Rorate Caeli

The Invisible is made visible


Quando la fede, in modo particolare celebrata nella liturgia, incontra l’arte, si crea una sintonia profonda, perché entrambe possono e vogliono parlare di Dio, rendendo visibile l’Invisibile.
...
The Gothic cathedral translates the aspirations of the soul into architectural lines, and is a synthesis between faith, art and beauty which still raises our hearts and minds to God today. When faith encounters art, in particular in the liturgy, a profound synthesis is created, making visible the Invisible, and the two great architectural styles of the Middle Ages demonstrate how beauty is a powerful means to draw us closer to the Mystery of God. May the Lord help us to rediscover that "way of beauty", surely one of the best ways to know and to love Almighty God.

Benedict XVI
November 18, 2009

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Amen.

Anonymous said...

Well said. I pray now that the Pope, having dealth with the incoming Anglicans, can turn his attention again to the immemorial Mass of the Ages and see to its availablility throughout the Church.

Your Holiness, the fact is that many of the bishops of the Church has not, for whatever reason, arranged for the celebration of this Traditional Latin Mass. This is especially true in the developing world. All Catholics are equally God's people and should have at least some recourse to the Mass of the Ages.

Let us pray for a clarification of "Summorum Pontificum", Article 1, which will aim to make this Mass available in each of the particular churches in the Latin Church. Let us also pray for a universal particulcar church, such as a personal diocese, to assist the local bishhops in this endeavour.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Yes, amen, please build us churches with inspiring traditional architecture and don't forget the statues.

Knight of Malta said...

Very true words from a great Pope! However, we must remember for what the Cathedral was built. Do you think the stone-cutter, working on the Cathedral of the “great plane” (as Ingmar Bergman said, referring to Chartres) would toil his entire life, pass his trade on to his son, grandsons, etc., just so banal liturgical experiments could take place therein? Heck no! The Cathedral was built for the liturgy—a liturgy surviving almost intact from the time of St. Gregory the Great in the sixth century, with parts surviving to the Apostles.


Through generations, sometimes spanning hundreds of years, the worker on the Cathedral of the “great plane” toiled, struggled, died, knowing that what would come of his work would glorify God. And Bugnini, and self-serving modernists of his ilk, tried to make their labor vain by their own conceits and arrogance.

Anonymous said...

Over time, perspectives on how to provide for the Traditional Rite of Mass change. For many years now (since 1997), I have been arguing that the Pope should erect a personal and international diocese or apostolic administration for the T.L.M.

Recently, and given the effect of S.P., the focus has shifted to the S.S.S.X., and since the Society simply won't take a juridical structure, there has been much discussion here about the Pope simply recognising Society faculties on a temporary (but indefinite) basis.

Yes, he might do this. The problem with the idea is that the next Pope might withdraw such recognition unless the Society compromises. And it won't.

So I'm not sure that His Holiness can depend on such a recognition to solve the problem, to ensure a permanent place in the Church for the Traditional Rite. This takes us back again to the question of jurisdiction. Pope Benedict XVI could create an international diocese, make all the traditionalist societies and orders subject to it, and then grant it reasonable access to all the parish churches (as well as having a right to build/buy its own) in consultation with local parish priests (what Americans call 'pastors' for reasons which entirely elude me).

Since the authority of the Pope is not only universal but also immediate, there is no reason he could not grant such access to the parish churches.

The difficulty may be getting around concordats in a few cases, such as France, Austria, and Poland. If so, H.H. could create separate particular churches for each of those countries (there are only three or four where it's a problem) and the various societies and orders would be subject to those ordinaries in those countries. As new concordats are drawn up, excpetions would be made and so forth.

The structure would have to be a particular church so that it would not need the permission of the local Mahony to move into his bailiwick. We all know why. Duh. This is why only a fool, an idiot, or one of our enemies would suggest an inflexible and unworkable personal prelature as the structure. It would have to be a ritual (arch)diocese or apostolic administration--a Campos writ large--under Canon 372.2 or else an international ordinariate but not under all the strictures of those for Anglicans.

