WHEN IS THE LAST TIME IN CHURCH HISTORY THAT SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAS HAPPENED?
We can thank Pope Francis for bringing South American banana republic political-like chaos to Holy Mother Church and her governance!
This is from Edward Pentin that great Vaticanista:
Father Aidan Nichols Signs Open Letter Charging Pope Francis With Heresy
The Dominican is one of 19 academics and clergy calling on the world’s bishops to admonish the Pope and publicly reject heresy or face losing the papacy.
The well-known and respected Dominican theologian Father Aidan Nichols has put his name to an historic open letter to bishops claiming Pope Francis is guilty of heresy and calling on them to formally correct him.
The letter, released on April 30, the feast day in the traditional calendar of St. Catherine of Siena — the 14th century saint famous for her criticism of Pope Gregory XI — states that Francis has on occasions “knowingly and persistently” denied what he knows is divinely revealed Church teaching.
Such words and actions, the signatories continue, “amount to a comprehensive rejection of Catholic teaching on marriage and sexual activity, on the moral law, and on grace and the forgiveness of sins.”
They add that they have taken this measure “as a last resort to respond to the accumulating harm caused by Pope Francis’s words and actions over several years, which have given rise to one of the worst crises in the history of the Catholic Church.”
The signatories call on bishops to investigate the claims they put forth, and then correct Pope Francis by calling on him “to reject these heresies.”
If he should “persistently refuse,” they call on the bishops to declare that Francis has “freely deprived himself of the papacy.”
“A heretical papacy may not be tolerated or dissimulated to avoid a worse evil,” the authors write. “It strikes at the basic good of the Church and must be corrected.”
They also link his purported rejection of some Church teachings with his favour shown to bishops and cardinals found guilty of abuse or covering up for abuse and corruption, such as Cardinals Theodore McCarrick, Godfried Danneels, Donald Wuerl and Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga.
They explain that the open letter marks the “third stage” of a process that began in the summer of 2016 when a group of Catholic clergy and scholars wrote a private letter to cardinals and Eastern patriarchs pointing out heresies that they said were in the Pope’s post-synodal apostolic exhortation on the family, Amoris Laetitia.
This was followed by a “filial correction” the following year which expressed grave concern about various papal pronouncements but stopped short of accusing the Pope of knowingly spreading heresy.
Father Nichols, author of many books on a wide range of theological topics including the work of Hans Urs von Balthasar and Joseph Ratzinger, is joined by, among others, the renowned patristics scholar Professor John Rist.
The letter has also been published in French, Italian, German, Spanish and Dutch.
28 comments:
TJM
said...
PF is one dangerous lefty. No one who posts here has ever responded to this example of PF's ignorance/hypocrisy: PF rails against capitalism while exhorting the victims of socialist governments to go to the capitalist USA. God can't resolve contradictions, but PF can.
The Pope has brought this on himself, both by his action and perhaps, more so, by his inaction. As a great supporter of the Dominicans I take some silly pleasure that a Dominican is calling a Jesuit out. That being said, the call outs are absolutely necessary and should continue. The Holy Father will continue to ignore this letter as he has all the others, but sooner or later there will be a reckoning....and I believe this is happening; more at the local level. Cardinal Dolan has lost a lot of credibility, Wuerl is clinging to his role until Gregory arrives and you can almost feel the disdain when he takes to the pulpit in the Basilica Shrine. Gregory had a very poor send-off etc. Cupich made a fool of himself in Rome...need I go on. Leadership is lacking at the top and the inmates are still running the asylum.
The best that can come from this is a formal schism. The worst is formal suppression of traditional Church teaching and revision of Church Law to align the code to the teachings in question. The weakness of the group critical of Pope Francis is not the facts of the Letter, but the paradox that this message is contra to relaxing laws toward sexual behavior while also doing nothing to address the sexual predation of the clergy.
Is it gonna help? I doubt it. But I think it is important that the educated faithful and persons of knowledge and authority make statements such as these. These become part of the historical record of the Church, and allow historians to understand the different strands that wove together events that are in our future, but will be in their past.
I think it also helps laity like me think about and articulate more clearly and respectfully what exactly we find unsettling about things the current Pope is doing and saying.
Somebody needs to inform Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI that the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis, is a heretic. :-)
-- Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has praised Pope Francis' Pontificate.
-- Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI declared that his former Pontificate, and Pope Francis Pontificate, are in perfect continuity with each other.
-- Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, April 2019 A.D:
“I would like to thank Pope Francis for everything he does to show us, again and again, the light of God, which has not disappeared, even today. Thank you, Holy Father!”
