Rorate Caeli

No reunion yet

In recent days there has been much talk about the "impending reunion" of the Orthodox with Rome (especially of the Bulgarians, who don't even want to continue the dialogue with Rome). While I am certain that all true Catholics desire to see the return of the Orthodox to unity with Rome -- a unity that above all should be a unity of faith -- I have to ask if people realize that such misleading reporting, far from hastening this reconciliation, is actually a major obstacle to true reunion. False reporting accomplishes nothing except to create the momentary illusion that doctrinal differences have been resolved or are of no real consequence (or are not really differences at all), and that false ecumenism works.

To see where things really stand, we only need to turn to the words of Archbishop Hilarion of Volokalamsk, who -- in an interview recently published by the official website of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia -- gives the following opinion:

In this situation, I suppose that a consolidation is needed in the efforts of those churches which consider themselves "Churches of Tradition," that is, the Orthodox, Catholics and pre-Chalcedonians. I am not talking about the serious dogmatic and ecclesiological differences which exist between these Churches and which can be considered within the framework of bilateral dialog. I am talking about the need to reach an agreement between these Churches on some strategic alliance, pact, union for defending traditional Christianity as such—defense from all modern challenges, whether militant liberalism, militant atheism or militant Islam. I would like to underline that a strategic alliance is my own idea, not the official position of the Moscow Patriarchate.

We do not need union with the Catholics, we do not need "intercommunion," we do not need compromise for a doubtful "rapprochement." What we do need , in my opinion , is a strategic alliance , for the challenge is made to traditional Christianity as such. This is especially noticeable in Europe , where de-Christianization and liberalization are occurring as persistently as the gradual and unswerving Islamization. The liberal, weakened "Christianity" of the Protestant communities cannot resist the onslaught of Islam; only staunch, traditional Christianity can stand against it, ready to defend its moral positions. In this battle, the Orthodox and Catholics could, even in the face of all the differences accumulated over the centuries, form a united front.

In September 2009, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem also issued a press release on the visit of some German Catholic bishops to Patriarch Theophilus III, wherein we find the following passage:

As regards the theological dialogue, we are in favour; however, we do not look to it with any anxiety. We believe that we should be striving for a unity of faith, and not of administration.»

Continuing his address, His Beatitude said that the ecclesiastic dialogue should also include monks, who do not confuse «speculation with revelation»; they know that Christianity does not involve speculation. They know what the truth is: that a Christian's goal is deification. The representatives of the theological dialogue between the Churches and the leaders of the Churches should be pleased, if both levels of dialogue were to coexist; that is, love and truth. Not love alone.

His Beatitude stressed that it is about time both Churches examined what divides them, and not what the elements that unite them are.

«The elements that unite them have been discussed exhaustively in the past. The beginning of our unity in the faith is found in the recognition of our weaknesses. It is time that we operated on our wounds.»


47 comments:

Anonymous said...

God bless Hilarion, a shining example of holiness, learning, and Christ-centered creativity.

wheat4paradise said...

We do not need union with the Catholics ...

Uh, yes, you do. You need union with the Successor of Peter, without which there is no salvation.

Anonymous said...

"Uh, yes, you do. You need union with the Successor of Peter, without which there is no salvation."

They will tell you that this is a late-medieval novelty and it binds the Latins if anybody at all.

Anonymous said...

And yet the buzz exists, the energy is perceptible. Why try to quash it? You may think it's unrealistic, and maybe it is, but no need to dampen the fervor, it can't do anything but help.

Anonymous said...

"The liberal, weakened "Christianity" of the Protestant communities cannot resist the onslaught of Islam; only staunch, traditional Christianity can stand against it, ready to defend its moral positions.

"In this battle, the Orthodox and Catholics could, even in the face of all the differences accumulated over the centuries, form a united front."

No, they cannot do any such thing.

1. Interreligious "dialogue" and the overall collapse of the post-Vatican II Church has rendered the Catholic Church incapable of resisting "the onslaught of Islam."

In 1999, Giuseppe Germano Bernardini, Catholic Archbishop of Izmir, Turkey, pleaded with his brother Churchmen to cease "praying" in mosques.

The Archbishop warned that Moslems view such activity as "weakness" and a sign that Catholics have surrendered to Islam.

