With that said, this commentary from First Things by way of Crux hits the ball omit of the park:
Also lamenting the lack of real faith behind the display (at the gayla) was Matthew Schmitz of First Things, who said that people should pay attention to the real Catholic imagination and the meaning behind it, and not the overly sentimental and shallow aesthetic Catholicism that was on display at the gala.
“The same faith that gave rise to these beautiful baubles proposed views on sexuality and social order that are contrary to the spirit of the age. It is foolish to suppose that either the Church’s teaching or its relics are mere artefacts that now have lost their power,” he said.
“These beautiful copes, stoles, clasps, and rings still move men-still have the power Leo XIII acknowledged in Testem Benevolentiae when he advised priests in America to spread the faith ‘by the pomp and splendor of ceremonies’ as well as ‘by setting forth that sound form of doctrine.’ In the Met’s carnival atmosphere, their splendor seems all the more radiant.”
That quote from Pope Leo struck me as did the beautiful items that were discussed. There can be no doubt that we are talking about 2 entirely different Churches/churches. The Church as it had existed prior to Vatican II and the committee created church of today. 2 totally different entities.
Take a practicing Catholic from 1962 and transport them to a typical Catholic parish Mass in 2018 and they would be horrified. No silence, no reverence. In fact just the opposite, priest and people seem to go out of there way to be as irreverent as possible in Church. Sloppy, effeminate priest’s at an altar that looks like a kitchen table with women in shorts and tattoos and flip flops grabbing for the Blessed Sacrament from a tabernacle (if one is even used any more). Empty confessionals and every single person (in their jeans and tee shirts) going up to communion talking and laughing in the communion line and putting out their hands and grabbing the Eucharist and popping into their mouth like chicklets. I don’t care what any body says it is an entirely different church. And does any person in a typical Novus Ordo parish believe in anything the Church teaches or believes? You don’t need a committee for the answer. It’s a big fat no. Does the person who is identified as th valid pope believe in the Catholic Faith? The fact that that question is even asked should be cause for great concern. But nobody cares.
The answer to your article is no. No good will come from blasphemy! No good will come from an event where Our Lady was mocked. And Cardinal “Bravo” was once again smack in the middle of scandalizing faithful Catholics. That millstone is going to be hugggge for all of them. They may be laughing now. But God will not be mocked. They will all get exactly what they deserve.
"I don’t care what any body says it is an entirely different church."
It must be sad and very, very lonely to be a church unto yourself.
"Does the person who is identified as th(e) valid pope believe in the Catholic Faith? The fact that that question is even asked should be cause for great concern."
Concern for the anguish of the misguided question-asker, yes.
Having no relation to reality, mountains made of molehills never show up on cartographers' charts.
There is a rather large contingent of people who are concerned about the state of affairs in the Church, to include several cardinals and bishops, not to mention clergy, professors, and theologians. To suggest all of these people are making a mountain out of a molehill is absurd.
Recognizing that the post-Vatican II sect is a different entity than the Catholic Church that preceded it does not make one a church unto one's self anymore than recognizing that Episcopalianism is different than Catholicism. It is merely a matter of comparing things and drawing rational inferences from the comparisons. And in the same way that the Anglicans, for example, self-identify as an actual Church with valid sacraments, their self-identification is meaningless for purposes of the analysis.
Anonymous at May 10, 2018 at 8:37 AM
"It must be sad and very, very lonely to be a church unto yourself."
So wrong. One is never alone when Jesus is there with you.
What is tragic is how alone the post-V2 Church leaves Him most of the time...
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." Matt. 7:13-14
Comedy gold you talking about "reality!" When the Mass was said in that so-called incomprehensible Latin, about 80% of American Catholics went to Sunday Mass. Now with the New and Improved Mass, maybe 20% go, depending on what area of the US you live in. What a success story!!! Yes, let's stick with that, the New Springtime is just around the corner. Einstein was right, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
The gala thing was in very bad taste, perhaps even disgraceful. But I would not go beyond that, for it was probably well intentioned by the secular folks at the Met.
But having said that, the fact that it happened at all, with the participation of those with some importance at the Vatican, shows the rotten fruits of Vatican II Council. Over at the NLM, there is a reference to Ross Douthat's NYT article, that correctly reveals the problem as one of throwing away Catholic culture in order to enter more fully into modern culture that followed V2.