Where would it's seat be? I rather prefer Trento. Hmm. But if it can be in France, it should be Paris, for there are by far more T.L.M.s in metro Paris than anywhere on earth. There are about 35 every-Sunday T.L.M.s in the Paris area. So I vote for Paris. Let's invade the centre of the French Revolution!

If the Pope were to create such a structure and get it up and running, it would be difficult for a future Pope to shut it down.

P.K.T.P.

Knight of Malta said...

Here is my entry on Chartres:

http://hospitallers.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-ingmar-bergman-orson-welles-chartres.html

Can you believe the Revolutionaries actually had plans to tear this structure down?

Shows you the terrible damage that modernism can have--which infected Vatican II, btw.

Knight of Malta said...

One last point: the greatest music was created for the mass-from Palestrina to Mozart. Whether a requiem Mass or some other piece for the mass, there is doubt that the greatest music the world has ever known was inspired by, and created for, the Traditional Latin Mass. And yet, just when the world was struggling, becoming inbalanced, straying from tradition, from goodness, and old values, just then Vatican II erupted, and instead of challenging the bad things going on in the world, embraced a world gone wild!

Why was it so necessary to aggriomento with a world diametrically at odds with the Church?

Anonymous said...

It is up to His Holiness — if he's on page with the following notion —to lead and grow the (relatively small) Traditionalist movement that exists within the Latin Church.

The only way out of the post-Vatican II crisis of Faith is to return to the TLM.

But does Pope Benedict XVI believe that? I don't know.

His Holiness has made it clear that the Novus Ordo will remain the main liturgy within the Latin Church.

I doubt that many Anglicans/Episcopalians will join the Church.

The Eastern Orthodox are not interested in entering into Communion with the Holy See.

I also doubt that the TLM will attract many fallen-away Catholics.

The tens of millions of Catholics who have ceased to assist at Mass are likely gone forever.

That is what nearly 40 years of Novus Ordoism has done to the Latin Church.

Therefore, the only sensible way forward for the Latin Church is...

1. Restore the TLM.

2. That, in turn, will instill a strong sense of Catholic identity among young families that remain interested in the Faith.

3. Their children will grown into adulthood having been raised on the TLM.

4. They will mature and raise children of their own.

At the same time, the restored Latin Church in all her beauty and majesty will attract massive waves of unchurched converts (as She had done for centuries).

The above will take decades — probably 100 or more years — to accomplish.

But the above hinges upon whether Pope Benedict XVI believes that full-TLM restoration is the way forward for the Latin Church.

What good is a nice church building when the Novus Ordo would be offered within?

We need the TLM within our church buildings.

Tim

Paul Haley said...

On what a future Pope might undo, I submit that it has already been done with the implementation of the NOM which implanted a banal product in place of the TLM, not de jure but de facto.

So, yes, it can happen but I submit the salvation of souls requires that faculties be granted to all traditional priests professing loyalty to the Holy Father. Whether done by an international apostolic administration or personal diocese matters little but it must be done and done now, Naturally, I would prefer it be done by erection of the suitable juridical structure but faculties must be provided now whatever the case.

This business of traditional priests professing loyalty to the Holy Father and practicing their ministry according to what the Church has always taught, held and professed to be true being ostracized, calumniated and minimized by local bishops must stop immediately and faculties granted by the Holy Father himself would do this nicely.

What's a local bishop going to do then - tell the Holy Father he doesn't have faculties to grant faculties in his diocese? Don't laugh, my friends, their stubbornness knows know bounds. And that is why I agree with P.K.T.P. that a juridical structure which provides the independence needed is the only long-term solution. Short-term it's faculties now!.

Luiz said...

Quo primum. Isn't it the answer? Was that document abrogated or changed?

Anonymous said...