Each person who signed the Open Letter will prove to be a two-fraud should they offer/assist at any Mass that commemorates His Holiness, Pope Francis, as our orthodox Pope.
They declare during Holy Mass that Pope Francis holds and hands on the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
When they are away from Holy Mass, said folks link Pope Francis to heresies.
Such is position that a two-faced fraud would take in regard to Pope Francis.
I don't expect you to respond to my points in any meaningful way. I doubt that you have the intelligence to do so. However, you might have the humility to accept that Aidan Nichols is probably more intelligent and certainly more theologically erudite than either of us. Calling him a 'two-faced fraud' merely puts on show your arrogance and ignorance.
Btw Mark, why exactly would it be wrong to pray for Francis at their masses, or to say "Francis our pope?"
Since you have closely read the letter, you will know that the authors are not suggesting that Francis has lost the office because of heresy, but that he holds the office while being a heretic. This is why they are asking bishops to do something.
You are very quick to accuse those who threaten your Francis, with names such as: liar, two-faced, frauds....
Sorry to double post but why is Mr McKarrack still living in a convent in Kansas? He is probably a millionaire in his own right and could increase that if he wrote sordid and graphic tell-all. Could it be he is afraid to tell all?
Tom Makin, spot on. I really believe at this point most serious Catholics are just doing their best to support their local parish church and local faithful priests. It’s becoming a grassroots effort to stay alive with our personal faith. We love our Church, even when her shepherds don’t seem to love her. Forget trying to reason with heterodox priests. Pray for them, of course, but most of them are elderly and clueless about what it will take to turn things around. Too caught up in their own personal progressive agendas to see how wrong they were/are, and the destruction they caused. They are supported by their own personal hangers-on, so think they are on the right track.
The “new” evangelical agenda of His Holiness cannot possibly move forward with no base among the tithing faithful pewsitters. He has lost our attention. One more contemporary, costly, irresponsible program to “save” our Church’s future. Evangelization begins at home, in our homes at no expense save time and committed effort. It’s the true Faith that saves, not programs.
'Each person who signed the Open Letter will prove to be a two-fraud should they offer/assist at any Mass that commemorates His Holiness, Pope Francis, as our orthodox Pope. They declare during Holy Mass that Pope Francis holds and hands on the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.'
A couple things about this statement. 1. I feel confident that the priest-signatories continue to pray for the pope. 2. I don't see how that makes them "two-fraud" or "two-faced", but in any case, this isn't about their character, it's about whether the pope has taught heresy. They have accused him of this and have asked the bishops to investigate (I wouldn't hold my breath for that, though).
3. Anyway, MT's description of the Roman Canon is inaccurate: it does not say that the pope is orthodox. The relevant text is:
... quam pacificare, custodire, adunare et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et antistite nostro N. et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus.
For which the 2010-11 approved translation is:
Be pleased to grant her peace, to guard, unite and govern her throughout the whole world, together with your servant N. our Pope and N. our Bishop, and all those who, holding to the truth, hand on the catholic and apostolic faith.*
There is no mention of the orthodoxy of the pope or the bishop, only there office. That shouldn't be surprising...even those who can't bring themselves to admit there have been heterodox popes can hardly deny that there have been heterodox bishops over the years!
*My 1955 Missal reads: Vouchsafe, throughout the whole world, to keep her in peace, to gather her in unity and to guide her, in union with N. Thy servant our Pope, N. our bishop, and all right believing teachers of the Catholic apostolic faith. My other missals have similar translations...my 1957 missal uses the phrase 'true believers.' Perhaps the translators were afraid of using the O-word, in case anyone got the ideas we liked the Greeks.
That point aside, I'm still puzzled why when the NO came out the hierarchy felt they had to come up with new translations for those parts of the Mass that survived their revolution, like the Gloria and the Creed. I've still got PTSD from that dreadful 1970 NO translation...'And also with you'--brrr!
I would not fool with the Eastern Church and their non-Trinitarian tendencies. This is Reformation-era type nonsense. Why don't you guys give Calvinism a look? Catholics really need to give TULIP theology some consideration. It all comes from Augustine, anyway.
And it is in the Catholic Church that the fullness of faith is being attacked from within by those entrusted to lead us. Is it any wonder serious that Catholics are questioning their commitment?
Tony V said..."Anyway, MT's description of the Roman Canon is inaccurate: it does not say that the pope is orthodox."
My description is accurate.
During Her Divine Liturgy, God's holy priest testifies via the Roman Canon/Eucharistic Prayer/Anaphora that...
