog, but what is going on in "Traditional" circles.

"...what I have in mind by referring to a nostalgic regard for the past is an attitude which is put in place by the practice of imaginatively doctoring and reshaping the past so that it becomes something which, in fact, it never was. It is a practice which fosters a dreamy, sentimentalized rendition of the past, transforming it into a kind of Never-Never-Land, to which one is constantly appealing, usually as a standing indictiment against every aspect of the present, and the obsessive commitment to which serves to prevent a person from living fully and responsibly in the present. This attitude produces an essentially fictionalized past, into which one can attempt to escape every now and then to elude the pressing demands of the here and now. In the end, a nostaligic regard for the past then turns out to be, ironically, a way of not dealing with the past at all, not the REAL past, at any rate. The "past" being dealt with is a distortion; it is what one supposes the past to have been, or often, simply what one wishes it to have been. Such an attitude can have nothing to do with a healthy understanding of and respect for tradition..."

Prodionscopus said...

Where was the canon that no Catholic shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics officially rescinded?

At the infamous Assisi prayer meetings, the organizers took pains to ensure that Catholics and infidels did not technically pray together, so apparently the above-referenced canon is still in place.

Oh, the intellectual contortions that are required to rationalize the scandals created the Conciliar Popes!

Jordanes said...

Where was the canon that no Catholic shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics officially rescinded? ***

Didn't somebody here recently point out that well before Vatican II, Rome said it was permitted to pray the Our Father with non-Catholics under certain circumstances?

At the infamous Assisi prayer meetings, the organizers took pains to ensure that Catholics and infidels did not technically pray together, so apparently the above-referenced canon is still in place. ***

Not necessarily, but then we've never avoided praying with infidels simply to keep from violating canon law, but to make sure the infidels know that we can't condone their religious errors and defective concepts of the divine. As long as care is taken not to obscure that in people's minds, the pope joining with Eastern Christians, Jews, and Muslims in a brief prayer for peace is not likely to do any harm. It's nothing so scandalous as the infamous Quran-kissing of John Paul II.

Prodinoscopus said...

Borromeo,

It is Dr. McInerny who is creating a fiction (and not a very compelling one) with his false characterization of Traditionalists as essentially nostalgia-seekers.

I'll give the Pope credit for at least taking the SSPX position with the seriousness that it deserves. One doesn't sit down to doctrinal discussions with dreamy nostalgia buffs.

I can see why the SSPX and FSSP are so much at odds.

Regarding the immutability of theological canons:

***Since many errors are at this time disseminated and many things taught and discussed by many persons that are in opposition to this ancient faith, which is founded on the holy Gospel, the traditions of the Apostles, and the teaching of the holy Fathers, the holy council, after many and grave deliberations concerning these matters, has resolved with the unanimous consent of all to condemn and eliminate from holy Church by means of the following canons whatever is opposed to this most pure faith and sacred doctrine. (Council of Trent, Session 22, Chapter IX)

***I don't see how the immutability of doctrine does not also apply to the canons that are devised to protect doctrine. The immutability of the latter would seem to flow from the immutability of the former.

In any case, traditional condemnations of religious error have to say the least become obscured in the minds of heretics and infidels, and the Holy Father's participation in inter-religious prayer does not help.

Kevin said...

"Didn't somebody here recently point out that well before Vatican II, Rome said it was permitted to pray the Our Father with non-Catholics under certain circumstances?"


"Fact 12" of Ben Douglass' "Thirteen Facts for Gerry Matatics to Face up to" deals with this issue well, I think. One thing that is mentioned is a "December 20, 1949 instruction on the Ecumenical Movement from the Holy Office under Pius XII, which permitted Catholics and non-Catholics to jointly recite the Pater Noster or other orthodox prayer to open and close ecumenical congresses."

http://www.pugiofidei.com/matatics.htm

Anonymous said...

Today, Pentecost Sunday, our good FSSP priest in his sermon spoke of the changes at Pentecost Mass and how a missal from the 1940s would differ from the 1962 missal (the NO missal didn't get mentioned, thank God).

We were also encouraged to pay heed to the Rogation Days, Feast of Corpus Christi, etc.

I was struck with awe by our HERITAGE.

I can not imagine a NO sermon accomplishing the same.

We share a church with the NO and when I looked at their barren table, with no altar rail, thinking of they receive the Lord in their hands like bread and while standing, its not too hard to envision a meal rather than a sacrifice.

Pity them. The recovation destroyed our links with our heritage...unless of course you take a revisionist view.


Anon Vingt Trois

Jordanes said...

I don't see how the immutability of doctrine does not also apply to the canons that are devised to protect doctrine. The immutability of the latter would seem to flow from the immutability of the former. ***

Does the Roman Pontiff not have the authority to revise or rescind canons? I'm pretty sure that, for better or worse (I'm inclined to think the latter) the canons you quoted are not to be found in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which is the only code of binding canons the Latin Church has at this time.

