The Catholic clergy is in desperate need of re-education. If sexually offending against young men or women is deplorable, how much more serious is disrespecting Jesus Christ at Mass? No wonder some young people refer to communion as getting your cookies. Shame on the hierarchy for tolerating this behavior!
Fr. Z posted this video and seem to think it was a priest and a Catholic Mass. I don't think so. I think it is Protestant, Lutheran or Episcopalian. Even though there are many "Cretini" priests out there, Catholic one, I don't think there are any that cretino!
But this is reason 100000001234100014141410 why ecumenism will bode poorly for Catholicism.
"But this is reason 100000001234100014141410 why ecumenism will bode poorly for Catholicism.
Only in your mind do host dispensers have anything to do with ecumenism.
Ecumenism, as the Church teaches, is an essential aspect of it's nature.
CCC 820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time." Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. [That is the work of ecumenism.] This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit. [That is why we work toward unity, to fulfill the will of Christ.]
Those are Reason Number On and Reason Number Two for the Church's commitment to ecumenism.
Pope Benedict XVI, the day after his election to the Chair of Peter, said in an address to the College of Cardinals, "Peter's current Successor takes on as his primary task the duty to work tirelessly to rebuild the full and visible unity of all Christ's followers. This is his ambition, his impelling duty. He is aware that good intentions do not suffice for this. Concrete gestures that enter hearts and stir consciences are essential, inspiring in everyone that inner conversion that is the prerequisite for all ecumenical progress."
Pope Benedict XVI understood Reason Number One and Reason Number Two.
I miswrote, should be number 666666666666666666666666666666666666666! The Protestants keep moving the cretini bar just when we think we have caught up with them. They need to catch up with us or we will be the cretini . Soon Catholic priest with germ phobias, like me, will copy the Protestant dispenser for Holy Communion in support of this innovation and not offending ecumenism. Very liberal no? No, it is idioto.
You heard it here first, folks. According to Presider Mike, ecumenism is an essential aspect of the Church's nature. Somehow that "essential aspect" didn't manifest itself until the middle of the 20th century.
You're probably asking how something that is part of the Church's essence could take over 1,900 years to become manifest. Why, that's because the Holy Ghost didn't really get His act together until Vatican II!
It is truly providential that Presider Mike happened to come along post-Pentecost II! I shudder to think about how he would've fared when Catholic orthodoxy was on the ascendency!
It is not according to me that ecumenism is an essential aspect of the Church's nature.
If you read the post above, and many other magisterial pronouncements, you will discover that what I said is what the Church teaches.
It has always been so, from the day Our Lord himself said, “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me."
Your chronology is off by about 1,950 years.
Also, you don't have the competence to determine what is and what is not the Church's teaching. You claim that because you can read and have some degree of understanding that you and you alone can make that determination.
I also seem to recall Pope Benedict, perhaps in the same address, say that Protestants and Catholics would need to agree on what ecumenism is before it can advance.
Pope Benedict, the pope of Christian unity, had it right. He found the way to amalgamate the Anglican Communion into the full Communion of the true Church. It is the Ordinariate. It could work too with classic Lutheranism and maybe with Presbyterians.
Presider Mike, based on your response, I have a serious question for you to dodge:
How can I "read the . . . many other magisterial pronouncements" to "discover . . . what the Church teaches" when I "don't have the competence to determine what is and what is not the Church's teaching"?
The Catholic Church is the Universal Church. It encompasses (in its doctrines) all Devine revelations found in the Old and New testaments. Christian associations not in full communion with it are always welcome back into the fold. Unfortunately, due mainly to pride and ignorance, over the centuries, the Catholic Church that Christ left us has undergone some fragmentation.
Even today, the visible part of the Church is constantly under attack by the Evil One. For example, the forces of dissent today speak of mercy with out justice, unity without doctrinal integrity. Clever words are printed assaulting the sacrament of marriage, a liturgical revolution has been imposed on us in 1965. Fifty plus years since V. Council 2 (VC2) the so called improvements, some say aimed to attract those outside the Church, we now see were either misguided, or fabricated by the "Spirit of the Council" people who managed to retain or obtain high positions within the Church.