The problem is that what followed V2 flowed directly from the Council itself. Inculturation meant more than just bringing guitars to Mass, but the acceptance that the Modern profane world had the truth, and the Church did not so She had to change in order to share in this truth. All the preparatory documents for the Council (except for one) were rejected, and new ones drafted. That is to say, even though the Council was called to look into the issues that the neo-Modernists raised, the latter effectively took over the Council because they were so well organised by the common ideological goal of creating a New Church for the New Modern World (with a new liturgy, of course). The only preparatory document that was relatively untouched was the one on the liturgy, but this one had already been drafted by Msgr Bugnini and his neo-Modernist buddies of the liturgical movement, so little change was needed.
As the Church continues its voyage towards apostasy, I do not even know if calling another council at this time to unambiguously address these problems and confusions is worthwhile, since the neo-Modernist worldview is so well entrenched in so much of the hierarchy, where only a schism would result. We even have a pope who thinks the truth comes from consensus, such as Bishop's conferences allowing non-Catholics to receive Communion.
"There is a rather large contingent of people who are concerned about the state of affairs in the Church, to include several cardinals and bishops, not to mention clergy, professors, and theologians. To suggest all of these people are making a mountain out of a molehill is absurd."
Not really. 63 million voted from Trump, so it is evident lots of people can be misguided...
And I suggest that at ANY time in the history of the Church you could find a number of people, to include a cardinal or two or three, who would tell you it was all going to hell in a handbag. People talk about the "halcyon days" of the pre-Vatican Two era as if it were actually more than a nostalgic phantasy.
Thankfully, presiders like Mike are clinging to a dying entity.
At our mass this morning for the Holy Day of Obligation, the children under 12 outnumbered the adults by 3 to 1, at least. That's the real New Springtime that is around the corner.
Are those the same halcyon days where people spelled fantasy "phantasy"?
I would suggest that during many of the times in the history of the Church where some number of people were sounding the alarm, those people were right.
Kavanaugh, that a priest could vote for Hillary is not merely misguided but evil
Anonymous at 6:47 an (aka Fr. Kavanaugh),
It's good to finally know what you REALLY think--that the tradition of the current Catholic church dates only back to Vatican II, and before that Council there existed an entirely different Catholic Church.
But given that this is your real opinion, it's no wonder you usually comment anonymously.
To be fair to Mike, he has never hidden his opinion that the Church changed after Vatican II. Especially in the area of ecclessiology, he has argued from the position that the doctrine before the council was different than the doctrine after the council. It's just that he believes doctrine can change, as he has plainly said time and again, both anonymously and not.
"It's good to finally know what you REALLY think--that the tradition of the current Catholic church dates only back to Vatican II, and before that Council there existed an entirely different Catholic Church."
The Church's Tradition is over 2000 years old. Vatican Two, like the Councils that went before it, is a part of that Tradition.
There has been One Church for those 2000+ years, not two, not three, not four or more.
The idea that I have said anything that indicates "an entirely different Church" before Vatican Two is nonsense.
Divine Truth (Revelation) does not change. How we understand and express it does.
"The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her" (Dei Verbum 8).
Pope St. John XXIII opening address at Vatican II, Gaudet Mater Ecclesia: “The deposit or the truths of faith, contained in our sacred teaching, are one thing, while the mode in which they are enunciated, keeping the same meaning and the same judgment [eodem sensu eademque sententia], is another.”
Enjoy Hell with Kennedy, Clintoon and Obsms
Kavanaugh is the poster child for what is wrong with the Catholic Church. Pity him
There is a principle against non-contradiction that I embrace where doctrine X cannot later be expressed as doctrine not-X. That is foundational to Thomistic realism, actually.
Your citations to Dei Verbum and “St” John XXIII don’t move me, as I’m sure you knew they wouldn’t.
Don't feel bad, "Father Anonymous" disregards Veterum Sapentia and still hasn't followed the Council's mandate to teach his congregation, to chant, in Latin, the parts of the Mass proper to them.
"There is a principle against non-contradiction that I embrace where doctrine X cannot later be expressed as doctrine not-X."
Who gets to determine whether "non-X" is in contradiction to "X"?
Is the process the same as the person who, regarding the Bible, believes that each individual can authoritatively and correctly determine the meaning of a given pericope?
Who gets to determine black is distinct from white?
The biblical interpretation argument is inapposite.
If the distinction between black and white were a matter of Divine Revelation, your point would be valid.
However, since that distinction is not a matter of Revelation, and since the content of the Church's doctrine is, your point is not valid.
When you add to that the matter of who in the Church has been appointed to determine what is the Church's doctrine and what is not, and since those so appointed have been given the gift to be the teachers of the faith, well...
CCC 77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."