Prodinoscopus said...

Jordanes,

Should we not distinguish between the disciplinary canons that are found in canon law and the theological canons that are promulgated by councils? I assume that the Tridentine canons concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, for example, are not found in any code of canon law. Are you suggesting that the canons of Session 22 of the Council Trent, which anathemitize heretical doctrine concerning the Mass, are not binding on Catholics?

Prodinoscopus said...

Rare exceptions notwithstanding, the wise principle that Catholics should avoid common prayer with heretics, schismatics, and infidels remains true. The spectacle of the Sovereign Pontiff participating in inter-religious prayer is injurious to the already corrupted faith of Conciliar Catholics and thus a grave scandal.

Isabelle said...

Borromeo said: "...what I have in mind by referring to a nostalgic regard for the past is an attitude which is put in place by the practice of imaginatively doctoring and reshaping the past so that it becomes something which, in fact, it never was." (FSSP Newsletter)

Funny, that sounds just like what happened at VII.

As for the rest of what was written by Dr. McInerny, all I can say is "hogwash." This is just an attempt to paint "traditionalists" as "sentimentalists." It is divisive and mean-spirited.

LeonG, thank you for so ably answering my question, which Jordanes was apparently unable or unwilling to do.

Jordanes said...

Should we not distinguish between the disciplinary canons that are found in canon law and the theological canons that are promulgated by councils? ***

Yes.

I assume that the Tridentine canons concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, for example, are not found in any code of canon law. Are you suggesting that the canons of Session 22 of the Council Trent, which anathemitize heretical doctrine concerning the Mass, are not binding on Catholics? ***

No, I'm not. It was precisely my point to make sure we distinguish between disciplinary canons (those of a juridic nature and hence codified in church law) and dogmatic canons ("if any man saith . . . let him be anathema").

LeonG, thank you for so ably answering my question, which Jordanes was apparently unable or unwilling to do. ***

Nah, it's just that you didn't like the answer I gave you, Isabelle.

Ogard said...

“'The Second Vatican Council, wishing to pass on the pure and integral doctrine on the Church...' He must be kidding, right?”

He isn’t “kidding” but teaching the true Catholic doctrine. In those matters in which Vatican II addressed a doctrine on the same subject which the previous councils and documents had done, it was an authentic interpretation and articulation of the same received Message. Right?

Ogard said...

'I am honored to be able to stand with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI ..' , Jordanes is quoted to have said. I am proud too. Indeed – to use another commenter’s phrases - would be most “proud to stand ’holding hands’ in prayer with” everybody who believes in God (inside quotations marks are mine).

The use of the words like “schismatics, heretics, and infidels” (if Jews and Moslems are meant by the latter) in this context is to put it mildly – impolite, not to mention that it is doctrinally unsound.

And one wonders how are we supposed to understand what is the “the head of a pantheon of religions”? A meaningless cliché, devised by somebody, and parroted by others? Or something meaningful and what is it then?

Jordanes said...

'I am honored to be able to stand with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI ..' , Jordanes is quoted to have said. ***

No, that was Rick DeLano, not me -- though I quite agree with his statement.

The use of the words like “schismatics, heretics, and infidels” (if Jews and Moslems are meant by the latter) in this context is to put it mildly – impolite, not to mention that it is doctrinally unsound. ***

It may be impolite, but the Catholic Church has never been doctrinally unsound when She has correctly called Muslims and non-Christian Jews "infidels," that is, persons who do not believe that Jesus is Lord and God. That's simply the truth, and if the truth is doctrinally unsound, then that means the doctrine is false.

Anonymous said...

Ogard, said "And one wonders how are we supposed to understand what is the “the head of a pantheon of religions”?"

Isn't this part of our patrimony, it is not a cliche? Our fathers faced the Pantheon of the Gods in Rome in the early years of the Church. They preached the Catholic faith, suffered, made converts, got the T shirt.

It is so easy to make a parallel between V2 ecumenism, syncretism or synthesis of religions and the Pantheon of the Gods. For example Taize, Spirit of V2, New Age, one world.

Does the new church ask for the conversion of sinners and society at large? No. If it does I certainly haven't heard it from the pulpit or read it.

Rick said, "It is quite another to set oneself up as judge and jury over Holy Mother Church and Our Sovereign Pontiff."

Discernment, if the faith of New Church is not the Catholic faith I want to 100% right when I diss V2 and New Church, lest I sin. Personally I am with Mr. Perkins.

How come the proponents of new church can't get it right? "you shall know them by their fruit" seems to ring true.

Our Holy Catholic Faith of pre-V2 would have disappeared altogether if it wasn't for the voices of dissent (SSPX and others). No one can deny that fact.