So, here we are 500 years after M. Luther, and 50+ years after VC2 none of the Protestants have returned to the Universal fold except some of the Anglicans but more than half of the active German bishops today are paying more attention to the rebellious German monk than the Holy Father in Rome. Actually, Anglicanorum Coetibus (2009), was an unexpected surprise when it happened. I remember reading some criticizing Benedict XVI at the time for putting out the Welcome mat, instead advocated the returnees stay in the rapidly collapsing Anglican community in the name of Christian Ecumenism(?).
Finally, judging from what is happening in the Church in Germany today M. Luther must be nodding in approval. You see Fr. K, he is still winning followers among the Catholic hierarchy there. "Those who do not remember the past, are condemned to repeat it." (G. Santayana).
I have a hard time seeing any Lutheran coming over except as a true conversion. They have a very basic disconnect with the Pope as the Pope that seems more pronounced in the more ‘traditional’ groups. I think the two things to be conscious of are that appearances do not signal similar beliefs and that ecumenism is not simply swapping aspects of two religions until a truce can be reached.
Strictly speaking, ecumenism refers to the unity of East and West - the two 'lungs' of the Church.
The Protestants seceded from the Catholic Church of their own volition and repudiated many of her essential doctrines. That is not to say that Catholics and Protestants do not agree on many truths of the Christian faith, and should not worship together (strictly forbidden until 1965 and in my opinion one of the few positive fruits of Vatican II).
Yet if the truth subsists in the Catholic Church she cannot achieve unity by convergence. At Benediction we recite a prayer written by Cardinal Wiseman. Addressed to Our Lady, it asks her to 'intercede for our separated brethren, that with us in the one true fold, they may be united to the chief shepherd, the vicar of thy Son.'
Father Faber put it even more clearly: 'Faith of our fathers, Mary's prayers shall win our country back to thee; and through the truth that comes from God, England shall then indeed be free.'
Fr McDonald's comment about Protestants moving the goalposts applies particularly to the Anglican Communion (which includes ECUSA). The CofE decided unilaterally in 1994 to ordain women, despite a personal plea to the Archbishop of Canterbury by Pope John Paul II. It then went on to consecrate women as 'bishops'. By then it no longer bothered to reference wider Christendom, preferring to cite the modern idea of 'gender equality'. It is now considering officially tolerating practising homosexual clergy.
Are they in the least bit interested in the unity which is the will of Christ? Obviously not.
Marc - You lack of competence is in determining "what is and what is not the Church's teaching." You don't determine what is the Church's teaching and what is not.
You can understand what those with competence have determined is and is not the Church's teaching.
You don't determine it, you accept it from those who have the authority to teach it.
If your conscience leads you to question what has been taught, that is your issue. But you can't determine what is taught.
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said... Marc - You lack of competence is in determining "what is and what is not the Church's teaching." You don't determine what is the Church's teaching and what is not. You can understand what those with competence have determined is and is not the Church's teaching. You don't determine it, you accept it from those who have the authority to teach it.
In the 5th century AD, when the layman Eusebius stood up in public and opposed the then Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, to his face, accusing him of teaching heresy, who was competent to teach, and who was incompetent and just supposed to accept the Patriarch's teaching?
And who was right, and who was wrong?
If Marc lacks competence to determine what is Church teaching, how does he determine what is true when those who have such competence contradict each other?
German bishops: Divorced and civilly remarried Catholics can receive Holy Communion.
I’m not understanding how I am supposed to “accept [what the Church teaches] from those who have authority to teach it” when I apparently lack the ability to “determine what is the Church’s teaching and what is not.” How I am I supposed to accept what I cannot even determine?
Seriously, Presider Mike, you’ve really got yourself tied in all sorts of knots in your attempt to put me in my place. How about you give it one more go but this time try to be even more patronizing.
