Rorate Caeli

The Roman Pilgrimage of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer


F.SS.R Mass in St. Peter's Basilica

The blog of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer now has pictures of the Roman pilgrimage of Fr. Michael Mary Sim F.SS.R and five of the congregation's seminarians. They attended the Papal Vespers of the Feast of the Sacred Heart last June 19 and offered Mass (1962 Missal, naturally) in various Roman churches, including St. Peter's Basilica (in the morning of June 22, 2009).

More from Rome (with pictures of the F.SS.R's Mass in St. Peter's Basilica)

Visiting Holy Places (including a picture of Solemn Mass in the FSSP church in Rome last June 21)




68 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's a pity that the papal Vespers were Novus Ordo.

After I had seen the pictures you have posted I have thought about what somebody has written on the Byzantine Catholic Forum a few months ago.
I know an ACROD "Pani" who makes vestments for a source of income. She tells me she also makes and sells modern Latin-Rite vestments. She says tht all you have to do is get a piece of fabric and cut a hole in it, and you can sell it for more than you would get for Greek or Russian-style vestments http://tiny.cc/LnnP4

wsxyz said...

I am guessing that horrible looking green thing was what Fr. Michael Mary was given by the sacristan rather than what he personally chose.

Prodinoscopus said...

Eventually Bishop Fellay will have to attend a Novus Ordo Mass celebrated by Benedict XVI. It's inevitable.

The FSsR no longer say a critical word about Vatican II, at least not in any public forum. They still celebrate the TLM exclusively and teach traditional doctrine, although I do not know if they address any of the contentious issues in their sermons, e.g., the New Mass, religious liberty, false ecumenism, etc. My sense is that don't say anything about those issues one way or another. They used to have some very good things to say about those matters.

The photos from Rome are absolutely amazing. Also, Fr. Michael Mary is a good and holy priest, and a thoroughly decent human being. All things considered, there is much to admire about the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer.

Anonymous said...

Prodinoscopus, The fssR do continue to criticise the New Mass ect. One only needs to look at the New Zealand Blog of the same order to see where critical things are written about the new church. Though I think its great to see them focussing on the salvation of souls. I am tired of listening to SPPX sermons that are just full of anti novus ordo stuff. Ones faith shouldnt be defined by its opposition
Scott

Prodinoscopus said...

Scott, you are right, Fr. Clement Mary was always a bit more of a "hard liner" ... and appears to remain so, to a certain extent. I haven't been out to the NZ blog in a while, and will do so.

I don't get tired of hearing the voice of opposition, when there are things that need opposing. When the Faith is threatened, then we do define our Faith by opposing the threat. Have you forgotten St. Athanasius, St. Dominic, Archibishop Lefebvre?

Anonymous said...

Prodinoscopus,

I've been to quite a lot of SSPX Masses and have only ever heard a few brief references to the new mass and all the other controversial topics out of all the Masses I've been to.

You cannot just say that the Holy Sons of the Redeemer have stopped criticising. That's unfair. And besides it's better to hear a traditional sermon instead of one full of irritating rhetoric that offers no solutions to the current crisis.

Prodinoscopus said...

Well, Scott, I just checked the NZ blog and see that Fr. Clement Mary recommends in his last post a blog called Opuscula, which is essentially a learned apologia for the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty.

It is obvious to me that the FSsR have evolved into a position of opposition to the SSPX in certain doctrinal matters (i.e., the very matters that will be the bones of contention in the upcoming doctrinal discussions). One could argue that they are seeking a middle ground between Liberalism and "Lefebvrism", which is basically the position of Pope Benedict XVI.

It will be interesting to see if Bishop Fellay takes the SSPX down the same path.

Anonymous said...

It will be interesting to see if Bishop Fellay takes the SSPX down the same path.

Interesting? It would be weird is what it would be.

Joseph

David Joyce said...

Eventually Bishop Fellay will have to attend a Novus Ordo Mass celebrated by Benedict XVI. It's inevitable.

Why inevitable? This is not a teaching of the Church, and it is not a substantial sign of communion. This must be resisted.

I am tired of listening to SPPX sermons that are just full of anti novus ordo stuff. Ones faith shouldnt be defined by its opposition

I have been attending SSPX Masses for years now, and sermons mentioning the new Mass or the crisis are very rare. In fact, my experience is quite the opposite to yours - since the SSPX have their own properties, priests, etc., they simply get on with a Catholic life and help the faithful to do the same.

K Gurries said...

Prodinoscopus, I write the Opuscula blog and I am no liberal. Some find it useful since my approach is to demonstrate continuity of principles -- both before and after Vatican II. Consider that Bishop Fellay has recently affirmed Vatican II in "light of Tradition" while rejecting any notion of "rupture". That is basically my approach as well.

God Bless,
K Gurries
http://opuscula.blogspot.com/

Jordanes said...

Sounds like the Opuscula approach to DH is not essentially different from the approaches taken by Father Brian Harrison, Thomas Storck, and David Palm, all of which strike me as promising.

Prodinoscopus said...

Anon 15:59, I'm not really talking about sermons, I'm talking about publications. I receive the Catholic newspaper published by the FSsR. It's a wonderful publication, a traditional miscellany filled with old fashioned Catholic wisdom. I love it. However, before the reconciliation with Rome, the old fashioned piety was "spiced", shall we say, with trenchant commentary on the crisis in the Church. The latter has disappeared from the pages of Catholic. To read the publication, you'd think that there was no crisis in the Church at all. I think that this is the "fruit" of the reconciliation and a reflection of Fr. Michael Mary's belief that the SSPX position is one of "practical sedevacantism" and schism. Ironically, Fr. Michael Mary's view is shared (with somewhat different coloring) by the sedevacantist critics of the SSPX.

Sorry, anon, there is nothing unfair in my observation.

K Gurries, I didn't say that you were a liberal. Please read my comment more carefully. I said that your blog is a learned apologia on behalf of Dignitatis Humanae. I also said that the FSsR is steering a course between Liberalism and "Lefebvrism", which is essentially the position of Pope Benedict XVI. Perhaps I should have said "Conservatism" rather than "Liberalism". That's more accurate.

I wonder if Bishop Fellay still considers the Pope a "perfect liberal"? After all, I believe that Benedict XVI still favors the separation of Church and State. It will be very, very interesting to see how this thing evolves.

Prodinoscopus said...

Who knows, K Gurries, maybe when the history of this period is finally written, the reconciliation of the "Lefebvrists" will be known as the "Opuscula Solution". :-)

I prefer the line taken by Archibshop Lefebvre in the Dubia on Religious Liberty, but what do I know? Suffice to say that the FSsR seems to be taking a different line today. It happens. People change.

Prodinoscopus said...

Joseph, yes, interesting ... in a weird way.

Prodinoscopus said...

By the way, I'm reading a fascinating interview with Bishop Donald Sanborn by Stephen Heiner, publisher of Bishop Williamson's collected letters. I'm trying to get a read on whether Mr. Heiner is actually a sedevacantist himself. In any case, Bishop Sanborn's view is that if you accept the pontifical legitimacy of the Vatican II popes, then you must accept everything, including the legitimacy of the New Mass, because it is a universal discipline imposed by the Vicar of Christ. No criticism, no holding your nose, no stopping your ears. (They'll have to wheel me into Mass bound and gagged.)

David Joyce, I think that there is a certain inevitability here, and it's playing out before our very eyes, day by day.

In the end, it's going to be the Church headed by Pope Benedict XVI (including the SSPX and everyone else who call themselves "Catholic" and accept Benedict XVI as a valid Pope -- even Hans Kung) versus the sedevacantists. There will be no middle ground. Watch and see. What will Bishop Williamson do??? I must leave a query on Stephen Heiner's blog ...

Anonymous said...

Consider that Bishop Fellay has recently affirmed Vatican II in "light of Tradition" while rejecting any notion of "rupture".

When and in what context did he say that?

Joseph

Jordanes said...