1. Pope Francis is the one and only Roman Pontiff.
2. That he is, of course, a member of the Church.
3. He is counted among "all the faithful guardians of the catholic and apostolic faith."
The above quote is from The Divine Worship Missal, Eucharistic Prayer/The Roman Canon. =======================================================================================
Tony V, the following declaration of yours is false: "There is no mention of the orthodoxy of the pope or the bishop, only there office."
The Pope is, of course, considered orthodox. He is counted among "all the faithful guardians of the catholic and apostolic faith." (Divine Worship Missal.)
Otherwise, please explain as to how/why the Church would declare that an unorthodox, heretical Pope is a faithful guardian of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
How can one be at once a heretic, as well as faithful guardian of the True Faith?
Dear Mark 'Doubting' Thomas, The mistake you made is so easy to fall into, I'm sure you'll laugh uncontrollably when I walk you through it.
In my previous post, I've cited the relevant Latin text in my previous comment, along with the currently approved English translation, and some perfectly good (superior?) translations from the 1950s. You, on the other hand, have cited Divine Worship: The Missal. I note that one of the signatories of the Open Letter is accustomed to use this Missal from time to time, so it's absolutely right that we should include this in our euchologo-linguistic analysis as well. Here is the relevant text:
We offer them unto thee, first, for thy holy Catholic Church: that thou vouchsafe to keep her in peace, to guard, unite, and govern her throughout the whole world; together with thy servant N., our Pope, N., our Bishop, (or N., our Ordinary), and all the faithful guardians of the catholic and apostolic faith.
Let's focus on the terminal prepositional phrase (together with thy servant...), which qualifies the infinitives that depend on the verb vouchsafe (or at very least the last of these infinitives, govern). The priest is asking God to govern the Church 'together with' three other entities: the pope, the local bishop, and 'all the faithful guardians' of the faith.
Note that the phrase is not 'and all the other faithful guardians of the...faith', which is the reading that you mistakenly fell into. There's nothing to suggest here that the pope or the local bishop belong to this group of faithful guardians. (Who these guardians are, alas, is not specified. But my own theory is that they include Cdl R Burke and Archbp A Schneider.)
To make this absolutely crystal clear, let's construct a similar sentence in which the verb is likewise qualified by a prepositional phrase that contains three nouns or nominal phrases, just like the example under analysis. Consider: I went to the pub together with Nigel, Simon, and all the girls from the secretarial pool. Here it pretty apparent that Nigel and Simon are not included in 'all the girls...' (unless of course we are dead-naming two trans-females, but of course we'd never do anything that unpastoral). Here's another illustration: The professor lectured about Hitler, Stalin, and all the brave people who resisted them. Again, the first two nouns are not semantically included in the final nominal phrase. To further demonstrate this to yourself: replace Hitler with the pope, Stalin with your local bishop, and...well, you get the point.
Again, I entirely sympathise with and admire your desire to support 'our papa' even when he acts like a particularly crazy family member. So should we all. But, strictly entre nous--everyone but Mark Thomas stop reading NOW: the remainder of this post is between Mark and myself--it's pretty clear to me that, your commendable surface loyalty notwithstanding, you fully agree that Francis is damaging the church and has to go. What's your solution? I'm a big supporter of the conciliar movement, in which a council can over-rule or depose a pope: how about you? The problem, though, is that nowadays bishops are pretty much all appointed by the pope (except in China, of course!), whereas in the 15th century they were largely independent. Ted McCarrick was far from an anomaly--I suspect he's the norm. Your thoughts?
Dan, that was very naughty of you. You shouldn't be reading other people's private correspondence. You are cleary a Dan of very low character.
I'm sure Mark Thomas is laughing over his silly mistake now, and has recognised what caused his misinterpretation of the Roman Canon.
Let's say, in the spirit of Vatican 2 and Comme le Prevoit, we decided to greatly abridge the prayer for the US government written by Bishop Carroll and which until quite recently was said at the end of every solemn Mass on Sundays in the US. (It's printed in my US Tridentine missals, but you can find it all over the internet.) Let's say we wanted to collapse a couple paragraphs into a single sentence:
We pray that You assist with your Holy Spirit of counsel and fortitude the president of these United States, the Vice President, and all the members of Congress...
Again, we have three nominal phrases--call them A, B & C. We know immediately that neither the president (=A) nor the vice-president (=B) are members of Congress (=C), don't we? Well, yes, but not from the syntax of the sentence. We know this because we are familiar with the structure of US government. But consider this 'Anglicised' alternative:
We pray that You assist with your Holy Spirit of counsel and fortitude the gracious Queen of this United Kingdom, her Prime Minister, and all the members of Parliament...