"If Marc lacks competence to determine what is Church teaching, how does he determine what is true when those who have such competence contradict each other."
Marc does not lack competence to understand what the Church teaches. He, and all of us who are not bishops, lack the competence to determine what the Church teaches.
We do not determine what is true. We rely on the gift of the Holy Spirit given to those with the charism to teach authoritatively to make that determination.
FrMJK: respectfully, as a student I wrote a paper that essentially corrected an article by a professor of another university across town. He had made a common mistake concerning probability of an outcome in an election. I was, of course, correct although I did not have credentials to teach and he was a full professor. In some cases we have the objective fact, perhaps a known theorem or the revealed knowledge from the lips of Christ Himself. Down the next tier of certainty we have the case where something taught, even by authority, deviates from the body of information the person in authority professes. This would be excusable if the person was presenting an advancement in understanding of that body of knowledge. But in the case of the professor he had made a classic mental mistake that is even included in the basic courses to demonstrate the error. When bishops teach or propose deviations from teaching or Doctrine of the Church they should at least identify it as such or risk appearing at worst heretic or at best incompetent. Every instance that leads to a specific divorce or interdenominational communion can not become the exception that proves the new rule. Compassion is too thin a coat to cover the lazy or ignorant because it leads them assume they can continue along that same frigid path of solipsism disguised as an internal dialogue. The dreadful outcome of these risks taken with faulty understanding are borne by the laity. So restraint and precision are vital when bishops speak or they may find themselves publicly corrected by a smartass undergrad.
Ecumenism does not refer, strictly or otherwise, to unity of the East and West. It refers, specifically, to dialogue and work between and among all Christian denominations. It the international, national, regional, and local levels, our Church engages in ecumenical dialogue with leaders and members of other Christian denominations. This work is officially sanctioned by the Church.
We have a unique relationship with the Orthodox, but that does not exclude other Christians from the ecumenical effort.
John Nolan asserts: "Yet if the truth subsists in the Catholic Church she cannot achieve unity by convergence."
Where is "convergence" stated as the methodology of the ecumenical dialogue? No one I know of is looking for the "least common denominator" upon which we all can agree. None of the dialogues, seminars, training sessions, or workshops I have participated in suggest that "convergence" is what we seek.
We all agree that the moving goalposts present new and significant challenges to the work. Our dialogue partners are very aware of this.
Is the CofE interested in Christian unity? I believe they are.
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said... We do not determine what is true. We rely on the gift of the Holy Spirit given to those with the charism to teach authoritatively to make that determination.
And how does Marc determine who is correct among those with the charism to teach when they contradict one another?
In the case of Holy Communion for divorced and remarrieds, who is correct?
The German bishops with the charism to teach? Or the Polish bishops, who have that same charism?
rcg - Marc claims to have the competence to determine what the Church teaches. He does not for the same reason you and I do not - we are not bishops who have been given that competence as an effect of their ordination to the episcopal office.
You state, "When bishops teach or propose deviations from teaching or Doctrine of the Church they should at least identify it as such or risk appearing at worst heretic or at best incompetent."
Who, and by what authority, determines what is or is not a "deviation?" Is The Decree on Ecumenism a "deviation" from previous statements, such as Mortalium Animos, on the question? I say it is not because the magisterium of the Church says it is not. Marc says it is because Marc says it is.
Marc - I am not trying to put you in your place. I am trying to explain that you and I are in the same place when it comes to not having the authority to determine what is contained in the Church's teaching.
Neither of us is ordained a bishop, so neither of us is a part of the magisterium. 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." Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."
And
CCC 88 "The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these."
If you want to contest what the Church teaches, that is your right, I suppose, to a degree. But you nor I have the competence to determine what is contained in the Church's teaching.
Presider Mike, the problem with your argument is that it is based on the unproven and false premise that I contest what the Church teaches. In point of fact, I believe absolutely everything the Church teaches.