Bishop Sanborn's view is that if you accept the pontifical legitimacy of the Vatican II popes, then you must accept everything, including the legitimacy of the New Mass, because it is a universal discipline imposed by the Vicar of Christ. No criticism, no holding your nose, no stopping your ears. ***

There’s no question about the legitimacy of the reformed Mass, but that certainly does not mean there can be no criticism of the reform and no objection to or protest of any of the problems that are linked to or arise from the reformed Mass, nor that one may not hold that the traditional Mass is superior to the reformed Mass.

Alex said...

I believe there’s some misunderstanding here. When Bishop Fellay says that the documents of Vatican II should be read in light of Tradition he’s NOT saying that these documents should be interpreted in accordance with Tradition, but simply that they should be analyzed “in light” of Tradition (that is, we have to see if the doctrines taught by these documents and Tradition are the same), and that if they are not conformable to Tradition, they should be rejected. He specifically mentioned some teachings that could be rejected.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

Jordanes,

Could you embed the video of Bishop Fellay's interview? Am having problems doing so.

Carlos

K Gurries said...

Joseph, Bishop Fellay affirmed this in his Press Release of March 12, 2009 (see DICI):

“Far from wanting to stop Tradition in 1962, we wish to consider the Second Vatican Council and post-conciliar teaching in the light of this Tradition which St. Vincent of Lérins defined as ‘what has been believed at all times, everywhere and by all’ (Commonitorium), without rupture and in a perfectly homogenous development."

But also see his recent interviews that speak the language of "clarification" (not rejection) with respect to Vatican II. I think that is the correct approach and the approach of my blog. This is nothing new with respect to the SSPX. Archbishop Lefebvre affirmed on multiple occasions his acceptance of Vatican II in light of Tradition (Cf. Davies, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre).

Anonymous said...

Praise God the excommunications have been eradicated. But a morbid schismatic spirit still permeates the souls of many involved in SSPX.

"...schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the sovereign pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy." Aquinas Summa Theologica

Those who would mock Fr Michael Mary and the FSSP should think twice after reflecting on the council of Florence...

"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire 'which was prepared for the devil and his angels,' (Mat. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms deeds and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his alms giving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

K Gurries said...

I don't know why Mr. Heiner spends so much energy to present the views of Sanborn. I was even amused to see that Mr. Heiner presented a "response" from Sanborn (see the fisheaters forum: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3421479.0.html) to my "Rupture Theology" piece. I don't think there is any surprise that he did not appreciate it.

Richard Friend said...

I was not aware that it was now permitted to celebrate the EF Mass at the side chapels of the main floor of St. Peter's Basilica. The last time I heard the permission was only for a chapel in the crypt below the main floor.

I've assisted at Masses at the side altars of the Basilica and even went to the sacristy where they have rows and rows of chasubles for priests to borrow for their Masses. Last time I was there I did not see any 1962 altar cards or any 1962 altar missal, so a priest intending to celebrate the EF Mass may have to bring these items himself. Fr. Michael Mary could have brought his own chasuble and used it to celebrate the Mass.

Prodinoscopus said...

Jordanes,

Archbishop Lefebvre accepted the validity of the New Mass, but he never accepted its legitimacy.

Bishop Sanborn's argument is that once you accept the validity, you must also accept the legitimacy, nay, the goodness of it.

I've not heard that argument (yet) from the FSsR and certainly not from the SSPX. You hear it quite often from mainstream and "conservative" Catholics.

John Vennari is putting together a video at CFN that shows young SSPX faithful explaining why they a) attended the ordinations in Winona, b) attend the Traditional Mass, and c) never attend the New Mass. The answers to b) and c) have not yet been edited into the final video. I cannot wait to see it. In any case, do you think that it will be considered acceptable for young SSPXers to go about evangelizing other Catholics and trying to persuade them to never attend the New Mass? It wouldn't bother me in the least, but I don't think that Benedict XVI will approve. Will Bishop Fellay be compelled to crack down on that kind of talk?

Dan Hunter said...

" I am tired of listening to SPPX sermons that are just full of anti novus ordo stuff."

Mr Anonymous:

I assist at an FSSPX chapel rather frequestly for about three years now, and I have rarely heard the pastor knock the Novus Ordo.

He usually emphasizes orthodox doctrine and when he puts down something it is usually heterodoxy or heresy.
Not the Novus Ordo Mass.
God bless you.

Jordanes said...

Bishop Sanborn's argument is that once you accept the validity, you must also accept the legitimacy, nay, the goodness of it. ***

Yes, I can follow that line of argument. The Roman Church's reformed Mass is undoubtedly valid, and hence essentially a good thing (which isn't to say that other approved liturgies aren't better things -- I think it's pretty clear that all other Catholic rites are head and shoulders above the Pauline rite), and it was undeniably approved and promulgated legitimately by the Roman pontiff. The process and premises and standards by which the new Mass was crafted were flawed, though, and at least partially illegitimate in that they included misguided and erroneous operative philosophies, some if not all of which popes had already explicitly rejected (e.g. archaeologism). Among the most troubling, I think, was the Consilium's evident tendency to downplay or obscure the seriousness of sin and the reality of the danger of hellfire.

Anonymous said...

K Gurries:

Then he must have meant, given his past statements on this matter, that to "interpret" the council "in the light of Tradition" it is necessary to reject from it that which is not part of Tradition, and after that task is accomplished, see what, if anything, can be fruitfully followed. Obviously this process would exclude such ideas from the council as the one that asserts that persons may not be prevented from publicly expressing their religious convictions when these convictions are heretical (there being only one religion that is true). As it would also exclude the council's idea that the true religion "subsists" in the Catholic Church.

Joseph

Jordanes said...

Joseph, perhaps you may be edified by considering Mr. Gurries' reflections at Opuscula. In addition, if the true religion does not subsist in the Catholic Church, where on earth does it subsist? ;-)

Of course Vatican II did not say that "the true religion" subsists in the Catholic Church, but that the one Church of Christ, "constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity." That is a formulation which simply cannot mean anything else but that the one Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, while other religious groups are NOT the one Church of Christ, but have certain ecclesial elements at work in them which in fact belong to the Catholic Church. Where is the conflict with Tradition here?

Anonymous said...

I have also rarely heard anything said of the Novus Ordo in Society masses, seems like another no hoper with an axe to grind.

As for:

"Those who would mock Fr Michael Mary and the FSSP should think twice after reflecting on the council of Florence..."

Do you really think that the FSSR take this teaching literally?

Anonymous said...

Jordanes,

The only conflict is with the word "subsist." The word was and continues to be "IS."

Unless, of course, one conceives the Church Christ founded as being in some way different from its historical manifestation.

Joseph

Brian said...

Jordanes,
Your comment today at 19:56 was extremely well stated.

As for the "subsisting" issue, you quote Vatican II, then write that the Vatican II document, "simply cannot mean anything else but that the one Church of Christ is the Catholic Church."

The magisterium has published subsequent documents, such as "Dominus Iesus," to "clarify" Vatican II and essentially repeated the complicated and controversial language of Vatican II.

The June 2007 CDF document, "RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH," for example, stated:

"SECOND QUESTION

"What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

"RESPONSE

"Christ 'established here on earth' only one Church and instituted it as a 'visible and spiritual community,' that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. 'This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him.'

"In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

"It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word 'subsists' can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the 'one' Church); and this 'one' Church subsists in the Catholic Church."

If it is obvious that Vatican II "simply cannot mean anything else but that the one Church of Christ is the Catholic Church," why doesn't the magisterium simply say that?

gabrielle said...