This time, if we are familiar with the British system, we know that A is not a member of C but B most certainly is. Why? Because in both these examples, we depend on a priori knowledge or assumptions.
This is where Mark stumbled, and none of us should blame him. If you start from the a priori assumption that the pope is always orthodox (cuz, like, he's pope, man!), then you'll assume that A is included in C. And because ever since 1870 it's been drilled into us that the pope is a semi-divine being*, that kind of assumption will operate in the minds of many Catholics. If on the other hand you recognise that history contains examples of popes who deviated from orthodoxy, it doesn't. It all depends what your underlying knowledge and assumptions are.
In any case, I still want to commend Mark for supporting Pope Francis (cuz he IS the pope, man!). We all need to do that in our own way, and to keep him in our prayers.
-----------------------
*Let's not forget that Dante didn't hesitate to place certain popes in hell; today they're canonised before their bodies are cold.
Hello, Tony V. Peace and good health to you and your family.
The liturgical commemoration of the Pope indicates:
1. That the Pope commemorated during Mass is the current occupant of the Throne of Saint Peter.
2. The Pope is recognized as the Church's Principle of Unity.
3. The commemoration signifies the profession of communion with the Pope.
4. Commemorating the Pope establishes that priest and congregation are, via the Pope, in communion with the Church.
5. The priest expresses his orthodoxy via the commemoration of the Pope.
None of the above is possible via a Pope who professes heresies. Each of the above is possible only through a Pope who holds and hands on the True Faith.
Sacramentary 1:276...“The mention of the name of the Pope in the Canon is a proof of the orthodoxy of the offerer.”
EX QUO (On the Euchologion), Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated March 1756 A.D.
“It suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for [the pope] during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter,…”
Pope Pelagius I to schismatics:
“How can you believe that you are not separated from communion with the universal church if you do not mention my name within the sacred mysteries, as the custom is?”
When Henry VIII broke with Rome the pope's name was removed from the Canon of the Mass, thus signifying that the English church was now in schism. The schismatic 'Old Catholics' in the 19th century did likewise.
However, our being in communion with the pope, and commemorating him in the liturgy, does not guarantee his personal orthodoxy or moral probity. Popes in the past have been guilty of heresy, fornication, adultery and even murder.
John Nolan said..."However, our being in communion with the pope, and commemorating him in the liturgy, does not guarantee his personal orthodoxy or moral probity."
The commemoration of the Pope during the Divine Liturgy "guarantees":
-- That we have recognized him as the one and only current Pope of the True Church.
-- That we have accepted the Pope, whom God has willed to serve as the "perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity," and whom the Spirit sustains..."
-- That through the Pope, we are in communion with the Church.
-- The priest expresses his orthodoxy via his commemoration of the Pope.
(Sacramentary 1:276...“The mention of the name of the Pope in the Canon is a proof of the orthodoxy of the offerer.”)
Today, via Sunday Divine Liturgies offered in each diocese and Eparchy throughout the world, priests, religious, and laymen testified that:
-- That they accept Pope Francis as the orthodox Vicar of Christ.
-- That they are in communion, via Pope Francis, with the Catholic Church.
Deo gratias for the Holy Ghost and the inspiration that He dispensed during the 2013 A.D. Conclave that led to Cardinal Bergoglio's election as Pope.
'Today, via Sunday Divine Liturgies offered in each diocese and eparchy throughout the world, priests, religious and laymen testified that they accept Pope Francis as the orthodox Vicar of Christ [and] that they are in communion, via Pope Francis, with the Catholic Church.'
Only someone who knows nothing of Orthodoxy could write such drivel. Our Eastern brethren, whose Divine Liturgy is as valid and orthodox as our Mass, testify to no such thing. Indeed, they would deny it.
In any case, during the Mass the priest prays that God will confirm and govern his Church 'una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antistite nostro N.' It was the custom in many countries (including pre-Reformation England and pre-Revolutionary France) to add the name of the King. We all need to be confirmed 'in faith and charity' (EP III), the pope included.
I don't object to the term 'vicarius Christi' (which does not have a precise meaning, and can be applied to all bishops, not just the Roman Pontiff; see Lumen Gentium and the CCC). However, when people conflate this to include such obviously absurd notions as 'when we hear Pope Francis we hear Jesus Christ' I am thankful that popes since the time of Gregory the Great have styled themselves simply 'servus servorum Dei'.
John Nolan said...."However, when people conflate this to include such obviously absurd notions as 'when we hear Pope Francis we hear Jesus Christ'..."