Extending your premise, what you seem to have been suggesting these last few weeks is that it is not possible to ascertain what the Church's teaching is. So far as I can tell, you appear to think that reading what the Church teaches in some Magisterial document and then believing it is tantamount to determining what the Church teaches. I disagree with this idea because it is inherently illogical, as well as unfounded. To illustrate, if a person cannot determine what the Church teaches, the Church might as well teach nothing since determining what the teaching is would be impossible, according to you.
It follows that I reject your argument that it is not possible to take note of deviations from prior teachings that emanate from the bishops or even the pope. Your simplistic argument fails to account for the various levels of teaching authority as properly understood by the Church herself. To take note of deviations while maintaining the integrity of the faith entire is not to usurp the God-given authority of the bishops and pope to teach.
I gather you're making all of these illogical and inconsistent points in an effort to assert that I must "accept" this "Decree on Ecumenism." I'll speak plainly since, frankly I'm tired of discussing this with you: I might as well argue with an Episcopalian "priest" since I see little difference between such a one and yourself, except the former is being honest and you are not. So, no, I do not and will not accept it or any of the Vatican II and post-Vatican II ideas. I do not and will not attend the Novus Ordo "Mass" nor will I allow my children to do so.
During the debates in the General Synod of the CofE on the ordination of women (they already had women deacons, few of whom considered their diaconate to be other than transitional) the wider implications for Christendom were at least considered. Robert Runcie had sat on the fence for so long that it was said he had splinters in his arse; his successor George Carey, from the evangelical wing, wanted to move things forward.
One argument was that the CofE was being 'prophetic', leading the way and expecting the rest of us to catch up sooner or later. However, JP II's decisive intervention put paid to that conceit.
When the issue of women bishops came up, it was noticeable that its proponents (including the Prime Minister, David Cameron) based their arguments on modern ideas of equality, without reference to the unity of Christendom or any theological argument.
Workshops, seminars, training sessions etc. are good at generating verbiage but actually achieve little of substance. To state the obvious, that the Catholic Church cannot compromise on essential truths, or reach agreement via convergence (especially when your partners in dialogue have, by their own admission, moved further away from you) does not imply any 'methodology'. I might ask Fr Kavanaugh precisely what 'methodology' his workshops use, but quite frankly it is of little interest or significance.
I understand the CofE far better than Fr Kavanaugh does. It is busily pursuing its own liberal agenda, and has sidelined its own Anglo-Catholic wing. Its cathedral and collegiate worship can still be impressive, not least in terms of music. But it has given up any pretence of, or desire for, unity with the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Cosying up to the Methodists is an easier option.
Marc - No, you do not believe all that the Church teaches. You believe all that YOU THINK or that YOU WANT TO BELIEVE the Church teaches.
On this thread you have rejected the Church's teaching that ecumenism is an essential aspect of the Church's nature. Your words, "You heard it here first, folks. According to Presider Mike, ecumenism is an essential aspect of the Church's nature. Somehow that "essential aspect" didn't manifest itself until the middle of the 20th century." (It is the Church's teaching that ecumenism is and essential aspect of the Church's nature.)
In another recent post you declared that the Church teaches it is a sin against the First Commandment to join with Protestants in worship. (This is not the Church's teaching.)
Both of these positions are false. Ecumenism is an essential aspect of the Church's natures and worshipping with Protestants is not a sin against the First Commandment .
Then, you tidily finish off your rejection of the Church's teaching with, "So, no, I do not and will not accept it (Decree on Ecumenism) or any of the Vatican II and post-Vatican II ideas. I do not and will not attend the Novus Ordo "Mass" nor will I allow my children to do so."
YOU become the one who determines what the Church teaches, having never been given the gift, the necessary charism, to determine such.
I'll rely on the Church - you can continue to rely on yourself.
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said... Who, and by what authority, determines what is or is not a "deviation?" Is The Decree on Ecumenism a "deviation" from previous statements, such as Mortalium Animos, on the question? I say it is not because the magisterium of the Church says it is not. Marc says it is because Marc says it is.