I am tired of hearing the the FSsR have compromised with Rome. What have they compromised. Bishop Moran visits them in Papa Stonsay and says his first Traditional Mass in 40 years. Who compromised!!! Father Michael Mary celebrated an EF Mass in a side Chapel. Richard Friend states that it was not allowed in the past - who has compromised. While I have great respect for the SSPX, and will always be greatful to the Archbishop for the stand he took, sometimes you can do just as good work from within and I believe the Sons of the Holy Redeemer are doing just that. I go to the Oratory in Christchurch and I can assure nothing has changed - THERE IS NO COMPROMISE WITH OUR FAITH. That is not only from Father Clement Mary but also from Fathers Michael and Anthony Mary when we were privilaged to have them visit.
Prodinoscopus:-
You might prefer The Catholic Newspaper to be ""spiced", shall we say, with trenchant commentary on the crisis in the Church" but again I say sometimes we can catch more flies with honey rather than vinegar.

Jordanes said...

The only conflict is with the word "subsist." The word was and continues to be "IS." ***

In what way does "subsist" conflict with Tradition?

Unless, of course, one conceives the Church Christ founded as being in some way different from its historical manifestation. ***

No, in that conception it would be impossible to affirm that the one Church of Christ, constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church.

If it is obvious that Vatican II "simply cannot mean anything else but that the one Church of Christ is the Catholic Church," why doesn't the magisterium simply say that? ***

It does say it, as simply as it is possible to say it while acknowledging that the ecclesial reality is partially, imperfectly, and defectively operative outside of Catholic communion. In the Catholic Church, however, and only in the Catholic Church, all the fullness of Christ's Body "subsists" ("exists continually and at all times"), something not true of any other Christian group.

Brian said...

Jordanes,
Your comment at 19:56 regarding the Novus Ordo is well-stated.

As for Vatican II and "subsists," Not only Vatican II, but the "clarifying" documents of "Dominus Iesus" and the June 2009 CDF "Responses to some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrint on the Church" both use the same language, including the word "subsists."

If, as you wrote, "That is a formulation which simply cannot mean anything else but that the one Church of Christ is the Catholic Church," why did the magisterium avoid the word "is"? "Is" and "is not" are such clear and contradictory words, while "subsists" yields ambiguity and shades of gray, as well as such post-Vatican II practices as the Assisi gathering and kissing the Koran.

Are you absolutely certain that there is no "conflict with Tradition here?"

Kevin said...

Jordanes,

I'd like to get your thoughts on the following quotations concerning the Church from some Church Fathers as well as St. Thomas Aquinas--do you think they relate to this matter of "subsists in"?

"Now a revelation was given to me, my brethren, while I slept, by a young man of comely appearance, who said to me, 'Who do you think that old woman is from whom you received the book?'

And I said, 'The Sibyl.'

'You are in a mistake,' says he; 'it is not the Sibyl.'

'Who is it then?' says I. And he said, 'It is the Church.' And I said to him, 'Why then is she an old woman?'

'Because,' said he, 'she was created first of all. On this account is she old. And for her sake was the world made.'"

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS, Book I, Vision Second, Cap. 4

-----------

"I think not that ye are ignorant that the living church is the body of Christ...and that the Books and the Apostles teach that the church is not of the present, but from the beginning. For it was spiritual, as was also our Jesus, and was made manifest at the end of the days in order to save us."

St. Clement of Rome, SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. CLEMENT, Cap. 4

------------

"From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God's purpose are just, are enrolled."

St. Clement of Alexandria, STROMATA, Book VII, Cap. 17

-----------

"The passion of the Church began already with Abel, and there is one Church of the elect, of those who precede, and of those who follow."

Pope St. Gregory the Great, HOMILIES ON EZEKIEL, Book II, Cap. 3, 16

-----------

"Some have said that the Church will exist only up to a certain time. But this is false, for the Church began to exist in the time of Abel and will endure up to the end of the world: 'Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.' Nay more, even after the end of the world, it will continue to exist in heaven."

St. Thomas Aquinas, CATECHISM OF ST. THOMAS, The Ninth Article: "I Believe in the Holy Catholic Church", "The Catholicity or Universality of the Church"; online at http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/aquinas/acreed09.htm

-------------
I orginally came across these quotations, Jordanes, in Jacob Michael's essay "No Salvation Outside..."--while the whole essay is fascinating, I think the following excerpt is interesting on how those quotes relate to "subsists in" and LUMEN GENTIUM:

"The Church, then, like the Logos of God, existed from the beginning, but became 'incarnate' at a particular point in history. This is what the Council means by saying that the Church of Christ subsists on earth in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the hierarchical order. There is still only the one true Church; yet it is truly katholikos, 'universal,' stretching all over the world and reaching back in time."

What do you think?

Jordanes said...

As for Vatican II and "subsists," Not only Vatican II, but the "clarifying" documents of "Dominus Iesus" and the June 2009 (sic) CDF "Responses to some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrint on the Church" both use the same language, including the word "subsists." ***

Yes, and the 2007 CDF clarification also explains what "subsists" means in Lumen Gentium and how it is to be understood.

If, as you wrote, "That is a formulation which simply cannot mean anything else but that the one Church of Christ is the Catholic Church," why did the magisterium avoid the word "is"? ***

Because there is much more to the reality of what the Catholic Church is than is found in the simpler statement, "The Catholic Church is the one, true, catholic, and apostolic church founded by Jesus," or, "The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ." Those statements are infallibly true, but the Council Fathers wanted to affirm those truths and also delve deeper into them.

"Is" and "is not" are such clear and contradictory words, while "subsists" yields ambiguity and shades of gray

"Subsists in" is also clear and unambiguous. The one Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. According to Vatican II, it does not subsist in any other society or group.

as well as such post-Vatican II practices as the Assisi gathering and kissing the Koran. ***

I'm not sure "subsists in" is their cause. They would more directly be linked to the subsequent acknowledgement that "many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of [the Catholic Church's] visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity."

Are you absolutely certain that there is no "conflict with Tradition here?" ***

Yes. Can you show anything in LG's famous "subsists in" passage that conflicts with Tradition?

Anonymous said...

I've always wondered why the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer live in seperate small cells on Papa Stronsay Island in Britian, rather than in the classic "monastery" setting. I know they take their inspiration from the Redemptorists, and I know that St. Alphonsus didn't have his men living in seperate huts or cells. They all lived in one seperate residence. I don't know if they even called it a monastery, because Redemptorists are not a monastic Order.

It's sad to seethat happened to the Redemptorists since Vatican II, and by extension to all Orders male and female alike.
Before Vatican II, there were nearly 10,000 Redemptorists. Today, there are barely 5,000.

I know the Sons of the MOst Holy Redeemer also (as the transalpine Redemptorists), at one time had a female branch much like the Redemptoristine nuns...but that it was disbanded. That's unfortunate.
They should try again to ressurect the Redemptoristine Order of nuns.
Their lifestyle and habit was among the most beautiful in the Church.
The lifestyle has been greatly simplified, and the habit in many of the 37 Redemptoristine cloisters has been tremendously altered or completely discarded in favor of layclothes (like the Redemptoristine cloister is Esposus, NY which has 8 aged radical liberal nuns).
The Sons should try again to rebuild this beautiful female monastic compliment to the Redemptorist Order, before it is extinct.

Peter said...

The word "subsists" is derived from "substance". In the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, which is the doctrinal foundation of the Church, just like in Aristotle's philosophy, every existing thing is composed of "substance" and "accidents".

The statement "Church of God subsists in the Catholic Church" means that the Church of God has its substance in the Catholic Church.

Pretty cool, but what about the accidents?

Everybody used to think in the terms of Catholic philosophy, when he reads what constitutes something, he is expecting to know what its substance is. Knowing substance, he will recognise that all other elements of a certain thing are accidents.

For somebody familiar with Catholic philosophy is obvious that after defining substance you will write about accidents. So let's continue reading Lumen Gentium (8,76):

although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

Surprise! LG does not speak about the accidents here in terms of the philosophy it has used just a few words before.

You can be saved outside the visible Church. But in that case you are a part of the Church, even if you don't realise it, a part of the invisible part of the Catholic Church.

In that case you know the truth, and the truth impels you to become a part of the visible part of the Catholic Church, as soon as it will be possible for you.