The Church has determined the doctrine X. You’re claiming the Church can then determine the doctrine is not-X. You suggest it is not possible to tell the difference between X and not-X, but you’re wrong. Since the Church has determined X, comparing it to not-X is not a matter of divine revelation. It is more akin to comparing black to white. It is empirical.
The bishops have the teaching authority to be sure. They don’t have the authority to teach not-X when the doctrine is X. A corollary is that they don’t have the authority to teach that X and not-X are the same thing when tbat claim is absurd on its face through application of the principle of non-contradiction.
Once again, you’re argument boils down to an impossibility for anyone except a bishop to actually know what the Church teaches. That false idea does not flow from their authority to teach, though, as you continue to erroneously assert that it does.
"You’re claiming the Church can then determine the doctrine is not-X."
No, I'm not claiming this at all.
That false assumption presumes that the Church can or, in your view more likely, has done so.
I claim that the Church has not done so and cannot do so. (Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. - Catholic Encyclopedia)
The difference between black and white is, as you say, empirical. Colors are determined by wavelength. (White and black might not be the best examples, however.)
We believe what the Church teaches, not what we as individuals conclude it teaches. A person cannot read an authoritative text and conclude, "I now know what the Church teaches, but conclude that the teaching authority of the Church is wrong; therefore, I reject what the Church teaches."
Well, one can, but one is then rejecting the authority of the Church and the charism given to bishops.
So, then, there is no need to pay any attention at all to Vatican II since it merely restates doctrine X? What is it that I’m rejecting exactly?
"Merely" restates? No.
Doctrine develops and evolves. Your questions - or is it rejection? - on the development of doctrine is why you and I and others need to pay attention to Vatican II (and Vatican I and Trent and 5 Lateran and 4, 3, 2, and 1, etc).
It is the bishops of the Church, not you or I, who determines the development of doctrine. That is why we need the authoritative magisterium.
What you’re saying doesn’t make any sense.
Vatican Two does not "merely restate" doctrine X, Y, or Z.
No Council has "merely restated" doctrines.
We need Councils precisely because doctrines are not "merely restated" through the ages. Doctrines - the ways in which we express our understanding of Divine Revelation - develop and evolve through the ages.
CCC 77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."
If, through the ages, we "merely restated" doctrine, the Magisterium would be unnecessary. We would need only one copy of every doctrine that could be read and understood, completely and without any scintilla of ambiguity, by every Catholic in every age and place.
That's not how the system works. That's not how the system ever worked.
Every other council met to address a particular error and formulated doctrine in that light, stating the doctrine in reaction to the error. Not so with Vatican II.
So, again, what you’re saying doesn’t make sense.
Where are we told by the Magisterium that a Council must meet to address a particular error, or that a Council that is convened for another purpose is not, therefore, part of the authoritative Magisterium?
I don't think there is such a teaching concerning an ecumenical council--but like papacy, a council has many different levels of teaching. If it reiterates dogma or makes a doctrine into a dogma, Catholics are obligated to accept this. There are no options.
And of course all councils reiterate defined dogma as does Vatican II.
What is unique about Vatican II is that it is a pastoral Council. Thus its pastoral teachings are "time defined" and are not infallible. These are lesser teachings, like Pope Francis' daily homilies or interviews. We can have the opinion that its pastoral teachings on religious liberty, ecumenism, interfaith dialogue and dialogue with the world and those who don't believe are all wrong headed.
We cannot, though, disobey bishops in their mandate to "teach, rule and sanctify" the Church and to put forward the agenda of Vatican II's pastoral teachings. We are not individualists or Congregationalists.
But Pope Benedict indicated himself that Catholics are free to disagree with some of the pastoral conclusions of Vatican II--these are not doctrines and certainly not dogmas--they are like the theology of limbo but even weaker than that.
How, Allan, do you square your assertion that a Catholic may believe that the Church's teaching on Religious Liberty is all wrong headed?
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The social duty of religion and the right to religious freedom
2104 "All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to it as they come to know it."26 This duty derives from "the very dignity of the human person."27 It does not contradict a "sincere respect" for different religions which frequently "reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men,"28 nor the requirement of charity, which urges Christians "to treat with love, prudence and patience those who are in error or ignorance with regard to the faith."29
2105 The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is "the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ."30 By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them "to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live."31 The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church.32 Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.33
2106 "Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits."34 This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."35
2107 "If because of the circumstances of a particular people special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional organization of a state, the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom must be recognized and respected as well."36
2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.38
2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40
Note the many citations of Vatican Two.
Isn't the teaching of the Catechism doctrinal?
Post a Comment