Father, of course, the glaring fallacy in the above statement is that it is merely your opinion that the Magisterium of the Church says what you claim it says.
The Magisterium has made no pronouncement on whether the two documents you mention above can be reconciled, and you're not the Magisterium, so you are not competent to say whether it can.
So, you're in the same boat as Marc. You say it is not because you say it is not.
John Nolan, I ask again, "Where is "convergence" stated as the methodology of the ecumenical dialogue?"
You'll not find it in the Church's own ecumenical documents, nor would you encounter it at the workshops, seminars, training sessions I have attended.
SO, where do you get the idea that Catholic ecumenism is seeking "convergence?"
And as a man of education, you know very well that workshops, seminars, training sessions can and often do produce far more than verbiage. They can produce understanding, they can encourage further exploration and learning, they can become the catalyst for monumental changes. (You'll recall that little governmental workshop known as the Continental Congress (1774-1789) and the changes that arose from the seminars the delegates attended on 'How to Run Your Own Country,' and 'How to Free Oneself From a Tyrant.')
DJR you say "Father, of course, the glaring fallacy in the above statement is that it is merely your opinion that the Magisterium of the Church says what you claim it says."
My claim is that The Decree on Ecumenism is a magisterial document from the Second Vatican Council.
I don't know that any Council ever said "This, our document, is entirely in continuity with every preceding document authoritatively taught by the Church on this subject."
"My claim is that The Decree on Ecumenism is a magisterial document from the Second Vatican Council."
That's your claim. But you can't point to a magisterial teaching that asserts the magisterial nature of that document because (1) no such document exists, and (2) even if it could, your argument is that it is not possible to know what is magisterial in the first place.
The answer to MJK's question is 'nowhere', closely followed by 'so what?'
I didn't introduce the term 'methodology'. It can't include convergence or compromise and if it means simply stressing the many beliefs held in common by Catholics and Protestants while glossing over real doctrinal differences, it's not much use.
Cardinal Woelki is correct in declaring that Catholic and Lutheran concepts of the Eucharist are incompatible. No amount or workshops, seminars and training courses can square that particular circle or undo the Reformation.
From Msgr. Fernando Ocariz (Osservatore Romano, December 2011)
Since it was an ecumenical council, meeting and promulgating its acts to the whole Church under the authority of the Pope, the Second Vatican Council’s doctrinal sentences demand assent in the following ways:
1. Whenever the Council teaches something about faith and morals, what it teaches is certainly true, either through the specific note of infallibility or from the religious submission of mind and will owed to the ordinary Magisterium.
2. If such a teaching on faith or morals appears to anyone to conflict with earlier teachings, the problem is not with the truth of the Council’s statement but with our understanding of the Church’s full teaching of which the Council’s statement is inescapably a part.
3. Proper method demands that an understanding of the matter in question be found that accepts the truth of all relevant statements. Later statements can be illuminated by earlier ones and earlier statements can be illuminated by later ones, until a more complete and precise understanding is formed.
4. Where the Council was not teaching on matters of faith and morals, such as where it was describing contemporary conditions or offering recommendations for renewal, its statements are to be received with respect and gratitude but are not necessarily flawless in either their factual accuracy or their prudential judgment.
5. It follows that any arguments which undermine this understanding, whether based upon the pastoral interests of the Council or any other factor, are specious.
For consideration: "Assessing Vatican II: A Response to My Critics" https://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/assessing-vatican-ii-a-response-to-my-critics
"First, the ordinary magisterium is exercised only by the whole Church in its state of being dispersed throughout the world for the quite simple and obvious reason that the teaching of popes and ecumenical councils are necessarily formal and explicit acts of teaching formulated in public documents of the supreme magisterium (which is exactly what the teaching of the ordinary magisterium is not)."
Also
Vatican I states: “All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith that are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which by the Church, either in solemn judgment or through her ordinary and universal magisterium, are proposed for belief as having been divinely revealed” (Dei Filius, Denz. 3011).