A 2010 Message of H.H. Pope Benedict XVI, Successor of St. Peter, Patriarch of the West, &c.

Dear Brethren and Feminazis in Christ:

My predecessors of glorious memory, John XXIII and Paul VI, promulgated the praiseworth Second Vatican Council as a pastoral council which was absolutely necessary to meet the challenges of the modern world (Lumen Goofball, 6.1). The good fruits of that pastoral Council are now blatantly obvious to everyone. Nobody can deny what a boon it has been for the Church and the world: teeming seminaries, a reakakening of faith, an endless stream of conversions everywhere, an enormous increase in vocations universally, and the need to build endless new churches or expand existing churches to meet an ever-growing demand for lay participation at Mass. It is indubitable that a new springtime has revivified the Church and, as a result, millions of Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and Protestants are abandoning their errors and embracing the Holy Catholic Faith.

The Second Vatican Council was a pastoral Council (Lumen Goofball 3.8) which was convened specifically to address difficulties of a specific time (Lumen Goofball 2.19). We are pleased to announce that that time has now passed. Indeed, it is now rare indeed to see any hippies on the streets at all (Indignitatis Humanae 41.31): they have all donned business suits or retired to Saltspring Island to grow weed.

Ours is a new time and calls for new approaches. Therefore, the purely pastoral aspects of this Council shall cease in all their effects starting on the First Sunday of Advent of this year of the Priest. The doctrinal aspects of that great Council are also rich. They have enriched the life the Church. Indeed, they have added a rich sugary desert, no, dessert, to the table of the Lord (Lumen Goofball 19.18). But it should never be imagined that they can in any way be separated from the pastoral ends to whcih they are ordered; and since the pastoral effects of that great Council are hereby retired, the doctrinal considerations that are contextualised by them will gloriously apply entirely to the period which is now concluded so successfully. Strengthened by the greater faith which has emerged from those august documents, we can now return anew to the dogmas which spawned them (apologies to Your Eminences for the terrible metaphors).

This Holy See calls upon all faithful, young and old, clerical and lay, sane and insane, to help devise a new plan to meet modern needs. Until this has been accomplished and ratified in the present millennium and the one to follow, the Church will rely on the perennial teaching and praxis which nourished those great leaders of the Council in their hallowed days of formation.

We note that some of the translations of Vatican II documents are models of good usage in the various languages, and we encourage them to be studied to improve diction and sentence structure. By no means are faithful forbidden to read them, just as they are encouraged to ponder their effects on Holy Church. Never would Holy Church suggest or imply in any way or at any time that faithul are forbidden to read the documents of the Second Vatican Council, until such time that they are placed on the Index Librorum Prohititorum.

While it follows in law that the episcopal conferences called into being by that august Council are hereby abolished, we continue to encourage bishops to meet and chat and foster feelings of camaraderie. Indeed, all the faithful should seek opportunities for engaging in social activities which can foster that love which our Divine Master had for the apostles.

In closing, we encourage our dear brother bishops to bone up on their Latin, since this will be the last communication of this pontificate which is translated into the vernacular tongues; and we are receptive to any promotion to positions in the Holy See or to the dignity of bishop among those who are fluent in the Latin language.

In Domino,

With the assistance of P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

And then Mr. Perkins woke up and arose from his bed . . . .

Anonymous said...

Jordanes wrote:

"And then Mr. Perkins woke up and arose from his bed . . . ."

And he realised that the last forty years had only been a nightmare and that Paul VI was nothing but a bit of undigested cheese.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On Jordanes's comment, aside from my fantasy in one foul act here, it has occurred to me that if you actually read the documents (which I unfortunately did at one time, although I'm pleased to report that I can no longer recall much of their content), they make it clear that the Council was deemed necessary owing to the needs of a NEW time. It follows logically that when that time has passed, the Pope has the authority to retire the documents, and I see no limitation on the office of St. Peter which would prevent him from deciding when that time of application has passed.