But if you don't know the basics of Catholic philosophy, as 99,99% catholics do not know nowadays due to total decline of catholic education, philosophy, theology and homiletics, you will think:

1. "Many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure". So maybe you can find them in other visible structures (Protestant, Orthodox, Satanist, etc.)?

2. What if those elements appear only there? LG does not say "are found ALSO outside..."?

3. But I like those elements! So maybe I join the Protestants, Orthodox, Satanist,etc.? I'd be anyway following some path of sanctification!

It leads to disaster. Lumen Gentium was obviously written with an evil intention of being able to be read in a way that makes both heterodox and orthodox interpretation possible. Just the fact that the CDF has to clarify it is an acknowledgement of that.

Guess which interpretation is most popular. The ambiguity of this crippled definition of the Church is itself a sufficient reason to burn Lumen Gentium at St. Peter's square.

The widespread interpretation is sufficient reason to burn Lumen Gentium at St. Peter's square AS SOON AS POSSIBLE !!!!

Prodinoscopus said...

Gabrielle, it's not a question of honey and vinegar. It's about the necessity of both the "arm of severity" in condemning error and the "balm of mercy" in dealing with those who have fallen into error. Vatican II threw out the former and focused exclusively on the latter. Big mistake.

Even worse, Vatican II itself fell into error, e.g., its claim that Muslims worship along with Catholics the "one and merciful God" who will come to judge mankind. That is borderline heresy and blasphemy. Some will argue that it actually crosses the line.

Jordanes said...

The word "subsists" is derived from "substance". ***

“Subsists” is related to “substance” (substantia) but not derived from it. It is rather connected to “subsistence” (subsistentia), which is distinct from though related to “substance.” Consequently it’s not clear that the Council Fathers were necessarily intending to call to mind the Thomist/Aristotelian categories of “substance” and “accidents,” though it is probably not inappropriate to discuss this passage of LG in those terms.

You can be saved outside the visible Church. But in that case you are a part of the Church, even if you don't realise it, a part of the invisible part of the Catholic Church. ***

Here’s how I understand it: the “invisible part” of the Church is the Church Triumphant and the Church Suffering. Anyone who is saved outside of visible communion with the Catholic Church (and that can happen, even though it is extraordinary and not easy, and it’s never safe to assume that any particular non-Catholic will indeed be saved), would not be fully and properly a part of the Church Militant, but would be incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ at the end of his life on earth. Contra Rahner’s speculations, there are no “invisible Christians” on earth.

"Many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure". So maybe you can find them in other visible structures (Protestant, Orthodox, Satanist, etc.)? ***

Yes, it’s undoubtedly true that elements of sanctification and of truth can be found everywhere, and even the most error-ridden, demonic religion will still probably get one or two things right.

What if those elements appear only there? LG does not say "are found ALSO outside..."? ***

If those elements appear only outside the Church, then it would not be true that the one Church of Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church is ever defective of truth or sanctification, then the Catholic Church would not be the Church that Jesus founded, but would only from time to time be the one Church of Christ. Any element of truth or sanctification found in non-Catholic religions will already be present in fullness and rightly ordered within Catholicism.

But I like those elements! So maybe I join the Protestants, Orthodox, Satanist, etc.? I'd be anyway following some path of sanctification! ***

But as you said, the path of sanctification leads to Catholic unity, and those who come to see that are obligated to become Catholic. The kind of reasoning you describe sounds a little like what we were hearing from Ogard regarding how we should handle Orthodox Christians who want to become Catholic.

Jordanes said...

Lumen Gentium was obviously written with an evil intention of being able to be read in a way that makes both heterodox and orthodox interpretation possible. Just the fact that the CDF has to clarify it is an acknowledgement of that. ***

When the words are given their proper and intended meaning, it is impossible to read LG in a way that makes a heterodox interpretation possible. “Subsists in” simply can’t mean what heretics and dissenters have tried to claim it means. I also have to disagree that this is a “crippled definition of the Church” – the definition and explanation is expanded and explained in more detail than before, and in a way that does not contradict anything that the Church has always believed about herself.

And if the fact that the Church has to respond to erroneous interpretations of her teaching documents suggests that the documents were written with an evil intention, then we’d have to burn quite a lot of magisterial declarations in St. Peter’s Square. Indeed, we’d have to toss out the entire Bible.

The Church, of course, has never, ever renounced a conciliar dogmatic constitution, and she never will. Such an act would cause catastrophic destruction of faith in Jesus and in the Church and her infallibility and indefectibility that would make the aftermath of Vatican II look like a Golden Age of Faith in comparison. Arguing for the burning of LG at St. Peter’s Square is just crazy talk. The only option, as always, is to answer questions and clarify confusion about a teaching of the Church, not to renounce it.

Jordanes said...

Even worse, Vatican II itself fell into error, e.g., its claim that Muslims worship along with Catholics the "one and merciful God" who will come to judge mankind. That is borderline heresy and blasphemy. Some will argue that it actually crosses the line. ***

If you’re going to bash Vatican II, at least quote the council accurately. Nostra Aetate 3 says:

“The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,[5] who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.”

The footnote, as has been pointed out before, is to Pope St. Gregory VII’s letter to Anzir in which the pope writes, “This affection we and you owe to each other in a more peculiar way than to people of other races because we worship and confess the one God though in diverse forms and daily praise and adore him as the creator and ruler of this world.” NA 3 is a brief list of those beliefs and practices of Muslims that the Catholic Church has in common with Islam. It is NOT a claim that the Muslim doctrine, understanding, and worship of God is correct or not without defects. All the Church did was acknowledge those elements of truth and goodness that may be found in Islam. There’s nothing blasphemous or heretical about truthfully and accurately summarizing beliefs that Muslims have in common with the Church. You have no grounds whatsoever for leveling the dreadful accusation that one of Holy Mother Church’s oecumenical councils fell into error and came close to blasphemy and heresy or even worse. Retract your rash and scandalous accusation, please.

Prodinoscopus said...

First of all, Jordanes, I was paraphrasing (accurately) Lumen Gentium 16:

'But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.'

The Muslims do not acknowledge the Creator. The Creator is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Muslims deny the Creator. The Muslims do not hold the faith of Abraham. The Catholic Church holds the faith of Abraham, no one else does (except maybe the Protestants and Orthodox in their own erroneous ways). The Muslims' profession of faith in Abraham is empty and meaningless. The Muslims do not "adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind", and who is none other than OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST -- whom the Muslims deny explicitly.

The dubious contents of a diplomatic letter from St. Gregory to a sultan is hardly relevant. We're talking here about a magisterial document that promotes, at best, profound theological error. As for St. Gregory, even "the Great" among us are capable of error from time to time. If I had lived in the time of St. Gregory, I would have been scandalized by his statement. However, I doubt that it was ever intended for the eyes of the faithful. For the authors of LG to put it in front of the eyes of the faithful in order to support an atrocious theological error is scandalous.

I will most certainly not retract my "rash and scandalous" statement because it is nothing of the sort. The words "rash and scandalous" are better used to describe the above quoted text from LG. That document should be burned in the middle of St. Peter's Square. I pray that such is the eventual fruit of the doctrinal discussions between Rome and the SSPX.

Jordanes said...

Prodinoscopus, I apologise for my error in saying you weren’t quoting NA 3 accurately. I’d forgotten about LG 16.

Even so, there is nothing even borderline heretical or blasphemous about LG 16, nor does it promote any sort of theological error. You are simply dead wrong in your opinion that Muslims do not acknowledge the Creator. Their defective theological beliefs do not take away from what things they do have right.

The Muslims do not hold the faith of Abraham. ***

The Church said that Muslim “profess to hold the faith of Abraham,” not that they actually do hold Abraham’s faith.

The Muslims do not "adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind" ***

On the contrary, their adoration is undeniably directed to the one and merciful God who on the last day will judge mankind. Just because they don’t know Him properly doesn’t mean they don’t know Him at all.