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said... From Msgr. Fernando Ocariz (Osservatore Romano, December 2011). "Since it was an ecumenical council, meeting and promulgating its acts to the whole Church under the authority of the Pope, the Second Vatican Council’s doctrinal sentences demand assent in the following ways..."
1. Monsignor Ocariz is not the Magisterium, so his opinions about Vatican II are worth no more than Marc's.
2. Nowhere has the Magisterium told anyone what the "doctrinal sentences" of the Second Vatican Council actually are, so Monsignor Ocariz's opinion on the matter is quite useless.
FrMJK, Marc does indeed have the competency to tell us what he has been taught, or what he percieves he has been taught. He might be wrong; he shares that frailty with every other human including the Pope and those people assigned the duty to teach. If a person hears a statement and tells us that it differs from another we can test to see if what he says is true. It does not mean that he, Marc, is determing Church teaching. Even if he seems a little bossy about it we know that he is not speaking ex Cathedra so no matter how firm his position we can evaluate it objectively. On the other hand we find many clergy spouting nonsense or even heresy when they find themselves carried away by by the moment. So simply stating that what Fr. X has said differs from Church teaching does not mean the layman is assuming to establish that teaching.
DJR - I never suggested that Ocariz was part of the Magisterium.
None of us here are part of the Magisterium. However, that does not mean that our discussions or our opinions or our "bombshells" are "quite useless." (Well, the "bombshells" are, but I digress...) I have learned things here and I hope you have as well. Our discussions have given me greater understanding of some things and I hope you have gained that too.
We are all seeking understanding. Personally I look to people like Ocariz, who is a consultor for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the prelate of Opus Dei, and who has been involved mightily in discussion with the SSPX, to bring insight and wisdom to discussions. He simply knows WAY more than any of us. And yes, his views on Vatican Two have far, far greater value than Marc's, yours, or mine.
The very question we are engaged in here - the Magisterial authority of Vatican Two - is what Ocariz and the SSPX have been working on.
But if you or anyone else says "Well, he's not "the Magisterium" and, therefore, anything anyone who is not "the Magisterium" says is "quite useless," then all of us non-magisterial types ought to cease posting immediately. But I don't think that's what you want, is it?
The Cult of Individualism is alive and well in the Church. We have failed to be the community we are meant to be. We see ourselves as "Persons of God" rather than "People of God" and that to our great detriment. Fr. McDonald speaks of its expression in "congregationalism" and I have often cited the book "Habits of the Heart" as a way of understanding this societal/cultural blight. Not you, not me, not Marc, nor anyone else can define the faith.
"Not you, not me, not Marc, nor anyone else can define the faith."
This is where everyone agrees. Where I disagree with you is your supposition that we cannot know what the teaching is. In point of fact, we can know precisely what the Church teaches are there are myriad resources available for just that purpose.
The divergence manifests itself practically in the question of the magisterial authority of Vatican II. Since we know that the Church cannot propose X teaching and then subsequently propose not-X teaching, we are able to take the Church's teaching at some specific point in time and hold to that teaching without fear of having that teaching later held to be incorrect.
It follows that for Vatican II to have magisterial authority, it must restate what the Church previously taught. If anything in Vatican II does not restate what the Church previously taught, then it lacks magisterial authority.
By holding to the teachings of the Church as they were clearly expressed prior to Vatican II, I am necessarily holding to the teachings of the Church post-Vatican II because, again, there can be no contradiction, at least at a magisterial level.
What Mike suggests, though, is that I must "accept" Vatican II or else I am defining the faith for myself. Implicit in this argument is that Vatican II taught something that must be accepted and that I am not believing if I hold to the pre-Vatican II teachings. But, for the reasons stated above, that cannot be the case.
Since Mike is relying on an argument (to varying extents) from authority based on the comments of the person involved in the discussions with the SSPX, it would seem to make just as much sense to do, as I do, and rely on people involved in those same discussions: the SSPX theologians.