Moreover, given the pastoral nature of the Council for a specific time, it would seem that the doctrinal considerations are inextricably connected to that time. In other words, it is arguable that they only apply to situations which are proper to that time. In no way does this call into question their correctness. It just means that they apply (somehow) correctly to the situations of a time which is limited and will pass.

(Sound of alarm clock). There! It's over! The time has passed!
We have left the Modern World and entered a post-modern world! How exciting!

P.K.T.P.

John McFarland said...

Those inclined to Mr. Perkins' efforts to turn the relativists' guns against them might be interested in an article by Father Gleize of the SSPX, which is translated from SiSiNoNo in the November issue of the Angelus.

Father argues that it is the unananimous view of Popes and theologians before the Council that even non-infallible teaching is binding on the faithful (and only to be criticized with great discretion by the theologians) if it teaches the doctrine of the Church.

Father Gleize also notes that all the major doctrines of V2 have been carefully and consistently taught even since the Council, over and over and over again, and cites chapter and verse.

It follows, he in effect says, that the only way out of the binding character of the conciliar pronouncements is to recognize that they do not teach the doctrine of the Church, but something else.

***

On a different topic, let me offer my considered opinion that those who think the beauty of the TLM will win over the multitudes are wrong.

It's only going to be a relatively small number of Masses that are going to have good production values; and I seriously doubt that the pageantry is going to strike sparks in very many souls in any event. What does the Mass have to offer to compete with state of the art special effects?

In order for people to come to Mass, beautiful or not, they have to believe that it is what it is.

If my own coming to tradition had required my being attracted by the beauty of the Masses I've attended since I've come to tradition, I never would have come to tradition.

Jordanes said...

Much of Vatican II's acts, as well as the Council's ethos and attitude, are pastoral and disciplinary and, to an important degree, sound and feel very timebound. Catholics may someday see Mr. Perkins' dream come true in some form. Personally I think Vatican II's "voice" speaks more to the mid-20th century than to the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

Jordanes said...

Father Gleize also notes that all the major doctrines of V2 have been carefully and consistently taught even since the Council, over and over and over again, and cites chapter and verse.

It follows, he in effect says, that the only way out of the binding character of the conciliar pronouncements is to recognize that they do not teach the doctrine of the Church, but something else.


Or to put it another way: either our Mother's pronouncements at Vatican II are the doctrine of the Church, or else the Magisterium, in carefully and consistently teaching the same doctrines ever since Vatican II, has gone off the rails and defected from the Faith, thus proving that what Christ taught about the Church is false.

John McFarland said...

Jordanes,

You write:

"Or to put it another way: either our Mother's pronouncements at Vatican II are the doctrine of the Church, or else the Magisterium, in carefully and consistently teaching the same doctrines ever since Vatican II, has gone off the rails and defected from the Faith, thus proving that what Christ taught about the Church is false."

Your reference to "our Mother" begs the question. The reference to "Magisterium" is all right if you mean either the Pope as teacher, or the Pope's act of teaching in ratifying the documents of the V2. But if you mean by "Magisterium" the doctrine of the Church delivered once for all to the saints, you are again begging the question.

Indefectibility relates to the Church. See Ott Bk. 4, Pt. 2, Ch. 4, sec. 12, or any other dogmatic theology manual. Indeed, Ch. 4 of Ott is entitled "Attributes of the Church." If the Pope and the bishops in some sense "defect," it is not in a sense related to the fact that the Church will never defect.

I would simply say that the ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium 8, ecumenism, and religious freedom are what V2 taught, but are not what the Church teaches.

The Church will not collapse if V2 taught errors. But many people will be endangering their eternal salvation if they insist on maintaining that we must obey the Pope and the bishops if and when what they teach is not what the Church teaches.

Jordanes said...