2. Following Pope Benedict's "prayer" session at a mosque, Islamic leaders on hand were asked whether they would visit Catholic churches to pray.

They stated that they would not as that would "confuse" Moslems.

The Islamic religious leaders stated that their presence at Catholic churches would "legitimize" Catholicism.

3. How can the post-Vatican II Catholic Church, in light of the overall collapse of Mass and all-but-empty churches, possibly confront Islam?

4. In short, outside of the SSPX bishops and a handful of additional bishops, our ecumenical/interreligious obsessed Churchmen are not interested in "resisting the onslaught of Islam."

5. Considering the balkanzation of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the lukewarmness of their adherents and such destructive practices as divorce and remarriage and the fast and loose manner in which they deal with artificial birth-control, how can said Churches possibly "resist" Islam?

6. Protestantism is a dead religion that cannot possibly resist "the onslaught of Islam."

Only through the immediate restoration of Holy Tradition to the Church, particularly the Western Church, and return of millions of Eastern Orthodox and "traditional"-minded Protestants to the Catholic Church would the Church find Herself in position to "resist the onslaught of Islam."

Let us pray for the above-required miracle.

Tim

Anonymous said...

wheat4paradise said...

"Uh, yes, you do. You need union with the Successor of Peter, without which there is no salvation."

Consider the situation from the Eastern Orthodox point of view.

Post-Vatican II Catholicism, at least in the Latin Church, is in a state of collapse.

Even though we (Catholics) have the Holy Father, massive confusion and "rot" (to use the Pope's -- Josef Cardinal Ratzinger's term) abound within the Church.

Rome promotes the Novus Ordo, which represents an unprecedented liturgical revolution within the Church, as the "Ordinary Form" of Mass.

The majority of our (Western) Churchmen have rendered Summorum Pontificum a dead-letter.

That is the disdain with which our Churchmen view their own precious liturgical and spiritual tradition.

Therfore, speaking practically and looking from the outside at the state of post-Vatican II Catholicism, why would the Eastern Orthodox for one second sign an agreement to unify with our Churchmen -- Churchmen who despise their own Latin Church Tradition...imagine how they view the great Eastern Tradition?

I find it difficult ot believe that the Eastern Orthodox have any desire to unify with such men.

Tim

Jordanes said...

I guess you're right, Tim -- the Catholic Church has failed and is incapable of resisting the onslaught of Islam. Since there is no chance of the Church returning to a pre-1963 form of Catholicism nor of the mass conversions of the Orthodox and Protestants any time in the foreseeable future, it seems we should all just get it over with and convert to the false religion of Islam.

Jordanes said...

You have not proposed "the Eastern Orthodox view," but a Latin traditionalist view, Tim. If you had proposed a not uncommon Eastern Orthodox view, you would have also mentioned things such as: the Latin Church is apostate and thus has lost apostolic succession and has no valid sacraments, holding and teaching the false doctrines of the Filioque, original sin, the Immaculate Conception, and papal primacy and infallibility. Under no circumstances can there be any reconciliation with the Latins until they repent of their heresies and return to the true Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church.

THAT point of view is the real obstacle that the Catholic Church faces to its desire and prayer for the return of the Orthodox Churches. The post-Vatican II doctrinal, liturgical, and disciplinary craziness only makes matters worse, and in fact confirms the Orthodox in their conviction that they are right and the Catholic Church is wrong.

Anonymous said...

Stop obsessing about the Muslims ... they are divided too you know, between Alevites, Shiites, Sunnis, Sufis, Islamilis, Wahabbis, etc.

They have a lot with the Jehovah's Witnesses I think, you would be surprised to find out how much the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Arians (from Arius) have in common with those other cults.

J. G. Rathkaj said...

"strategic alliance"
That's all very well, but why have the Moscovites opposed catholic religion class in russian schools while not having a problem to grant hebrew and muslim children to have instruction in their religion.

Anonymous said...

"the Latin Church is apostate and thus has lost apostolic succession and has no valid sacraments"

Maybe they should first agree on that. Russian Orthodox Church accepts Catholic converts on the basis of confession to a Russian priest. Greek Orthodox Church demands re-baptism.