You preach a false gospel. You reject Church teaching.
From the Second Sacred Vatican Ecumenical Council:
"Bishops, therefore, with their helpers, the priests and deacons, have taken up the service of the community, presiding in place of God over the flock, whose shepherds they are, as teachers for doctrine, priests for sacred worship, and ministers for governing.
"And just as the office granted individually to Peter, the first among the apostles, is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors, so also the apostles' office of nurturing the Church is permanent, and is to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops.
"Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, as shepherds of the Church...
...and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ."
Lumen Gentium is saying that the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, are tasked with teaching right doctrine. Unusually for me, I expressed myself badly. What I should have castigated as absurd is the notion that 'whenever Pope Francis speaks, we are quite literally hearing Jesus Christ'.
Since you have not commented on the first three paragraphs of my post, I assume you agree with their content.
28 comments:
PF is one dangerous lefty. No one who posts here has ever responded to this example of PF's ignorance/hypocrisy: PF rails against capitalism while exhorting the victims of socialist governments to go to the capitalist USA. God can't resolve contradictions, but PF can.
The Pope has brought this on himself, both by his action and perhaps, more so, by his inaction. As a great supporter of the Dominicans I take some silly pleasure that a Dominican is calling a Jesuit out. That being said, the call outs are absolutely necessary and should continue. The Holy Father will continue to ignore this letter as he has all the others, but sooner or later there will be a reckoning....and I believe this is happening; more at the local level. Cardinal Dolan has lost a lot of credibility, Wuerl is clinging to his role until Gregory arrives and you can almost feel the disdain when he takes to the pulpit in the Basilica Shrine. Gregory had a very poor send-off etc. Cupich made a fool of himself in Rome...need I go on. Leadership is lacking at the top and the inmates are still running the asylum.
Will people start seeking an alternative in the Eastern Orthodox Church?
The best that can come from this is a formal schism. The worst is formal suppression of traditional Church teaching and revision of Church Law to align the code to the teachings in question. The weakness of the group critical of Pope Francis is not the facts of the Letter, but the paradox that this message is contra to relaxing laws toward sexual behavior while also doing nothing to address the sexual predation of the clergy.
Bee here:
Is it gonna help? I doubt it. But I think it is important that the educated faithful and persons of knowledge and authority make statements such as these. These become part of the historical record of the Church, and allow historians to understand the different strands that wove together events that are in our future, but will be in their past.
I think it also helps laity like me think about and articulate more clearly and respectfully what exactly we find unsettling about things the current Pope is doing and saying.
So for that reason I find it valuable.
We'll see how it plays out.
God bless.
Bee
Somebody needs to inform Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI that the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis, is a heretic. :-)
-- Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has praised Pope Francis' Pontificate.
-- Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI declared that his former Pontificate, and Pope Francis Pontificate, are in perfect continuity with each other.
-- Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, April 2019 A.D:
“I would like to thank Pope Francis for everything he does to show us, again and again, the light of God, which has not disappeared, even today. Thank you, Holy Father!”
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Each person who signed the Open Letter will prove to be a two-fraud should they offer/assist at any Mass that commemorates His Holiness, Pope Francis, as our orthodox Pope.
They declare during Holy Mass that Pope Francis holds and hands on the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
When they are away from Holy Mass, said folks link Pope Francis to heresies.
Such is position that a two-faced fraud would take in regard to Pope Francis.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas
I don't expect you to respond to my points in any meaningful way. I doubt that you have the intelligence to do so. However, you might have the humility to accept that Aidan Nichols is probably more intelligent and certainly more theologically erudite than either of us. Calling him a 'two-faced fraud' merely puts on show your arrogance and ignorance.
Btw Mark, why exactly would it be wrong to pray for Francis at their masses, or to say "Francis our pope?"
Since you have closely read the letter, you will know that the authors are not suggesting that Francis has lost the office because of heresy, but that he holds the office while being a heretic. This is why they are asking bishops to do something.
You are very quick to accuse those who threaten your Francis, with names such as: liar, two-faced, frauds....
Sorry to double post but why is Mr McKarrack still living in a convent in Kansas? He is probably a millionaire in his own right and could increase that if he wrote sordid and graphic tell-all. Could it be he is afraid to tell all?
Tom Makin, spot on.
I really believe at this point most serious Catholics are just doing their best to support their local parish church and local faithful priests. It’s becoming a grassroots effort to stay alive with our personal faith. We love our Church, even when her shepherds don’t seem to love her. Forget trying to reason with heterodox priests. Pray for them, of course, but most of them are elderly and clueless about what it will take to turn things around. Too caught up in their own personal progressive agendas to see how wrong they were/are, and the destruction they caused. They are supported by their own personal hangers-on, so think they are on the right track.