None of those facts and considerations will provide you the escape hatch you need, Mr. McFarland. You're talking about a scenario in which the Church's magisterii have "carefully and consistently" taught a whole body of doctrine for not less than four decades. If what they have been teaching so carefully and so consistently is not the doctrine of the Church, then the Church has in fact not had any active, functioning Magisterium for more than a generation. How can the Church of Christ no longer have a Magisterium, or lose her Magisterium even for a moment? If the Church has somehow lost her Magisterium, then the Church has defected, has lost something that She must always have in order to be the Church. That's another way of saying the Catholic Church is not now, and perhaps never was, the Church; or else the Church isn't what Christ said She is, which would be fatal to the Messiahship of Jesus. Either way, maintaining your opinions must lead, if you are to be consistent in your beliefs, to the renunciation of the Faith.

Anonymous said...

The council of Florence erred in its teaching on Holy Orders - it didn't even purport to teach infallibly on this, either - which was only corrected hundreds of years later by Pius XII.

This false teaching was obviously not the teaching of the Extraordinary magisterium, which is infallible. It was not the teaching of the ordinary magisterium, which is infallible. It was only the teaching of the pope at the time's authentic magisterium, which is definitely subject to error.

If Florence could teach error, so could any other council. But to state the obvious, such teaching is not infallible.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland writes:

"On a different topic, let me offer my considered opinion that those who think the beauty of the TLM will win over the multitudes are wrong."

He goes on to say that the beauty of the T.L.M. is not what brought him to the Traditional Latin Mass. My own perspective is different since it was that beauty and order which brought me away from the N.O. to Tradition. On the other hand, I could not stand the N.O. long before I fled from it and expected to be rescued by a T.L.M., if only I could find one in my area (which I could not, at first). The N.O. Masses I knew before ranged from the banal to the silly to the dreadful to the abominable.


I am of two minds on Mr. McFarland's point. On the one side, I agree with him because I think that a generation raised on rock noise and jumk culture cannot appreciate quality and does not want it. If the average person wanted it, the average person would also be able to appreciate something fine, something wonderful, something superb (like the music of Haydn) and hate something contemptible and sick (like jazz, rock noise, or just about any musical expression from the 20th c.).

On the other side, however, most faithful from the N.O. never see a T.L.M. because the bishops restrict it as much as possible and do not tell of its whereabouts. To assess how popular each Rite of Mass might be as against the other, you'd have to provide approximately equal access to each. That will not happen in the near future. The sad part is that there are many good faithful out there who are either completely unaware of the Traditional Rite of Mass or who believe that it is gone forever.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"How can the Church of Christ no longer have a Magisterium, or lose her Magisterium even for a moment?"

I see the Magisterium as a permanent teaching *office*. So, if people stop using the office, the office does not simply disappear, just as my office at the university does not disappear when I go home (well, some say otherwise, of course). The corpus of teachings is with us always and cannot go away. The question becomes whether what Cardinal Daneels said about condoms last week is part of it.

I think that all the conciliar and post-conciliar Popes have, from time to time, repeated and reinforced the teaching of the Church. The problem is that they have also said other things, and the other things are by far the more numerous.

So, in deciding what papal pronouncements comport with and interpret the constant teachings, we need to attend to what sort of authority is imparted to each statement.

This mess will take some sorting to get fixed. If you consider how such messes were solved in the past, the errors were defined carefully and then anathematised one by one. I see no other way. Should anyone say that the Jews need not Jesus and can wait for their own Messias, let him be anathema! Should anyone say that the Canon of the Mass, like one used by the Assyrians, need not include the Words of Institution (re Balamand Statement), let him be anathema! Should anyone say that the primacy of the Pope is only one of honour among the bishops, let him be anathema! Etcetera.

P.K.T.P.

Gideon Ertner said...

To be fair to Mr. McFarland, Jordanes, I'm not sure that what you say is the logical consequence of his views.