But how can they agree if they don't have Pope and refuse hylomorphic approach to sacraments as a Western novelty?

The massive immigration of Turks to West Germany was a perfect opportunity to evangelise them. Similar opportunity appeared in France.

Did the Catholic bishops do ANYTHING?

Anonymous said...

None of this surprises me. The idea that Easterners Orthodox were about to reunite with us was just a lot of hot air coming from two or three wishful thinkers.

Most of the reason for separation is political, not religious. The religious differences, however legitimate they were to begin with, have become excuses for political separation.

No amount of twisting and turning can make the infallible teachings regarding the Pope's jurisdiction amenable to the Orthodox. What they reject especially is not his infallibility but his universal and supreme jurisdiction. That is not about to change.

As for the Muslims, I can only say that the Roman Empire was really defeated by the nearest savages at hand, the Germans, and the Muslims are the nearest savages at hand to us. Rome was not defeated by another great civilisation, such as the Persians or the Chinese.

Western civilisation has become overcentralised, corrupt, soft, pusillanimous and cowardly, materialistic, and addicted to sexual deviancy. Sounds exactly like the situation at Rome just before its fall. Obama bin Soetero hardly makes matters better.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"I guess you're right, Tim -- the Catholic Church has failed and is incapable of resisting the onslaught of Islam."

You are, as you well know, correct.

Pope Benedict XVI has acknowledged that "in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame."

Pope John Paul II spoke of "apostasy" within the Church.

Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (our Pope) declared: How much filth there is in the church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to (Christ).

"Lord, your church often seems like a boat about to sink, a boat taking in water on every side."

Is the post-Vatican Ii Church in any position to resist "the onslaught of Islam?"

No. Of course not.

Tim

P.S.

Without success, Archbishop Giuseppe Germano Bernardini, of Izmir, Turkey, warned us 10 years ago of Islam determination to dominate us.

The majority of our Churchmen have refused to heed the Archbishop's warning...who also pleaded with Church to cease visiting and praying in Mosques, as that only signified to Moslems that Catholicism had bowed to Islamic domination.


From 1999...(10 years later, the situation is even more dire)...


Bishop: Islam Expanding Conquests

VATICAN CITY (AP) - Islam is driving into predominantly Christian countries in a new campaign of expansion and conquest, a bishop at a Vatican synod claimed Wednesday in a warning to his European colleagues.

Giuseppe Germano Bernardini, archbishop of Izmir in Turkey, spoke at a synod of European bishops on what he said was Islam's growing challenge to Christianity, even on its home ground.

``The 'domination' has already started with petrodollars, used not to create jobs in poor countries in North Africa and the Middle East, but to build mosques and cultural centers in Christian countries ... including Rome, center of Christianity,'' Bernardini declared. `

`Who cannot see in this a clear program of expansion and reconquest?'' he asked.

The dire tone of his warning contrasted with repeated overtures to the Islamic world by Pope John Paul II, whose comments on Islam frequently stress the values it shares with Christianity.

The archbishop was one of several at the synod to express frustration in dealing with the Islamic world, however. Others in the weeklong session have spoken of the need for cooperation between Muslims and Christians.

Bernardini suggested the church call a synod specifically on the theme of Islam in predominantly Christian countries.

As a first, practical step, he said, Catholics must see to it that none of their churches are ceded to Muslims for practice of their faith.

Anonymous said...

"Since there is no chance of the Church returning to a pre-1963 form of Catholicism nor of the mass conversions of the Orthodox and Protestants any time in the foreseeable future, it seems we should all just get it over with and convert to the false religion of Islam."

Have forgotten the following the option? We could live (as do many of our brothers and sisters in Islamic lands) tolerated and treated as "infidel" dogs.

Or you may be correct in that short of Divine Intervention to halt the "onslaught of Islam," many Catholics may convert to Islam as Islamic domination, for example, in Europe, is on the horizon.

In the face of the "onslaught" of Islam, many Catholics may enter into the state of apostasy.

The choices are pretty much reduced to the following:

Remain Catholic and live in a state of persecution or convert to Islam.

We shall see.

Tim

Anonymous said...

In opening, I truly am sorry if Jordanes wants to keep censoring some of my posts. Since I can't do anything about it, let's just move on.