The dubious contents of a diplomatic letter from St. Gregory to a sultan is hardly relevant. ***

On the contrary, it shows an example of how the Church can accentuate what is true and positive in Islam for the sake of advancing the common good, rather than focusing only on the evils of Islam or taking a stance of open hostility.

As for St. Gregory, even "the Great" among us are capable of error from time to time. ***

I think it’s funny how some traditionalists have blown a gasket when I’ve had occasion to point out the fact that saints aren’t infallible and sometimes got things wrong, but they can be ready to reach for that explanation when they find a saint saying or doing something that conflicts with their understanding of Tradition.

If I had lived in the time of St. Gregory, I would have been scandalized by his statement. However, I doubt that it was ever intended for the eyes of the faithful. ***

Nevertheless, the contents of the letter to Anzir were long known to historians, and whatever the original intent of St. Gregory’s words, the Church at Vatican II intended them for the eyes of the faithful.

I will most certainly not retract my "rash and scandalous" statement because it is nothing of the sort. ***

You’ve failed to substantiate your opinion that LG 16 and NA 3 are at least borderline blasphemous and heretical, and that our Mother fell into doctrinal error when she promulgated those statements. Your statement is undoubtedly rash and scandalous. When discussing a church council’s teachings, you have to show much more discretion and measured language than you have in your comments.

That document should be burned in the middle of St. Peter's Square. I pray that such is the eventual fruit of the doctrinal discussions between Rome and the SSPX. ***

You’re living in a dream world, and not thinking with a Catholic sense, if you seriously hope and pray for that. The Church doesn’t damn and destroy her own teaching documents. She just can’t do that. All she ever does is explain and clarify them as she unfolds the apostolic deposit of faith. The doctrinal discussions hopefully will lead to a good deal of clarification and explanation, but it certainly would never result in the Roman Church formally abjuring teaching documents that it has promulgated to the whole Church.

Peter said...

Jordanes: Anyone who is saved outside of visible communion with the Catholic Church (and that can happen, even though it is extraordinary and not easy, and it’s never safe to assume that any particular non-Catholic will indeed be saved)

Actually, it is easy and safe. You just have to be a catechumen martyred before receiving baptism. There are many martyred catechumens venerated as saints.

If those elements appear only outside the Church, then it would not be true that the one Church of Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church.
It is true only in one case, when you understand "means of sanctification" properly, that is that a "mean of sanctification" is a sacrament. But for some mysterious reason Lumen Gentium does not tell you that.

You may imagine a liturgy which is more beautiful than all Catholic rites together, yet the subtly heretic and schismatic cult which invented that supposed liturgy has no valid orders. Wouldn't such beauty be a "mean of sanctification", elevating you to God, for people who were not told what a "mean of sanctification" is?


The Church, of course, has never, ever renounced a conciliar dogmatic constitution, and she never will.


Lumen Gentium does not define any dogmas, so it is not infallible, it just tries to explain articles of faith. And it fails. So Vaticanum Secundum will either be condemned or ignored eventually.


And if the fact that the Church has to respond to erroneous interpretations of her teaching documents suggests that the documents were written with an evil intention, then we’d have to burn quite a lot of magisterial declarations in St. Peter’s Square. Indeed, we’d have to toss out the entire Bible.


As far as I know Holy Spirit never claimed Himself in public that his intention was to finish with Catholic teaching. Contrary to the "Council Fathers", namely authors of the conciliar documents themselves.

Peter said...

"“The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems."

The Mystical Body of Christ regards with high esteem those who reject its divinity and even existence. Nonsense.

They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,[5] who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.

Well, there's one problem. There's no such "god", so they can't worship him. I don't deny that probably some spiritual creature really spoke to the false prophet Muhammad. But it wasn't God, because God does not lie. Guess who that creature was and who they worship (hint: who wants to be adored like God? who's the father of all lies? Answer these questions, realise who they really worship, and see how blasphemous this sentence is).

Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet.

To say that Our Lord Jesus Christ, God incarnate, was merely a tiny "prophet", much less important that the false prophet and merely a man - Muhammad - is a blasphemy.

In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead.

Have you noticed that their idea of heaven (lack of physical suffering with lack of visio beatifica) is exactly how we perceive the lightest form of hell?

Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.”

Is having 4 wives moral? Ridiculous nonsense.

Jordanes, I believe that you have good intent, but ultramontanism is not an excuse for defending evil, and never was. You can argue about Lumen Gentium and its interpretation, but the aforementioned statements from Nostra Aetate about people who worship devil who spoke to Muhamamad are unable to be defended. Fr Congar, author of the false doctrine of Nostra Aetate himself stated that his intention was to break up with Tradition.

Vaticanum Secundum will either be condemned or ignored eventually. It's just a matter of time.

Brian said...

Jordanes,
Has Church tradition always and everywhere said that "the one Church of Christ SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church" or that "the one Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church"?

The traditional language has been replaced. Perhaps this new language is perfectly clear to you, but many are confused by the change. Obviously the magisterium has released at least two documents since Vatican II to attempt to "clarify" this change. Some of us are still confused.

While Aquinas found elements of truth in Aristotle, that is a mere footnote compared with the central revelatory Truth that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.

Vatican II turned things inside out. A footnote was proclaimed as the prominent headline, while the headline dropped to a complicated footnote; the background was elevated to the foreground, the foreground fell into an obsure background; the clear truth was replaced by confusing nuance.

Vatican II and the post-Vatican II magisterium no longer clearly proclaim that "the one Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church." Why not?

Confusion now reigns. Solid Catholic retreats have been replaced with Carl Jung and Ira Progroff Journal workshops.

You wrote that using the word "subsist" is as "simply as it is possible to say" the word "is." What was so crucial about "acknowledging that the ecclesial reality is partially, imperfectly, and defectively operative outside of Catholic communion" that demanded a change in the clear traditional dogmatic statement? Has the fruit of that change been abundant growth for the Church and clear understanding among the faithful? I don't think so.

Stanislaw Wojtiech, Stanislawów, Ukraine said...

Would the Holy Roman Church and the infallible and indefectible Papacy ever promulgate such ambiguous and harmful and seemingly heterodox magisterial documents like the Common Declaration on the Justification between Lutherans and Catholics (1999, Ratzinger-made ambiguity), like Dignitatis humanae and Unitatis Redintegratio, like the pan-Christian and pan-religious Ut Unum Sint (1994), like the origenist Redemptor Hominis (1979), and the totally "revised" new rites for the sacraments in the (Novus Ordo) Latin Church, the validity of which (incl ordinations) is doubted by renommated theologians like Fr. Prof. Dr. Guérard des Lauriers O.P. and Fr. Dom Dr. Dr. Athanasius Kröger O.S.B., and the INterreligious Peace Prayer Conferences in Assisi 1986-2002, all packed with papal allocutions?

That is the point where the SSPX-modern Vatican-discussions múst be about, or they are doomed to fail or split the Society of St. Pius X into splintered factions. Which would be mortal to the Roman Catholic Traditionalist resistance movement.

Hopeful is however, that even sedevacantist or sedeprivationist (Cassiciacum Thesis) bishop Donald Sanborn stated on June 18, 2009, that Benedict XVI would be a possible "man to convert", and a possible "real" Pope, who could "convert to Roman Catholicism".

But Roman chasubles, allowance of the Tridentine Mass, and some Marian piety do not guarantee the return of orthodoxy and Restauration in the Conciliar Church at all.

Fr. George Tyrell did those things, and he only uttered his grave Modernist heresies in doublespeak in his books and university lectures. Not to the faithful! Like Fr. De Loisy, who heared confessions first, and then wrote into his diary, that in order to approach with the Muslems, one ought to "do away with Him, with that Jesus".

Modernists and Neo-Modernists are the double-speak, living contradictions, thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

As long as neo-traditionals limit things to some external splendour, the deep theological roots of this crisis, and the doubtful character of the continuity of the Conciliar Church with the Roman Catholic and apostolic Church established by Our Lord Jesus Christ on Saint Peter, remains doubtful and unsure.