The “new” evangelical agenda of His Holiness cannot possibly move forward with no base among the tithing faithful pewsitters. He has lost our attention. One more contemporary, costly, irresponsible program to “save” our Church’s future. Evangelization begins at home, in our homes at no expense save time and committed effort. It’s the true Faith that saves, not programs.
The darker things become, the more clearly we can see the Light.
'Each person who signed the Open Letter will prove to be a two-fraud should they offer/assist at any Mass that commemorates His Holiness, Pope Francis, as our orthodox Pope. They declare during Holy Mass that Pope Francis holds and hands on the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.'
A couple things about this statement.
1. I feel confident that the priest-signatories continue to pray for the pope.
2. I don't see how that makes them "two-fraud" or "two-faced", but in any case, this isn't about their character, it's about whether the pope has taught heresy. They have accused him of this and have asked the bishops to investigate (I wouldn't hold my breath for that, though).
3. Anyway, MT's description of the Roman Canon is inaccurate: it does not say that the pope is orthodox. The relevant text is:
... quam pacificare, custodire, adunare et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et antistite nostro N. et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus.
For which the 2010-11 approved translation is:
Be pleased to grant her peace, to guard, unite and govern her throughout the whole world, together with your servant N. our Pope and N. our Bishop, and all those who, holding to the truth, hand on the catholic and apostolic faith.*
There is no mention of the orthodoxy of the pope or the bishop, only there office. That shouldn't be surprising...even those who can't bring themselves to admit there have been heterodox popes can hardly deny that there have been heterodox bishops over the years!
*My 1955 Missal reads: Vouchsafe, throughout the whole world, to keep her in peace, to gather her in unity and to guide her, in union with N. Thy servant our Pope, N. our bishop, and all right believing teachers of the Catholic apostolic faith. My other missals have similar translations...my 1957 missal uses the phrase 'true believers.' Perhaps the translators were afraid of using the O-word, in case anyone got the ideas we liked the Greeks.
That point aside, I'm still puzzled why when the NO came out the hierarchy felt they had to come up with new translations for those parts of the Mass that survived their revolution, like the Gloria and the Creed. I've still got PTSD from that dreadful 1970 NO translation...'And also with you'--brrr!
I would not fool with the Eastern Church and their non-Trinitarian tendencies. This is Reformation-era type nonsense. Why don't you guys give Calvinism a look? Catholics really need to give TULIP theology some consideration. It all comes from Augustine, anyway.
"Why don't you guys give Calvinism a look?"
Because it's Calvinism, not Catholicism.
The Church founded on the Apostles by Jesus Christ is not Calvinism. It is in the Catholic Church that the fullness of faith subsists.
And it is in the Catholic Church that the fullness of faith is being attacked from within by those entrusted to lead us. Is it any wonder serious that Catholics are questioning their commitment?
“that serious”
Tony V said..."Anyway, MT's description of the Roman Canon is inaccurate: it does not say that the pope is orthodox."
My description is accurate.
During Her Divine Liturgy, God's holy priest testifies via the Roman Canon/Eucharistic Prayer/Anaphora that...
1. Pope Francis is the one and only Roman Pontiff.
2. That he is, of course, a member of the Church.
3. He is counted among "all the faithful guardians of the catholic and apostolic
faith."
The above quote is from The Divine Worship Missal, Eucharistic Prayer/The Roman Canon.
=======================================================================================
Tony V, the following declaration of yours is false: "There is no mention of the orthodoxy of the pope or the bishop, only there office."
The Pope is, of course, considered orthodox. He is counted among "all the faithful guardians of the catholic and apostolic faith." (Divine Worship Missal.)
Otherwise, please explain as to how/why the Church would declare that an unorthodox, heretical Pope is a faithful guardian of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
How can one be at once a heretic, as well as faithful guardian of the True Faith?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"How can one be at once a heretic, as well as faithful guardian of the True Faith?" He can't. That's why Francis must go!
Dear Mark 'Doubting' Thomas,
The mistake you made is so easy to fall into, I'm sure you'll laugh uncontrollably when I walk you through it.