I've heard yesterday that there is a reason we do not have the apostolic constitution yet for the Anglicans. The story (which ran in some rag called America, I think), is that, despite what the TAC Primate has written, Rome has not yet decided to allow future ordinations of married Anglicans to the priesthood. In other words, Rome will ordain the current lot of married Anglican TAC priests (and probably future cases of transferring priests) but not admit married men to Anglican Rite seminaries.

It may be that or it may simply be that Rome needs to develop safeguards to prevent an allowance of future ordinations from threatening celibacy in the Latin Church. It might be that Hepworth was right but that more needs to be done to prevent Latin faithful from simply entering Anglican-Catholic seminaries to get around the seminary rule

I imagine that they could put restrictions on candidacy to Anglican-Catholic seminaries. For example, you must have been Anglican in the past or your father or sole Catholic parent was or is Anglican. Something like that. Why not just impose the same restrictions which keep Eastern Catholic married laics from becoming Latin priests?

Anyway, the claim is that the apostolic constitution was delayed pending a canonical fixing of the problem. Comments?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"Since there is no chance of the Church returning to a pre-1963 form of Catholicism nor of the mass conversions of the Orthodox and Protestants any time in the foreseeable future, it seems we should all just get it over with and convert to the false religion of Islam."

Short of Divine Intervention to prevent the "onslaught of Islam" (even with the Novus Ordo remaining in place), the Church alone could "resist" Islam should His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI declare immediately that he is returning the (Latin) Church exclusively to the TLM (a vernacular TLM-to-Latin-TLM transition would be necessary).

The Church, powered by Her return to Tradition, could resist "the onslaught of Islam" alone (although a united front with Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism would be of enoromus help to Holy Mother Church).

But as Pope Benedict XVI has made clear, the Novus Ordo is here to stay.

Therefore, Jordanes, your above statement is difficult to counter.

The Church is not in position to resist.

Tim

Anonymous said...

I can't help but wonder if the kinds of confusion that mark both the Orthodox and Catholic faithful wouldn't have been avoided if our Pontiffs had responded in a most literal manner to the request made by Our Lady of Fatima to consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart.

We failed both ourselves and our separated brethren fearing that which we should not fear, rather than fearing to offend Our Good Lord and His Most Blessed Mother by not trusting in their instructions to us, which are always so good.

We should pray that our Orthodox brethren would pray for our conversion as well.

We miss so much by not acknowledging their most
wonderful teachings on Christian spiritual life.

Patricia

Jordanes said...

Tim,

Things are really bad. Nevertheless Jesus assures us that He is with us until the end of the world. We have not lost the power to counter the spread of Islam.

Maynardus said...

«The elements that unite them have been discussed exhaustively in the past. The beginning of our unity in the faith is found in the recognition of our weaknesses. It is time that we operated on our wounds.»

Oh, words like that must hurt Kardinal Kasper's ears. But is this not what the Holy Father is doing? With the S.S.P.X. he has opened doctrinal discussions, and with the Anglicans there will surely be some lines drawn with regard to liturgy, celibacy, and validity of orders. If the East desires unity, I'd expect Benedict XVI to initiate real, substantive engagement rather than happytalk "dialogue".

Anonymous said...

"If the East desires unity, I'd expect Benedict XVI to initiate real, substantive engagement rather than happytalk "dialogue"."


And it should start with marriage. The "solutions" I have seen are simply a smoke and mirrors misrepresentation of adultery on both sides of apostolic christendom.

There is a Catholic divorce/ annulment situation soon to addressed. It may provide Catholics some pause to reflect if it is ever revealed in the years to come. It may not, as well.

Anonymous said...

Until fairly recently, I would have agreed with Tim's assessment here. But we sometimes allow the media indoctrination to seep into our souls. In my view, the key to rebuffing the insanity of Islam is to re-convert Latin America to the Catholic Faith. Latin Americans tend to be very emotional people, and I do not mean this in an insulting way; in fact, I'm all for such emotion and don't think it to be incompatible with rationality at all.