I cannot believe, that my Mother Church, the Holy Roman Church, could utter doublespeak and doubtful or heterodox documents, and harmful sacramental rites favouring liberal protestant interpretations. But who am I?

Anyway, as long as the Crisis of discontinuity and lack of identical-ness remains in the Conciliar Church and the modern Vatican, it will make numerous faithful doubt the Faith and Our Lord's promises at all; or they would flee to the Eastern Orthodox schismatic churches.

Stanislaw Wojtiech, Stanislawów, Ukraine said...

I had the grace once to attend the traditional Roman Rite Mass by a SSPX priest at that same altar of Saint Pius X in St. Peter's Basilica in the past. It is a great side-altar, but too neglected today. Saint Pius X is forgotten by many. See the sad state of Italian piety and the Italian people.

Jordanes said...

Actually, it is easy and safe. You just have to be a catechumen martyred before receiving baptism. There are many martyred catechumens venerated as saints. ***

Martyrdom while preparing for baptism is neither easy nor safe, and furthermore the Church allows that under certain conditions salvation would not be impossible even for non-Catholics who aren't catechumens.

It is true only in one case, when you understand "means of sanctification" properly, that is that a "mean of sanctification" is a sacrament. But for some mysterious reason Lumen Gentium does not tell you that. ***

It does not tell you that because it is not true that "means of sanctification" always means "a sacrament." The Sacred Scriptures are also a means of sanctification. God could make use of many things in a person's life to lead him to sanctification prior to his receiving the grace that comes through sacraments.

Wouldn't such beauty be a "mean of sanctification", elevating you to God, for people who were not told what a "mean of sanctification" is? ***

It could be, even though the sacramental grace of the Eucharist would not be present.

Lumen Gentium does not define any dogmas, so it is not infallible, it just tries to explain articles of faith. ***

The declaration in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis also does not define any dogmas, and yet it is infallible.

And it fails. ***

The Church evidently does not agree with you on that point.

So Vaticanum Secundum will either be condemned or ignored eventually. ***

The Church never ignores any of its oecumenical councils, though individuals Catholics are pretty good at doing that. In addition, valid oecumenical councils whose documents are explicitly ratified by the Vicar of Christ can never, ever be condemned, so just put that fantasy right out of your head.

As far as I know Holy Spirit never claimed Himself in public that his intention was to finish with Catholic teaching. ***

Neither did the Council Fathers of Vatican II say that was the purpose of Vatican II. What an individual author of a conciliar document may (or more probably, may not) have said is distinct from what the Church actually proposed for the faithful at Vatican II.

Prodinoscopus said...

You’re living in a dream world, and not thinking with a Catholic sense, if you seriously hope and pray for that. The Church doesn’t damn and destroy her own teaching documents. She just can’t do that. All she ever does is explain and clarify them as she unfolds the apostolic deposit of faith. The doctrinal discussions hopefully will lead to a good deal of clarification and explanation, but it certainly would never result in the Roman Church formally abjuring teaching documents that it has promulgated to the whole Church.

Jordanes, I think that you and I have a very different understanding of the nature of this most grave crisis. I do not say that you are dead wrong, I just say that we have a different sense of what's happening. You can say that I'm not thinking with a Catholic sense; all that I can say in response is that my Catholic sense tells me that the Muslims' "adoration" is directed to a false god of their own imagination, for the very simple reason that it is not directed to Our Lord and God Jesus Christ, who will come to judge the living and the dead on the Last Day.

I watched with great interest the interview given by Bishop Fellay to Salt and Light Television in Canada. I'll admit that what I'm saying is much more extreme that what Bishop Fellay is saying these days. However, it is not extreme in light of what Bishop Fellay has said in the past.

I don't think that an auto-de-fe by a future Pope is out of the question. At this stage, though, I'd be very happy with "significant clarifications". We shall see.

Jordanes said...

The Mystical Body of Christ regards with high esteem those who reject its divinity and even existence. Nonsense. ***

It doesn't say "high esteem," just "esteem." It is true, however, the Mystical Body of Christ esteems every human soul, even those who reject the truths God revealed to and through her.

There's no such "god", so they can't worship him. ***

There certainly such a God. It's atheism toclaim that there does not exist "one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men." It's also a false statement to claim that Muslims do not "take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God."

Notice that the Church says Islam takes pleasure in linking itself to Abraham, but does not say Islam is in fact linked to Abraham or that it really is Abraham's faith. It's obvious the Catholic Church does not admit the truth of that claim.

I don't deny that probably some spiritual creature really spoke to the false prophet Muhammad. But it wasn't God, because God does not lie. Guess who that creature was and who they worship (hint: who wants to be adored like God? who's the father of all lies? Answer these questions, realise who they really worship, and see how blasphemous this sentence is). ***

It's quite probable that Muhammad heard deceitful auditory messages from Satan or some demon, though it's possible that he might simply have had a mental illness, or he or his followers could have just made up all those stories of supernatural messages. Whatever the case, just because a false prophet crafts a religion based on satanic revelations, that does not mean that the followers of that religion are choosing to direct their adoration toward Satan instead of God. It's slander, and terribly offensive and provocative, to claim that Muslims are devil-worshippers.

To say that Our Lord Jesus Christ, God incarnate, was merely a tiny "prophet", much less important that the false prophet and merely a man - Muhammad - is a blasphemy. ***

Yes, of course, and yet the Muslims are at least correct to acknowledge that Jesus is a true prophet of God. He's much, much, much more than that, but that is still what He is.

Have you noticed that their idea of heaven (lack of physical suffering with lack of visio beatifica) is exactly how we perceive the lightest form of hell? ***

Yes. There's no question that their understanding of the Last Things is defective. It is, after all, a false religion.

Is having 4 wives moral? Ridiculous nonsense. ***

No, it's not moral, but that only means Islamic conceptions of morality are defective, not that Muslims do not value the moral life at all.

Jordanes, I believe that you have good intent ***

As do I of you.

but ultramontanism is not an excuse for defending evil, and never was. ***

And neither is opposition to Islamic error an excuse for misrepresenting Islamic teachings and practices, nor for rejecting an oecumenical council's declarations.

Fr Congar, author of the false doctrine of Nostra Aetate himself stated that his intention was to break up with Tradition. ***

Not that I'm a fan of Father Yves Congar, but what did he actually say?

Vaticanum Secundum will either be condemned or ignored eventually. It's just a matter of time. ***

And I"ll just advise you not to hold your breath. That's just not going to happen.

Jordanes said...

Has Church tradition always and everywhere said that "the one Church of Christ SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church" or that "the one Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church"? ***

No, the Tradition has not always and everywhere "said" that, but it has always and everywhere incorporated that truth. Similarly, the Church's tradition has not always and everywhere said, "God is three Persons who each fully possess the one Divine essence," or, "Jesus is consubstantial with the Father," but the truths expressed by both of those doctrinal formulae have always been held and taught by the Church. "Consubstantial with the Father" did not become "the traditional language" until the fourth century A.D.

Has the fruit of that change been abundant growth for the Church and clear understanding among the faithful? I don't think so. ***

The immediate fruit of Nicaea also didn't look much like "abundant growth for the Church and clear understanding among the faithful." It took some time for Nicaea to bear good fruit, on account of dangerous, at times physically violent heretical movements that tore and the Church and tried to roll back or reinterpret Nicaea.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes postulates,"It took some time for Nicaea to bear good fruit, on account of dangerous, at times physically violent heretical movements that tore and the Church and tried to roll back or reinterpret Nicaea."

You are generalizing, please be more specific on how that story is different/same from the situation with Vatican 2? What were the pivotal moments that unified Catholics? How did they do it?

It seems to me that your premise is to not only ask the readers to be patient with V2 while there is clarification but you also ask for a V2 repair shop?

In your view then is all the rotten V2 fruit due to false interpretation (whether intentional or not) and for us to please be patient because the truth will be known somehow somewhere - trust God, trust the Pope. Are you are saying that the truth is known already, just read V2 documents (despite 40 years of misinterpretation)?