We need to look at what are those specific doctrines which have been taught consistently over the last 45 years. The right to religious liberty? Well, V II never claimed that that right was absolute; even though the tenor of DH is overwhelmingly in favour of religious liberty it does allow for the restriction of it in certain cases - which are not defined, so we can read into that more or less what we like. The central concept of 'freedom from coercion' is not defined either; if it simply refers to forced conversion, the whole of the document may arguably be shown to simply condemn forced conversion - which is quite uncontroversial.

And what else have we? Subsistit in is more a semantic than a doctrinal issue, however much people want to make it the latter. Personally, I find it is a more forceful way of saying est, and transcripts of the proceedings show that the Council Fathers certainly did not want to change the doctrine of the Church on this matter.

I won't say any more. I am not a theologian nor a logician; these are simply my own observations and I am submitting no judgment on these issues. But I submit in trust that the Magisterium has not taught any (serious and consistent) error at any time. If erroneous opinions or logical inconsistencies have been taught, I trust that God will correct them in due course through the very same Magisterium. And so I will stick with this Magisterium and wait for it to happen, if it must, or not to happen, if it must not.

From what I have learnt, that is Catholic Christianity.

Gideon Ertner said...

On a very different note: has the Rorate staff seen the text of the 'lecture' Dr. Rowan Williams gave at the Greogrian yesterday?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/19/rowan-williams-rome-female-bishops

I can say just one thing: Much Too Funny For Words. He asks the Church to "reconsider" its opposition to female Bishops and actually begs us not to forsake dialogue with the Anglicans over such and other "secondary issues." He is like a little boy who stomps his feet and cries at not being allowed to stay up after bedtime. I laughed my a**e off and most of my lower limbs as well. P.K.T.P. will flip completely over this one.

Jordanes said...

The council of Florence erred in its teaching on Holy Orders - it didn't even purport to teach infallibly on this, either - which was only corrected hundreds of years later by Pius XII.

Yes, I've pointed to that example here on several occasions.

This false teaching was obviously not the teaching of the Extraordinary magisterium, which is infallible. It was not the teaching of the ordinary magisterium, which is infallible. It was only the teaching of the pope at the time's authentic magisterium, which is definitely subject to error.

Ah, but it was more than the teaching of the then-Pope's authentic magisterium: it was approved and promulgated by an oecumenical council too. So it formed a part of the Church's authentic magisterium.

What Mr. McFarland is talking about, however, seems to amount to trying to find a way to classify the teachings of Vatican II as not a part of the Church's authentic magisterium which thus may be, indeed must be, rejected.

I see the Magisterium as a permanent teaching *office*. So, if people stop using the office, the office does not simply disappear, just as my office at the university does not disappear when I go home (well, some say otherwise, of course). The corpus of teachings is with us always and cannot go away.

Okay. But the Teaching Office of the Church can never fall into disuse -- not only its existence, but its use, are integral to the Church's identity and essence. Indeed, the Magisterium's existence cannot be separated from its operation.

I think that all the conciliar and post-conciliar Popes have, from time to time, repeated and reinforced the teaching of the Church.

Mr. McFarland seems to have serious doubts about that.

The problem is that they have also said other things, and the other things are by far the more numerous.

There's the problem for Mr. McFarland, it seems: he finds the "conciliar magisterium" to be "adulterated" and thus not the Church's Magisterium at all. Functionally, then, it would appear that the Magisterium is largely if not entirely a past tense thing for him.

Put another way, any time a statement of the Popes of the past few decades is cited or quoted, Mr. McFarland will assert that it is ambiguous and adulterated and thus not the Faith at all. For him, authoritatively teaching the Faith is something the Church used to do, but is not currently engaged in doing.

But I submit in trust that the Magisterium has not taught any (serious and consistent) error at any time. If erroneous opinions or logical inconsistencies have been taught, I trust that God will correct them in due course through the very same Magisterium. And so I will stick with this Magisterium and wait for it to happen, if it must, or not to happen, if it must not.