In my previous post, I've cited the relevant Latin text in my previous comment, along with the currently approved English translation, and some perfectly good (superior?) translations from the 1950s. You, on the other hand, have cited Divine Worship: The Missal. I note that one of the signatories of the Open Letter is accustomed to use this Missal from time to time, so it's absolutely right that we should include this in our euchologo-linguistic analysis as well. Here is the relevant text:
We offer them unto thee, first, for thy holy Catholic Church: that thou vouchsafe to keep her in peace, to guard, unite, and govern her throughout the whole world; together with thy servant N., our Pope, N., our Bishop, (or N., our Ordinary), and all the faithful guardians of the catholic and apostolic faith.
Let's focus on the terminal prepositional phrase (together with thy servant...), which qualifies the infinitives that depend on the verb vouchsafe (or at very least the last of these infinitives, govern). The priest is asking God to govern the Church 'together with' three other entities: the pope, the local bishop, and 'all the faithful guardians' of the faith.
Note that the phrase is not 'and all the other faithful guardians of the...faith', which is the reading that you mistakenly fell into. There's nothing to suggest here that the pope or the local bishop belong to this group of faithful guardians. (Who these guardians are, alas, is not specified. But my own theory is that they include Cdl R Burke and Archbp A Schneider.)
To make this absolutely crystal clear, let's construct a similar sentence in which the verb is likewise qualified by a prepositional phrase that contains three nouns or nominal phrases, just like the example under analysis. Consider:
I went to the pub together with Nigel, Simon, and all the girls from the secretarial pool.
Here it pretty apparent that Nigel and Simon are not included in 'all the girls...' (unless of course we are dead-naming two trans-females, but of course we'd never do anything that unpastoral).
Here's another illustration:
The professor lectured about Hitler, Stalin, and all the brave people who resisted them.
Again, the first two nouns are not semantically included in the final nominal phrase. To further demonstrate this to yourself: replace Hitler with the pope, Stalin with your local bishop, and...well, you get the point.
Again, I entirely sympathise with and admire your desire to support 'our papa' even when he acts like a particularly crazy family member. So should we all. But, strictly entre nous--everyone but Mark Thomas stop reading NOW: the remainder of this post is between Mark and myself--it's pretty clear to me that, your commendable surface loyalty notwithstanding, you fully agree that Francis is damaging the church and has to go. What's your solution? I'm a big supporter of the conciliar movement, in which a council can over-rule or depose a pope: how about you? The problem, though, is that nowadays bishops are pretty much all appointed by the pope (except in China, of course!), whereas in the 15th century they were largely independent. Ted McCarrick was far from an anomaly--I suspect he's the norm. Your thoughts?
Tony V, I 'accidently' read: "...you fully agree that Francis is damaging the church and has to go."
Mark Thomas would NEVER agree to THAT!
Dan, that was very naughty of you. You shouldn't be reading other people's private correspondence. You are cleary a Dan of very low character.
I'm sure Mark Thomas is laughing over his silly mistake now, and has recognised what caused his misinterpretation of the Roman Canon.
Let's say, in the spirit of Vatican 2 and Comme le Prevoit, we decided to greatly abridge the prayer for the US government written by Bishop Carroll and which until quite recently was said at the end of every solemn Mass on Sundays in the US. (It's printed in my US Tridentine missals, but you can find it all over the internet.) Let's say we wanted to collapse a couple paragraphs into a single sentence:
We pray that You assist with your Holy Spirit of counsel and fortitude the president of these United States, the Vice President, and all the members of Congress...
Again, we have three nominal phrases--call them A, B & C. We know immediately that neither the president (=A) nor the vice-president (=B) are members of Congress (=C), don't we? Well, yes, but not from the syntax of the sentence. We know this because we are familiar with the structure of US government.
But consider this 'Anglicised' alternative:
We pray that You assist with your Holy Spirit of counsel and fortitude the gracious Queen of this United Kingdom, her Prime Minister, and all the members of Parliament...
This time, if we are familiar with the British system, we know that A is not a member of C but B most certainly is. Why? Because in both these examples, we depend on a priori knowledge or assumptions.
This is where Mark stumbled, and none of us should blame him. If you start from the a priori assumption that the pope is always orthodox (cuz, like, he's pope, man!), then you'll assume that A is included in C. And because ever since 1870 it's been drilled into us that the pope is a semi-divine being*, that kind of assumption will operate in the minds of many Catholics. If on the other hand you recognise that history contains examples of popes who deviated from orthodoxy, it doesn't. It all depends what your underlying knowledge and assumptions are.
In any case, I still want to commend Mark for supporting Pope Francis (cuz he IS the pope, man!). We all need to do that in our own way, and to keep him in our prayers.
-----------------------
*Let's not forget that Dante didn't hesitate to place certain popes in hell; today they're canonised before their bodies are cold.