Latin Americans, who are 46% of the faithful, just can't get emotional about NewMass, unless that emotion be one of revulsion. Inanity does not give rise to loyalty. So they are converting in huge numbers to Pentecostalism, something which would have been inconceivable as late as the 1960s (even though it was well underway by then). The Catholic population in Brazil now stands at 67% and is falling fast. There is now a net loss of between one and three per cent per annum. In fifteen years, Brazil will be a Protestant country. Unthinkable. Unimaginable. And yet true.

Not all parts of Latin America are suffering this at the same rate or in the same way. Some areas are entirely Catholic, such as large parts of Mexico. But the overall picture could hardly be more bleak.

Frankly, the only remedy is a complete return to the T.L.M. IN LATIN, with not a word of Spanish or Portugese spoken except during the Sunday Sermon. Yes, I know: it sounds like a wild fantasy. It is nevertheless true. And if done by a Latin American pope, it will be truer. That,in turn, will reconvert the entire Church.

France may be the centre of both tradition and liberalism. Rome and Italy may be Mother and Teacher. The U.S.A. may have the deepest Christian sense. The Philippines might produce the most committed faithful. But Latin America is the soul of the Church and what happens there is primary. To know if this is feasible, close your ideas and open the inner eye of the mind. Can you imagine millions of Latin Americans singing hymns in Latin and walking on pilgrimate to some shrine? I can. Now try imagining that happening, and in huge numbers, for, say, Belgium or Croatia or the U.S.A. or France. It might happen in Poland in the Philippines but they just don't ahve the numbers or the influence to affect the rest of the Church enough.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"And it should start with marriage. The "solutions" I have seen are simply a smoke and mirrors misrepresentation of adultery on both sides of apostolic christendom."

I was told that until 1917 the Eastern Catholic Churches followed the Orthodox discipline of divorce. Can somebody verify this claim?

PKTP: I agree with your comments regarding Latin America. The situation is especially grave in Brazil, a country with rich Catholic cultural and historical heritage. For a long time in Brazil there was a prolongation of something like the European belle epoque, which makes me even more sympathetic towards that country.

Anonymous said...

I personally pray for a future union, but we Orthodox won't unite with the errors and novelties in the Latin Church.
Unfortunately the Catholics have been making a lot of noise, it is true, and what it is usually said in latin blogs do not represent the true feelings in the Orthodox Church.
Stefan

Anonymous said...

Tim,

And why on earth did thousands of people at Pentecost join a Church whose leaders *to a man* abandoned the Founder when He was arrested, whose leaders with *one* exception were not present at the Founder's Crucifixion, and whose Supreme Leader had denied knowing the Founder three times? Maybe things have always been pretty bad in the Church . . .

-- Bonifacius

John (Ad Orientem) said...

Carlos,
Well said. I am glad someone is addressing this pervasive kumbaya idiocy. I am not going to address all of the misrepresentations of the Orthodox Church or its attitudes towards Roman Catholicism in some of the comments. There are simply too many and I don't have the time or frankly the patience. It is sufficient to say that some people really should do a little investigating beyond polemically anti-Orthodox websites before announcing what we believe. Our differences are real and substantive. There is no need to embellish them.

In ICXC
John

P.S. This is a Roman Catholic website and out of respect for the blog owner I am not gong to get into a debate here on doctrinal differences (which in any case are way over the pay-grade of anyone on this board unless there are some bishops floating around here). Anyone who wants to contact me privately is free to do so.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes said...

"Since there is no chance of the Church returning to a pre-1963 form of Catholicism..."

Then the crisis of Faith will remain with us.

By the way, you promote declarations issued by the Society.

Bishop Fellay declared that "the solution to the crisis is to return to the past."

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais declared that "we have the intention of converting Rome."

Tim

Anonymous said...

Jordanes said...

"Tim, Things are really bad. Nevertheless Jesus assures us that He is with us until the end of the world."

Yes, The Heavenly Father is with us always.

"We have not lost the power to counter the spread of Islam."

Yes, we have lost the power to counter Islam.

Absent a miracle, as long as Rome is determined to promote the Novus Ordo, ecumenism/interreligious "dialogue" and the wealth of post-Vatican II novelties that destroy Catholic identity, we cannot possibly counter Islam.

In Mexico, Central and South America, areas once considered unconquerable Catholic strongholds, we're unable to counter Protestantism.