If that is a fair assessment of your thought?

Jordanes said...

You are generalizing, please be more specific on how that story is different/same from the situation with Vatican 2? ***

The situations were very different, but the point is that post-conciliar chaos and confusion can't necessarily be simply or directly attributed to a council's teachings, and there can be many reasons why good fruits cannot immediately, or at all, be harvested from a council. Not every council has fulfilled its purpose or truly edified the Church (Vienne, for example, practically speaking was almost a complete waste of time, it's main achievement being the unjust and unnecessary suppression of the Templars so they could be plundered by a French tyrant).

It seems to me that your premise is to not only ask the readers to be patient with V2 while there is clarification but you also ask for a V2 repair shop? ***

Sure.

In your view then is all the rotten V2 fruit due to false interpretation (whether intentional or not) ***

No, it's not all due to false interpretation. A lot of it is due to the predictable disorientation and weakening of faith caused by the needless total overhaul of the liturgy of the Roman Rite. In a religion that cannot survive without Tradition, irreformable doctrines, and ancient institutions of governance and devotion, too much was changed much, much too quickly. If that was intentional on the part of the reformers, God have mercy on them. God have mercy on them even if it was unintentional, as their actions had the effect of overthrowing the faith of many.

and for us to please be patient because the truth will be known somehow somewhere - trust God, trust the Pope. Are you are saying that the truth is known already, just read V2 documents (despite 40 years of misinterpretation)? ***

In some cases, the problem isn't that the Vatican II documents say anything that is wrong or even unclear, but that some people just don't agree with what they say, or with how they say it. In other cases there is ambiguity that, however it got into the document, needs to be removed. But certainly trust in God and proper respect and docility towards the Pope are always needful, as well as patience. Problems this big can't be solved overnight, and it can take time for prelates to understand just what the problem is that needs to be solved. Just look how long it took until the Council of Florence's unclear, incomplete teaching on Holy Orders was clarified by Pope Pius XII.

Anonymous said...

Prodinoscopus said:

"Eventually Bishop Fellay will have to attend a Novus Ordo Mass celebrated by Benedict XVI. It's inevitable."

Rubbish. No, he won't. Given his position, he should prefer death by dynatmite to that.

I note that Bsp. Rifan was never forced to attend NewMass. He made the mistake of choosing to attend it (probably in the hope of getting episcopal invitations to send his priests to offer Mass in their dioceses). He did not have to attend it.

P.K.T.P.

Brian said...

Jordanes,

In response to whether the Church always and everywhere used the term "subsist," you acknowledged that during 2000 years of Church tradition, this term was not used.

Then you wrote, "No, the Tradition has not always and everywhere "said" that, but it has always and everywhere incorporated that truth. Similarly, the Church's tradition has not always and everywhere said, "God is three Persons who each fully possess the one Divine essence," or, "Jesus is consubstantial with the Father," but the truths expressed by both of those doctrinal formulae have always been held and taught by the Church. "Consubstantial with the Father" did not become "the traditional language" until the fourth century A.D."

But these examples are not similar.

With the examples you propose, the Trinity and Christ's Divinity, the Church used more clear language regarding a central dogma of the faith in order to combat widespread heresy that endangered salvation of many thousands in the early Church.

With subsist, the Church used more obscure language about a matter that is not at all central to the faith in the face of no apparent heresy with no apparent benefit to the salvation of souls after two-thousand years of clear Church tradition.

Are you arguing that Vatican II replaced "is" with "subsist" in order to clarify an important dogmatic truth?

Jordanes said...

But these examples are not similar. ***

Sure they are -- in each case, the Church formally endorsed doctrinal terms for the expression of important teachings.

With the examples you propose, the Trinity and Christ's Divinity, the Church used more clear language regarding a central dogma of the faith in order to combat widespread heresy that endangered salvation of many thousands in the early Church. ***

Given the amount of doctrinal and theological controversy attending that "more clear language," one might wonder if it really was clearer -- quite a lot of people thought it wasn't. But clearer or not, the terms were correct and accurate, so those were the ones the Church selected.

With subsist, the Church used more obscure language about a matter that is not at all central to the faith ***

The mystery of the Church is not at all central to the faith? It's only one of the chief articles of the Creed -- "the Holy Catholic Church," and, "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

in the face of no apparent heresy with no apparent benefit to the salvation of souls after two-thousand years of clear Church tradition. ***

The Church's teaching is always for the benefit of souls, even if the benefit is not readily apparent.

Are you arguing that Vatican II replaced "is" with "subsist" in order to clarify an important dogmatic truth? ***

Clarify in the sense of more fully express the doctrine of the mystery of the Church. It's always necessary, but not enough, to confess that the one Church of Christ is the Catholic Church on earth.

Brian said...

Jordanes,
You wrote: "Clarify in the sense of more fully express the doctrine of the mystery of the Church. It's always necessary, but not enough, to confess that the one Church of Christ is the Catholic Church on earth."

Where in Tradition is it taught that it is "not enough to confess that the one Church of Christ is the Catholic Church." Now if you are referring the those in Purgatory and those in Heaven, that is true.

The word "is" was replaced with "subsist," however, in order emphasize elements of truth outside the Church. Where in Tradition has it ever been taught that it is NECESSARY to CONFESS "many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of [the Catholic Church's] visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity."

This is a new development and has been a disaster for the salvation of souls.

p.s. would you please tell me how to generate italic font in these comments?

LeonG said...

David Joyce

I agree with you. I have never heard an anti-NO sermon by an SSPX priest although I am not a regular Mass attender due to my geographical location. I have always and without exception heard clear, sound Catholic teachings that have reaffirmed my Faith. I was in St Nicholas de Chardonnet last Sunday on my way home on leave and I was treated to one more excellent sermon by an SSPX priest. I left Holy Mass and Confession feeling completely renewed.

SSPX priests will talk about the NO outside of The Holy Mass when it is opportune but it is not an obsession. In any case, the objective evidence speaks for itself - the NO & its presbyterate are in their death throes and have perhaps one generation left before they are completely eliminated. Ecumenism and interreligious politicking as we see them pursued today will also go the same way.

Anonymous said...

As a layman I would like to say a few words on the "development of doctrine"

The 1969 Instruction on the Reformed Mass gave a definition of the Mass that wasn't quite the same as previously.
A Nigerian acquaintance once told me that it was only by chance that he realised that the Mass he had attended, at a church he had casually ventured into, was a Protestant one.
In 1964 a Eurasian by the name of Proctor, and a Protestant, told me that he attended Mass at the Catholic Cathedral in Nagpur, central India, as it was no different from the Anglican service.

At Church before Vatican II we were usually warned about dabbling in Protestant literature and often it was suggested that even Protestant versions of the Bible should be thrown out. I personally heard such things.

Before Vatican II it was not unusual to hear it preached that only Catholics can be saved. After the Council, it was not quite the case. This is perhaps the straw that broke the camel's back.

Countless people quit the Church in the West virtually saying: You cannot fool all the people all the time.

The Church in Africa is largely a post Vatican II affair. Along with it the Churches in Latin America and Asia are fragile and will collapse under a sustained onslaught from the Pentecostalist/Evangelical groups.

Jordanes said...

Where in Tradition is it taught that it is "not enough to confess that the one Church of Christ is the Catholic Church." Now if you are referring the those in Purgatory and those in Heaven, that is true. ***

You left out my words "on earth." That changes the meaning of the sentence. To know and understand what the Church is, it's not enough to see and accept the earthly instantiations of the Catholic Church throughout time from A.D. 33 to the present. Yes, it's true that the Catholic Church on earth is the one Church of Christ, but the reality goes far beyond that.

The word "is" was replaced with "subsist," however, in order emphasize elements of truth outside the Church. ***

Of course.