That's my understanding and attitude about it as well. Mr. McFarland, however, certainly doesn't talk like that. For him, it's as if the Church's Magisterium somehow has been separated from the Church: the Church with her Popes and bishops has only a corrupted magisterium which must be questioned, challenged, or outright rejected; the Magisterium prior to 1963 is all he will listen to, and so he turns to the SSPX because he believes they maintain pre-conciliar magisterial teaching.

Jordanes said...

He asks the Church to "reconsider" its opposition to female Bishops and actually begs us not to forsake dialogue with the Anglicans over such and other "secondary issues."

Yes, in one respect his antics are laughable. But when I consider the outrageous nonsense he spewed at the Greg, I simply cannot fathom how the Holy See can justify allowing him to deliver such heretical gibberish any longer.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"Okay. But the Teaching Office of the Church can never fall into disuse -- not only its existence, but its use, are integral to the Church's identity and essence. Indeed, the Magisterium's existence cannot be separated from its operation."

Then he goes on to say that Mr. McFarland seems to doubt that the post-conciliar popes have used their authority.

Well, I don't get the same impression at all. I don't think that Mr. McFarland would dispute the fact that, from time to time, the recent popes certainly have repeated and reinforced sure teachings of the Magisterium. It's just that he finds that they say far more which does not fall into that category.

Therefore, as long as the Magisterium has not fallen into 'disuse', we are back to Square One: the question becomes which utterances fall into which categories.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I was surprised by the Archdruid's statements for another reason: I was expecting the Pope to agree to some dreadful idea presented by the pagan Church of Englanders. Let's hope there's no bad news to come between now and Sunday, when the Archdruid returns to England.

I think that we need to step back and become just a bit more realistic about the situation. First of all, some here are buying their whistles so that they can cheer when the Canterbury Communion ceases to exist. Forget it. That won't happen in our lifetimes. They have had prestige and money and position for so long that they can sell off assets for decades to come in order to keep breathing. What we shall see instead is a thorough decline in their numbers until they are almost unnoticeable. But they'll hang on for many decades to come.

They will suffer a huge body-blow when the evangelicals finally depart entirely, and internationally. That is on the horizon. The GAFCON Anglicans are staying hypcritically connected to the Schorri Bitch because they want all that lovely money to keep flowing in from he U.S.A. Peter Akinola is like a Nigerian Danny DeVito: "I love money, I love money, I love money."

But the day will come when the decline of liberal Anglicanism is so great that the flow of cash to Nigeria will dry up. At that point, the GAFCONers (a type of con artist) will cut the knot and the Canterburian Communion will collapse. The next question is whether or not the evangelicals will eventually seek reunion with Rome. Times will have changed by then and it will be either (a) Rome or (b) Islam or (c) secularism. Ultimately, there is no future for evangelicalism either.

As for the Anglo-Catholic 'continuers' who do not take the Pope's offer, they will bleed into the ordinariates over time. Those who do not will continue to be unheard-of sects, forever getting smaller.

The Anglican liberals? Many will go the way of Dawkins. If you don't believe in God, why go to church? And if you contracept religiously, where will the next generation come from?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On Jordanes's last comment regarding the Arch-Druid of Canterbury:

I suppose that Williams will have to go this way or that way or this way or that way eventually.

I've heard from my TAC contacts that, by some instrument or other, the C. of E. has decided to deny the Anglo-Catholics a special place. I'm not sure what this is all about but it's out there somewhere on the net. From what I've heard, the liberals in the C. of E. have recently 'done something' foolish which will likely drive Anglo-Catholics into our new ordinariates.

So the Anglo-Catholics are out of the picture in the C. of E. That leaves the evangelicals. Peter Akinola, their de facto international druid, has just made it clear that he's keeping them in the Canterburian Communion. Akinola and company intend to run straight at Canterbury and try to take its citadel by a single combat, much like High King Peter's attempt to take the castle in Narnia II: they mean to take over the Church of England and drive the liberals and the bishopettes out. Fat chance.