Anonymous,
On behalf of Anonymous Catholic Bloggers

Ogard said...

Jordanes, sorry for the cock-up. I took the quote from another place and attributed it to you as your name was at the end; and took the word "infidels" as referring to those who did not believe in God.

Ogard said...

“The reality of rupture is there for all of us to see.”

The assertion is perfectly correct. However, it is not the rupture between the Vatican II and “the Church of all times”, but between the liberals and “traditionalists” from one side, both of whom, in their own respective ways, see the “rupture” elsewhere; and the true Church of Christ which continues to live and to whom we belong here and now.

Vatican II is a living continuation of the “Church of all times” – that is how I understand the Holy Father’s HOC. It is not a new church that overrules the past, whether this overruling be conceived as an abolition as the liberals think, or as something that is independent on the Message received from the past as the “traditionalists” would have it. She is the Living Tradition, not a hollow catalogue of dogmas, doctrines, and regulations.

During “the very proceedings” there was a debate as in other councils (one thinks of 50, or 150 – I am not sure, bishops who left Vatican I to avoid voting for the Pastor Aeternus, shall we say: 15% of the entire hierarchy; or the hotly debate at Trent as to whether Christ offered Sacrifice at the Last Supper) but the documents finally promulgated contain a reiteration of the received Message, its in-depth development, and expansion to the vast areas not dealt with, or only touched, by the previous Councils (ecclesiology, Revelation/tradition/scripture, ecumenism, moral doctrine).

Ogard said...

The Pope “never actually puts that hermeneutic into practice himself by EXPLAINING to the faithful exactly how, say, Dignitatis Humanae can be reconciled with Tradition” (comment 29.5).

I doubt that there are many faithful who have endeavoured to read that “Tradition” and compared it with DH, having understood both in their literal sense, i.e. as meant to be unerstood by their authors; and then established the “contradiction”; and now need explanation. An ordinary Catholic doesn’t bother in the least, and would bother even less if he learned that at stake is the status of a non-Catholic minority in a “Catholic” state, which nowhere exists and, if it is conceived as it was conceived by the “Tradition”, will never exist – thank God.

So, I wonder what is the purpose of insisting on “reconciliation with Tradition”? Isn’t, exclusively, the living Magisterium here and now the authenic interpreter of the whole Tradition that has come down to us, of the 19th century encyclicals as well? Hasn’t the Church more important matters to be busy about? The reconciliation of the Pius IX’s encyclicals with the Church’s teaching on justice and conscience, for example. Or of his Pastor Aeternus with Tradition of the first millenium, in particular because of our commitment to ecumenism.

Jordanes said...

the status of a non-Catholic minority in a “Catholic” state, which nowhere exists and, if it is conceived as it was conceived by the “Tradition”, will never exist – thank God. ***

You're right, Ogard, about what is at stake -- it is the need to balance the State's obligation to embrace and honor the Catholic faith with the State's obligation to ensure justice to all of its subjects, including non-Catholics.

You're wrong, however, if you think the traditional teaching on the Social Kingship of Christ was not authentic, authoritative, binding, or true. DH is obviously in tension if not contradiction with what the Church had been teaching on the subject for most of her history, and it's no solution to the problem to, as you seem to be doing, dismiss the prior teachings as defective or erroneous.

Nor is it apparent that it is God we have to thank for the demise of the Catholic state, and we can't rule out a future return of the Catholic state either, though it's not likely in the foreseeable future. History shows the terrible struggle the Church had in attempting, and usually failing, to get Catholic states to be authentically Catholic, honoring their obligations to God and to the Vicar of Christ. Those problems resulted chiefly from a generally unevangelised population of baptised Catholics, and when Catholics get back to preaching the Gospel and making disciples, baptising them in the Name of the Holy Trinity, eventually there will arise again the difficult question of balancing the State's obligation to honor and obey the Church with the obligation to respect the legitimate rights of non-Catholics. When that happens, it is to be hoped that we will have learned from the serious mistakes of the past and not repeat them.

Jordanes said...

Hasn’t the Church more important matters to be busy about? ***

These matters touch on the heart and core of the Church's faith, and there's nothing more important than that.

The reconciliation of the Pius IX’s encyclicals with the Church’s teaching on justice and conscience, for example. ***

That's just another facet of this same problem.

Or of his Pastor Aeternus with Tradition of the first millenium, in particular because of our commitment to ecumenism. ***

There's no conflict between Pastor Aeternus and the Tradition of the first millennium, nor does the Church's commitment to ecumenism (which is the commitment to reunite separated bodies of Christians with the Vicar of Christ through helping them to understand and accept the Church's teachings, including the teachings of Pastor Aeternus) give rise to any difficulties or conflicts. It is only the false ecumenism promoted by many Catholic leaders that gives rise to such conflicts.