Where in Tradition has it ever been taught that it is NECESSARY to CONFESS "many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of [the Catholic Church's] visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity." ***

Are you really not aware of the fact that, for example, valid Baptism, Holy Orders, Eucharist, and Matrimony exist outside of the Catholic Church's visible structure? That truth has long been acknowledged by the Church (I think offhand of St. Augustine's letter on the Donatist schism, or the controversy over baptism between Pope St. Stephen, who was right, and St. Cyprian, who was wrong). Non-Catholics also have most of the Holy Scriptures. Various non-Catholic religions also incorporate true doctrines alongside their errors. If one does not admit these undeniable facts, they would not be admitting the truth.

This is a new development and has been a disaster for the salvation of souls. ***

No, it's not a new development, nor do I think the Church saying things that are true will harm souls, so long as the truth is delivered whole and entire and in a timely and appropriate manner.

p.s. would you please tell me how to generate italic font in these comments? ***

The HTML code for Italic font is to place text within bracketed "i"s. For example, [i]this text will appear in Italic font[/i] if you use greater-than and less-than signs as your brackets, instead of ordinary brackets.

However, due to some glitch with Blogger that recently appeared, after your closing Italics code you'll have to leave a space or some characters and then hit Enter -- if you don't, your comment will appear right after your Italics. Simply hitting Enter after the closing code won't create the desired line spacing.

Brian said...

Jordanes,
There is a difference between recognizing elements of truth outside the Catholic Church and stating that it is necessary to confess that as a dogmatic truth such that the traditional language needed to be changed. Why was it suddenly necessary after 2000 years of Church history to nuance the clear teaching that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. Whether you can see it or not, the results have, in fact, been disastrous. What theological necessity demanded this change in the traditional language.

Jordanes said...

It’s not a question of whether or not the Church “needed” to express herself as she did in Lumen Gentium, but of whether or not the Church expressed herself truthfully and accurately, and in a way that harmonises with and authentically represents all that she has received as true from her Lord and Head. Where is the conflict or contradiction?

Brian said...

After nearly 2000 years, there was a clear change in the ancient, traditional language. The language of Church teaching is important. The priority had been on clearly defining the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. This Truth is crucial for the salvation of souls.

That clarity was nuanced and blurred. Was there a problem with that clear language?

In the examples you previously cited, the Trinity and Divinity of Christ, there was a clear need to develop precise language in order to save souls.

What need justified nuancing and obscuring the clear teaching that the Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church?

It seems to me that theological clarity was sacrificed on the altar of ecumenism and that nothing has been gained, but much has been lost as a result. Prior Popes sternly warned against ecumenism.

Look back to your own points about the Novus Ordo on June 23 at 19:56. The problem here is analogous.

LeonG said...

"...nuancing and obscuring the clear teaching..."

That sounds distinctly like modernism.

Ludovicus said...

Peter and Prodinoscopus, I can't help but get the feeling that you are ignoring Jordanes very rational comments.

Jordanes made the point that just because the Muslims think false things about God, this does not mean that they do not worship the true God. This can be proven from reason.

How can we show this?

Worship is principally an act of the mind by which one gives honor to someone or something.

Consequently, when we ask, "Who or what do I worship,", the question is much like the question, "Who or what am I talking about, or thinking about." All of these questions ask about the object of an act of our minds. Let me take an example. When I say, "Aristotle was an ancient Greek philosopher," who am I talking about?

The name "Aristotle" is nothing but a name. It doesn't have any particular meaning. It simply refers to a man that I have heard referred to by that name. Thus, I am talking about the same person that those from whom I learned the name were talking about.

It is the same with those from whom I learned the name. If one traces this back, one would finally come either to a certain man in ancient Greece who was called Aristotle, or at least to a certain book, which was said to be written by a man named Aristotle. Thus, I would either be talking about this man, or about the author of the book, whoever he might be.

By such a process of tracing back, when I say that Aristotle was the author of a book, I am quite able to talk about a man whom I know little or nothing. For example, I might tell you something about my brother Peter. (I really have a brother Peter.) If I told you something false, you could then
go and tell others this falsehood about my brother Peter. You would still be talking about my brother Peter, despite the fact that you would know nothing about him-- the only thing you would believe yourself to know would be an error.

In the same way, when someone says that he worships something, and we ask what or whom he is worshipping, we must trace his worship in the same way that we trace the object of someone's statement.

For example, when the Israelites worshipped the golden calf, their worship was easily traced back. It referred directly to the golden calf, at which they pointed and which they called "god." Thus, they worshipped a false god.

On the other hand, the name "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for "God." To whom does it refer when it is used by Muslims? It is simply a name. If we trace back the usage of this name, we would trace it back to the God of Abraham. When Muslims speak of Allah, they intend to speak about the God of Abraham, whoever He might be. They know very little about the God of Abraham, just as you might know little or nothing about my brother Peter. They are even wrong about the God of Abraham, since they think that he is not a Trinity. Likewise you might be wrong about my brother Peter. Nonetheless you would still be talking about my brother Peter. Likewise, Muslims are still talking about the God of Abraham, even when they say things that are false. And since worship is an act of the mind, they worship the same God that they talk about. They talk about the God of Abraham, and so they worship the God of Abraham.

They even worship the Blessed Trinity, since the God of Abraham is the Blessed Trinity. They do not worship him precisely in respect to his Trinitarian nature, but nonetheless they worship him, although in ignorance.

(Continued in next comment)

Ludovicus said...

(Continued from previous comment)

The Muslim's opinion about whom they worship does not, and in fact cannot, affect whom they worship. This can be proven easily.

Muslims hold two things about their God:

1. Their God is the God of Abraham
2. Their God is not a Trinity.

They are wrong about one of these, because the God of Abraham is the Blessed Trinity. Therefore they cannot be right about both. If they are right about #1, they are wrong about #2. Similarly, if they are right about #2, they are
wrong about #1.

Suppose someone holds that they are right about #2, but wrong about #1. But this reveals the falsity of the opinion that the object of someone's worship is determined by his opinion about it. For he says that they are wrong about #1. This means that they think they worship the God of Abraham, but do not. If this is so, then someone can worship something, even though he thinks he is not worshiping it. Thus it is clear: the fact that someone thinks something about his object of worship does not prove that it is true about the object of his worship.

But if their opinion that their God is the God of Abraham does not prove that their God is in reality the God of Abraham, then likewise their opinion that their God is not a Trinity does not prove that their God is in reality not a Trinity.

Thus, someone's opinions about God do not determine the object of his worship. What then does determine the object of his worship?

This object will be determined in the same way that the subject of a statement is determined. Men worship the same God they speak about. For example, when someone says, "God is great!", this very statement is a kind of worship of God. If this statement is about the true God, they it is the
worship of the true God, while if it is a statement about a false god, then it is the worship of a false god.

There are two kinds of names, proper names and common names. Common names have a definite meaning. For example, "square" is a common name which signifies a four sided figure. Thus, if someone says something about squares, no one can say that he is speaking about certain circles.

On the other hand, proper names do not have a "meaning," but merely point to something. For example, the name "Ludovicus" refers to me. The name doesn't have any particular meaning. Whoever receives the name from me and
uses it, is speaking about me, not about someone else, no matter what he may say about me. Even if he says, "Ludovicus is a woman," which is utter nonsense, he is still speaking about me, not about someone else.

The name "Allah" is a proper name, not a common name. What did it refer to? Since Mohammad claimed to accept the Christian revelation, it is clear that he was pointing to the Christian God. He went on to say many false things about this God. But nonetheless, his statements remained statements about the Christian God, just as someone might say anything false whatever about me, and nonetheless his statements would remain statements about me.

Now just as he continued to speak about the Christian God, he continued to worship the Christian God, although in ignorance. Thus, Muslims are right about #1, but wrong about #2.

I hope this clears up any difficulties with the Muslims being "so far off" from the truth about God. This does not prevent them from worshiping the true God.

God bless,
Ludovicus
--------------
http://outsidethechurchnosalvation.blogspot.com/