Hello, Tony V. Peace and good health to you and your family.
The liturgical commemoration of the Pope indicates:
1. That the Pope commemorated during Mass is the current occupant of the Throne of Saint Peter.
2. The Pope is recognized as the Church's Principle of Unity.
3. The commemoration signifies the profession of communion with the Pope.
4. Commemorating the Pope establishes that priest and congregation are, via the Pope, in communion with the Church.
5. The priest expresses his orthodoxy via the commemoration of the Pope.
None of the above is possible via a Pope who professes heresies. Each of the above is possible only through a Pope who holds and hands on the True Faith.
Sacramentary 1:276...“The mention of the name of the Pope in the Canon is a proof of the orthodoxy of the offerer.”
EX QUO (On the Euchologion), Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated March 1756 A.D.
“It suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for [the pope] during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the
vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter,…”
Pope Pelagius I to schismatics:
“How can you believe that you are not separated from communion with the universal church if you do not mention my name within the sacred mysteries, as the custom is?”
Pax.
Mark Thomas
When Henry VIII broke with Rome the pope's name was removed from the Canon of the Mass, thus signifying that the English church was now in schism. The schismatic 'Old Catholics' in the 19th century did likewise.
However, our being in communion with the pope, and commemorating him in the liturgy, does not guarantee his personal orthodoxy or moral probity. Popes in the past have been guilty of heresy, fornication, adultery and even murder.
John Nolan said..."However, our being in communion with the pope, and commemorating him in the liturgy, does not guarantee his personal orthodoxy or moral probity."
The commemoration of the Pope during the Divine Liturgy "guarantees":
-- That we have recognized him as the one and only current Pope of the True Church.
-- That we have accepted the Pope, whom God has willed to serve as the "perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity," and whom the Spirit sustains..."
-- That through the Pope, we are in communion with the Church.
-- The priest expresses his orthodoxy via his commemoration of the Pope.
(Sacramentary 1:276...“The mention of the name of the Pope in the Canon is a proof of the orthodoxy of the offerer.”)
Today, via Sunday Divine Liturgies offered in each diocese and Eparchy throughout the world, priests, religious, and laymen testified that:
-- That they accept Pope Francis as the orthodox Vicar of Christ.
-- That they are in communion, via Pope Francis, with the Catholic Church.
Deo gratias for the Holy Ghost and the inspiration that He dispensed during the 2013 A.D. Conclave that led to Cardinal Bergoglio's election as Pope.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT
'Today, via Sunday Divine Liturgies offered in each diocese and eparchy throughout the world, priests, religious and laymen testified that they accept Pope Francis as the orthodox Vicar of Christ [and] that they are in communion, via Pope Francis, with the Catholic Church.'
Only someone who knows nothing of Orthodoxy could write such drivel. Our Eastern brethren, whose Divine Liturgy is as valid and orthodox as our Mass, testify to no such thing. Indeed, they would deny it.
In any case, during the Mass the priest prays that God will confirm and govern his Church 'una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antistite nostro N.' It was the custom in many countries (including pre-Reformation England and pre-Revolutionary France) to add the name of the King. We all need to be confirmed 'in faith and charity' (EP III), the pope included.
I don't object to the term 'vicarius Christi' (which does not have a precise meaning, and can be applied to all bishops, not just the Roman Pontiff; see Lumen Gentium and the CCC). However, when people conflate this to include such obviously absurd notions as 'when we hear Pope Francis we hear Jesus Christ' I am thankful that popes since the time of Gregory the Great have styled themselves simply 'servus servorum Dei'.
John Nolan said...."However, when people conflate this to include such obviously absurd notions as 'when we hear Pope Francis we hear Jesus Christ'..."
You preach a false gospel. You reject Church teaching.
From the Second Sacred Vatican Ecumenical Council:
"Bishops, therefore, with their helpers, the priests and deacons, have taken up the service of the community, presiding in place of God over the flock, whose shepherds they are, as teachers for doctrine, priests for sacred worship, and ministers for governing.
"And just as the office granted individually to Peter, the first among the apostles, is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors, so also the apostles' office of nurturing the Church is permanent, and is to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops.
"Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, as shepherds of the Church...
...and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas
Lumen Gentium is saying that the bishops, as successors of the Apostles, are tasked with teaching right doctrine. Unusually for me, I expressed myself badly. What I should have castigated as absurd is the notion that 'whenever Pope Francis speaks, we are quite literally hearing Jesus Christ'.
Since you have not commented on the first three paragraphs of my post, I assume you agree with their content.
Post a Comment