We can't even stand up to (evangelical) Protestantism. How on earth can we stand up to Islam?

Asnwer: We can't stand up to Islam.

Let us not run from reality.

As the Society of Saint Pius X has declared repeatedly, the post-Vatican II Church is in shambles and the only way out is a miracle -- a miracle that constitutes Rome's return to the past (return to Holy Traditon

Tim

Anonymous said...

It seems that the only ones willing to throw away tradition in favor of ecumenism, inter-religious dialog, etc. have been/are the Roman Catholics.

The only other group interested in endless dialog and false ecumenism are....the Protestants.

It is most unfortunate from the beginning, that the Vatican and the Roman Catholic ever initiated any dialog or even polite conversations with Protestants...of any denomination.
It was/is a fruitless exercise which has only managed to spiritually impoverish our own Church.

God bless the Orthodox, for not engaging in this pointless exercise.

Anonymous said...

"They will tell you that this is a late-medieval novelty and it binds the Latins if anybody at all."

Intellectual dishonesty haunts orthodox theologians like ghosts do a cemetery. The fathers provide evidence of universal submission to the bishop of Rome.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

The reason the Orthodox refuse this false ecumenism is not because they're devoted to Truth but because they're devoted to their own godless schism.

~Bonifacius

Anonymous said...

On Tim's last comments:

The miracle you write about is the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. When the Queen of Heaven tells you what to do, you follow the instructions to the letter. Our Lady does not just give advice. Let's pray that Bishop Fellay's Rosary Crusade is a success because, in human terms, we're headed for extinction. It's just that the Church is so big that it will take longer than it is for the Prots.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Tim,

A return to the pre-Vatican II Church is impossible. Society has changed far too much. We should look to successes of the early Church under pagan Rome as a model for action, instead of making decisions under the illusion that we can return to a predominantly Christian society like we had in the early part of the 20th Century.

What IS needed, however, is a return to traditional pieties and sound doctrine within the diminished Church that exists today.

Anonymous said...

"Put not your trust in princes". Ps 145. Only Our Holy Mother, Mary, can clear this mess up. And She won't do it until Russia is Consecrated, by name, in the way She prescribed. The Consecration WILL happen because we know that, in the end, Her Immaculate Heart does triumph. But, it will be very late and the remnant (and the Holy Father) will have much to suffer. Bone up on the martyrs and prepare to suffer well! P.S. Any time in history that the Mohammedans have been defeated by the Catholics, it has always been by the intervention of Our Lady. i.e. The Rosary

Anonymous said...

Bonifacius, I agree that difficulties have always existed within Holy Mother Church.

Each profound period of difficulty has been fueled by various problems.

But the current crisis, which, for the most part, is liturgical in nature, is without precedent within the Church.

The current crisis concerns (for the most part) the overthrow of the Traditional Roman Liturgy by none other than Rome.

When had Rome ever overthrown her Traditional Liturgy in favor of the novel creation of anything akin to the Novus Ordo?

A crisis was often solved via a doctrinal statement.

Our current crisis goes much deeper than any Church crisis the wholesale replacement of the Traditional Roman Liturgy with a committee-created, novelty-filled liturgy is before us.

We are dealing with the worst and most important crisis in Church history.

The only way out of said crisis is to "return to the past" (as Bishop Fellay declared).

I pray that His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI will do so.

Tim

Anonymous said...

I agree with Mr. Perkins' statement regarding the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Unfortunately, Rome's adherence to ecumenism has rendered said Consecration a seemingly impossible proposition.

Tim

Anonymous said...

Jordanes, Bravo! You hit the nail on the head. Patriarch Theophilos' suggestion that the professional ecumenists begin concentrating on the differences between the Orthodox and the heterodox rather than the endless rosiness of things held in common would get the wagon out of the mud. Where the wagon goes thereafter is yet to be seen. As to the pious invocation of Fatima: the Orthodox frankly consider the apparitions to be demonic. Obviously Roman Catholics strongly disagree.

John (Ad Orientem) said...

Anonymous (31 October, 2009 01:10),
As to the pious invocation of Fatima: the Orthodox frankly consider the apparitions to be demonic. Obviously Roman Catholics strongly disagree.