"I have learned things here and I hope you have as well. Our discussions have given me greater understanding of some things and I hope you have gained that too."
I echo this sentiment, and I am glad to see this written. These discussions are edifying and helpful for me in clarifying my understanding of the Church's teaching. And I find them enjoyable too!
"Marc does indeed have the competency to tell us what he has been taught..."
No doubt about that whatsoever.
"If a person hears a statement and tells us that it differs from another we can test to see if what he says is true."
Maybe. The person who hears may THINK it differs - he/she may be wrong.
As to "testing" - another maybe. If that is a matter of chemistry, plate tectonics, or the capacity of genes to be the bearers of inheritable information, etc., yes.
If it is a matter of what constitutes the teaching of the Church, that capacity belongs to the bishops.
If a non-Bishop says "The Church teaches that participation in worship with Protestants is a violation of the First Commandment" and the Church's magisterium says, "No, it is not" it is the magisterium that holds sway.
No, we cannot evaluate doctrinal assertions "objectively" because there is always, in matters of what is and is not the Church's teaching, the very subjective involvement of the Bishops who possess the charism to teach.
"It follows that for Vatican II to have magisterial authority, it must restate what the Church previously taught."
This is not correct.
Multiple councils - probably all of them - have done far, far more than merely "restate" what was said at previous Council. They have refined, expanded, and developed doctrines.
While Marc sees Unitatis Redentigratio as a repudiation of earlier doctrine, a break in continuity if you will, the Church sees as an expansion in continuity with earlier doctrine.
Marc will say that he disagrees with this assessment. Marc will say there is a contradiction. Narc will say that others agree with him. That's his prerogative.
I will say that, because the Church through its Magisterium has said that Unitatis Redentigratio is in continuity with earlier teaching, I will stick with those whose charism it is to teach the faith.
I “refuse... to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.”
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said... "No, we cannot evaluate doctrinal assertions 'objectively' because there is always, in matters of what is and is not the Church's teaching, the very subjective involvement of the Bishops who possess the charism to teach."
The German bishops possess "the charism to teach."
When they state that it is permissible for a Catholic to receive Holy Communion, even if that Catholic is divorced, remarried, and living in a conjugal relationship with the second putative spouse while the first spouse is still living, are the German bishops teaching Catholic orthodoxy?
The Polish bishops possess the exact same "charism to teach" as the German bishops.
When they state that it is impermissible for a Catholic to receive Holy Communion if that Catholic is divorced, remarried, and living in a conjugal relationship with the second putative spouse while the first spouse is still living, are the Polish bishops teaching Catholic orthodoxy?
How does "Non-bishop Marc" figure out what the teaching of the Church is under these circumstances?
"How does "Non-bishop Marc" figure out what the teaching of the Church is under these circumstances?"
"Non-bishop Marc" can open his catechism and read in #2390, "The sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes one from sacramental communion."
(This presumes, of course, that one recognizes the magisterial authority of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I do. Saint Pope John Paul II wrote, " "The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.")
I can't find the German bishops' proposal in English. The news reports indicate that the proposal would be exceptional and allowed only under certain conditions. Without the text I'm not sure what these conditions might be.
What the German bishops are proposing exposes them for what they are - losers. Apparently they can’t articulate and persuade people of the beauty of the Catholic Faith . If a German Protestant believes in the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence they should convert. Think of the tax dollars the German bishops are leaving on the table!
Kavanaugh, give it up. You are the original inartful dodger and you're past your sell date. Marc and John Nolan are correct. You should move to Germany and join the loser bishops. You would be happy there.
57 comments:
Reminds me of those contraptions they used to drop condiments on your hamburger at a fast food place. McMass . .
How would I receive on the tongue with such a device being used?
Maybe have the hosts stacked up in a “Pax” dispenser and shoot them directly on to the tongue?
RCG,
You're right! If it shot the Host into the communicant's mouth, it would be like a PEZ candy dispenser!