Williams really can't go with the evangelicals because, at the end of the day, the liberals control the C. of E. And he can no longer use the Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals together to keep the liberals in line. As a consequence, he will be more and more forced into the liberal slot which represents his true personal position anyway. Hence his ludicrous nonsense at the Gregorian. He is letting Benedict XVI know where he's going; and he is also, I think, repaying the Pope for the ordinariates.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"Father argues that it is the unananimous view of Popes and theologians before the Council that even non-infallible teaching is binding on the faithful (and only to be criticized with great discretion by the theologians) if it teaches the doctrine of the Church." John MacFarland)

Provided your summary is acurate, I haven't read this paper, there is a slight detail that is derailing the whole reasoning of ultra-infallibilism of Fr. Gleize : Church history is 2000 years of permanent contradiction.

Church non infallible statements have been constantly challenged all over the centuries, publicly and boisterously by numerous theologians and bishops.
The Holy See herself has in numerous occasions changed from one pastoral option to another. If you look at the Dispute on Chinese Rites, you will see dozens of authoritative statements by popes saying yes, then no, then yes, then no during 150 years.You reach Benedict XIV mid XVIIIth with a "final" decision ... completely reversed in 1936 (Pius XI) and 1939 (Pius XII).

Not forgetting an exquisite example on a topic Fr. Gleize may have heard of : the 1962 missal. It was forbidden under Paul VI's authoritative non infallible statement of 1974 and 1976 and Abp Lefebvre was required to celebrate NOM. Then it was allowed under the 1984-1988 indult regime and we discover in 2007 that ... it was never ever abrogated or obrogoted whatsoever (!) : article 1 of Summorum Pontificum (2007).

Too bad for the (naive and maybe crazy) ultra-infallibilists that we cannot do any valid theology without this annoying element : Church history and real life. Plus another annoying detail : common sense.

Alsaticus

Jordanes said...

Based on Mr. McFarland's comment, Father Gleize's argument would not be that non-infallible papal teaching is "infallible" (if it were infallible, then it wouldn't be "non-infallible"), but that it is "binding" on the faithful. That is, Catholics owe it a lower degree of assent and respect.

dcs said...

I've heard from my TAC contacts that, by some instrument or other, the C. of E. has decided to deny the Anglo-Catholics a special place. I'm not sure what this is all about but it's out there somewhere on the net. From what I've heard, the liberals in the C. of E. have recently 'done something' foolish which will likely drive Anglo-Catholics into our new ordinariates.

They've refused to put a structure into place to "protect" "traditionalists" who don't want to be served by female so-called bishops.

John McFarland said...

Jordanes,

"Based on Mr. McFarland's comment, Father Gleize's argument would not be that non-infallible papal teaching is "infallible" (if it were infallible, then it wouldn't be "non-infallible"), but that it is "binding" on the faithful. That is, Catholics owe it a lower degree of assent and respect."

Father Gleize's point is not that the non-infallible authentic teaching is entitled to the "lower" degree of assent, but rather that for most purposes (and certainly for the laity) the required degrees of assent are practically indistinguishable -- IF that teaching is consistent with the faith delivered once for all to the saints. He rams the point home by noting that the conciliar doctrines are not one-shot affairs; they have been repeated over and over and over again.

So the issue is not infallibility, but consistency with the perennial doctrine of the Church.

The SSPX is not quibbling or logic-chopping. It is saying that the authentic conciliar teaching is NOT consistent with the faith delivered once for all to the saints.

By contrast, the Pope's hermeneutic of continuity ultimately boils down to the notion that the continuity is the continuity of the teaching authorities: the Popes and the bishops. If it's all been said by duly constituted authority over the centuries and since 1962, then it's somehow all of a piece -- even when it's quite obviously not of a piece.

Term papers said...

Very nice write up. Easy to understand and straight to the point.