Really? I am Orthodox and can not recall which of the OEcuemenical Councils or which Pan Orthodox Synod condemned these so called apparitions as "demonic." That is certainly an opinion held in certain quarters of the Church. But please do not confuse theologumen with the teaching of the Orthodox Church. As far as I know the Church has not addressed the subject.

Individual Orthodox are free to form their own opinions. They are not however free to represent those opinions as the position of the Church. Personally I am agnostic on the matter. What goes on outside the Church, while perhaps an interesting topic of speculation, should not be given elevated levels of importance. What goes on inside it is far more important as it affects our salvation.

Under the mercy,
John

Anonymous said...

Anon. wrote:

"A return to the pre-Vatican II Church is impossible. Society has changed far too much. We should look to successes of the early Church under pagan Rome as a model for action, ..."


Sorry, but primitivism and all other varieties of archæolgism are not Catholic. The way of tradition is the respect for what is handed down: that is the action of God the Holy Ghost. We cannot return to the primitive Church and the very idea is what Protestants and revolutionaries have ever advocated.

What is needed is a return but more than a return to the 1950s. The 1950s had flaws, flaws which led to the disaster that followed. So we don't just return to there. But we continue from there, skipping over the nonsense of the Age of Aquarius and correcting what led to it.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

Anonymous obviously was not advocating any sort of primitivism or archaeologism. Why would he say that society has changed too much for it to be possible to return to a pre-Vatican II kind of Catholicism, and then turn around and say we need to return to a pre-Nicene kind of Catholicism? How could that be any easier, or more desirable, than an attempt to revert to pre-Vatican II Catholicism?

He rather was pointing to the pre-Constantinian era of the Church's history as providing a model for how the Church can carry on while the West continues to divest itself of the last vestiges of its Christian heritage and turns to a kind of secular neopaganism.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes asks:

"Why would he say that society has changed too much for it to be possible to return to a pre-Vatican II kind of Catholicism, and then turn around and say we need to return to a pre-Nicene kind of Catholicism? How could that be any easier, or more desirable, than an attempt to revert to pre-Vatican II Catholicism?"

Well, the answer to that is simple. Anon. was suggesting, with some justification, that it is harder to return to a period against which the present times have revolted. And there is truth to that. The 1960s represented a revolt against the culture of the previous decades, esp. owing to the social impact of the two Wars and the Great Depression.

But the Church of primitive times is devoid of all the gifts given to us over the centuries, gifts given by the Holy Ghost. So we must retain everything we had in the 1950s and then make changes as needed from there. Obviously, the 20-minute Mass, for example, is something we needn't return to.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes of Anon.'s suggestion:

"He rather was pointing to the pre-Constantinian era of the Church's history as providing a model for how the Church can carry on while the West continues to divest itself of the last vestiges of its Christian heritage and turns to a kind of secular neopaganism."

The first problem with the idea, Jordanes, is that we know little of the pre-Constantinian period.

No, we need all the wisdom handed down over the last twenty centuries, but we also need to correct some of the bad things from the fifties.

As for combating neo-paganism, what is needed is something new, not something old. What is needed is a new presentation of the eternal verities in terms which address modern doubts and concerns. Just as St. Thomas needed to 'deal with' Greek philosophical issues introduced in Persian and Arab translations (such as the question of the eternality of the world), we need to deal with the challenges raised by modern science. The problem here is not that we don't have the answers but that we haven't 'packaged' them appropriately for the masses; and we also need an effective means of communicating them. The Pope's initiative to create Vatican T.V. in six languages is spot on in my view. But that is just the beginning of a huge project. He probably realises that too but it is he who has taken the first step.

Keep in mind that the world is secretly hoping for us to provide answers. The reason? Secularism and agnosticism are deliverances that don't deliver.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Return to living the faith as instructed by Sacred Tradition is possible. Not at once and not not by all at the same time.

However, Pope Benedict XVI also belives this. He will let the Anglicans backs because they endorse sacred tradition and he most certainly will do everything to get the SSPX back for the same reason.

The returning traditionalists and those within who live or support tradition are the smaller Church the Pope has always talked about.

It takes just a handful of commited believers make any revolution, to turn the bark around.

The new springtime is coming. It will look more like the the traditionalists paint it. The Novus Ordo will change or die in a generation or two.

john

Anonymous said...

Anyway, the claim is that the apostolic constitution was delayed pending a canonical fixing of the problem. Comments?

P.K.T.P.

30 October, 2009 18:45


Certainly one canonical question in the current context of the pending apostolic constitution regarding corporate reception of former Anglicans is whether former Anglican clergy, ordained into the Catholic priesthood, would be obliged to continence via Canon 277 even if in the married state? For that matter, the question arises what discipline obliges former Anglican priests serving under the Pastoral Provision? One wonders whether the upcoming Apostolic Constitution will mandate a clarification to the Code (e.g. provide a dispensation?) - assuming the the Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church will generally apply to these personal ordinariates.

There has been extensive discussion/debate regarding canon 277's applicability to married permanent deacons. Incidentally, this distinction of celibacy vs. continence forms the basis of Cardinal Stickler's argument that the Latin Church has indeed better preserved the ancient discipline compared to our separated Eastern brethren.

Anonymous said...

Well talk about coincidence! Not a few minutes after posting my previous comment, I read:


§1 Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42 and in the Statement "In June" are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1.

§2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.

LeonG said...

Until Roman Catholicism becomes militant once more and returns to its divine mandate to evangelise the world then anything else is pointless compromise. This can be objectively demonstrated in the post-conciliar ecumenical and inter-religious activities that have undermined The Faith of millions of souls as the hierarchy bends over backwards to please the false religions who are nothing but enemies of The Church that scatter in paganism and polytheism. The whole post-conciliar programme is a lamentable failure and is reminiscent of the religious syncretism of Judaism that led to the captivity in Babylon.

Muslims are not stupid - they know that by resigning its role the post-conciliar church has handed over the evangelical initiative to them and they intend to use it. They know that the modernistic NO church is in crisis and lacks the will to resist. When you live and work with them you quickly understand that for them there is no compromise.

Jordanes said...

Anon. was suggesting, with some justification, that it is harder to return to a period against which the present times have revolted.

I see no compelling reason to interpret his comment that way, but be that as it may, it is a possible interpretation.

But the Church of primitive times is devoid of all the gifts given to us over the centuries, gifts given by the Holy Ghost. So we must retain everything we had in the 1950s and then make changes as needed from there. Obviously, the 20-minute Mass, for example, is something we needn't return to.

Anonymous didn't say anything about reverting the Church to an Ante-Nicene form or not retaining what we had in the 1950s. Perhaps one could see it as not only refusing to attempt a return to the preconciliar church, but retaining all of the Holy Spirit's gifts over the centuries, including those we have received and the hard lessons we have learned since 1962. Anyway, it seems Anonymous was simply pointing to the pre-Constantinian Church as a model of a Church that is does not supply the dominant culture of society but is instead the object of hatred and violent persecution, not advocating an attempted return to the Church's childhood.

The first problem with the idea, Jordanes, is that we know little of the pre-Constantinian period.

We do know that the Church in those days was not the established religion of any secular government or society, but instead was an illegal religion subject to violent persecution -- being a Christian was a capital offense. I think Anonymous is saying we should have to expect to live the Faith in a manner closer to the persecuted early Church than to the Church of the mid-20th century.

As for the remainder of your comment, what you say is very insightful and I agree. My point has been only to challenge the idea that Anonymous was advocating any kind of primitivism or archaeologism. Trying to learn from the past is not the same thing as trying to revert to the past.

Jordanes said...

Yes, we have lost the power to counter Islam.

The Church cannot lose any of the divine graces with which God has endowed her, that make Her the Church.

Particular churches, individual Catholics, may have lost power (or have never appropriated it), but the Church has not.

Absent a miracle, as long as Rome is determined to promote the Novus Ordo, ecumenism/interreligious "dialogue" and the wealth of post-Vatican II novelties that destroy Catholic identity, we cannot possibly counter Islam.

That may well be the case, but that doesn't mean the Church has lost the power to resist the spread of Islam.

In Mexico, Central and South America, areas once considered unconquerable Catholic strongholds, we're unable to counter Protestantism.

Or unwilling.