The Catholic clergy is in desperate need of re-education. If sexually offending against young men or women is deplorable, how much more serious is disrespecting Jesus Christ at Mass? No wonder some young people refer to communion as getting your cookies. Shame on the hierarchy for tolerating this behavior!
Fr. Z posted this video and seem to think it was a priest and a Catholic Mass. I don't think so. I think it is Protestant, Lutheran or Episcopalian. Even though there are many "Cretini" priests out there, Catholic one, I don't think there are any that cretino!
But this is reason 100000001234100014141410 why ecumenism will bode poorly for Catholicism.
"But this is reason 100000001234100014141410 why ecumenism will bode poorly for Catholicism.
Only in your mind do host dispensers have anything to do with ecumenism.
Ecumenism, as the Church teaches, is an essential aspect of it's nature.
CCC 820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time." Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. [That is the work of ecumenism.] This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit. [That is why we work toward unity, to fulfill the will of Christ.]
Those are Reason Number On and Reason Number Two for the Church's commitment to ecumenism.
Pope Benedict XVI, the day after his election to the Chair of Peter, said in an address to the College of Cardinals, "Peter's current Successor takes on as his primary task the duty to work tirelessly to rebuild the full and visible unity of all Christ's followers. This is his ambition, his impelling duty. He is aware that good intentions do not suffice for this. Concrete gestures that enter hearts and stir consciences are essential, inspiring in everyone that inner conversion that is the prerequisite for all ecumenical progress."
Pope Benedict XVI understood Reason Number One and Reason Number Two.
I miswrote, should be number 666666666666666666666666666666666666666! The Protestants keep moving the cretini bar just when we think we have caught up with them. They need to catch up with us or we will be the cretini .
Soon Catholic priest with germ phobias, like me, will copy the Protestant dispenser for Holy Communion in support of this innovation and not offending ecumenism. Very liberal no? No, it is idioto.
You heard it here first, folks. According to Presider Mike, ecumenism is an essential aspect of the Church's nature. Somehow that "essential aspect" didn't manifest itself until the middle of the 20th century.
You're probably asking how something that is part of the Church's essence could take over 1,900 years to become manifest. Why, that's because the Holy Ghost didn't really get His act together until Vatican II!
It is truly providential that Presider Mike happened to come along post-Pentecost II! I shudder to think about how he would've fared when Catholic orthodoxy was on the ascendency!
Marc,
LOL!!! Presider Mike would have likely ended up being burned at the stake in prior, less gentle times.
Marc - You are, again, mistaken.
It is not according to me that ecumenism is an essential aspect of the Church's nature.
If you read the post above, and many other magisterial pronouncements, you will discover that what I said is what the Church teaches.
It has always been so, from the day Our Lord himself said, “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me."
Your chronology is off by about 1,950 years.
Also, you don't have the competence to determine what is and what is not the Church's teaching. You claim that because you can read and have some degree of understanding that you and you alone can make that determination.
But, as we all know, that is self-delusion.
I also seem to recall Pope Benedict, perhaps in the same address, say that Protestants and Catholics would need to agree on what ecumenism is before it can advance.
Pope Benedict, the pope of Christian unity, had it right. He found the way to amalgamate the Anglican Communion into the full Communion of the true Church. It is the Ordinariate. It could work too with classic Lutheranism and maybe with Presbyterians.
Presider Mike, based on your response, I have a serious question for you to dodge:
How can I "read the . . . many other magisterial pronouncements" to "discover . . . what the Church teaches" when I "don't have the competence to determine what is and what is not the Church's teaching"?
Marc,
Don't confuse Presider Mike with the facts. FYI, he is also known as the "Inartful Dodger."
The Catholic Church is the Universal Church. It encompasses (in its doctrines) all Devine revelations found in the Old and New testaments. Christian associations not in full communion with it are always welcome back into the fold. Unfortunately, due mainly to pride and ignorance, over the centuries, the Catholic Church that Christ left us has undergone some fragmentation.
Even today, the visible part of the Church is constantly under attack by the Evil One. For example, the forces of dissent today speak of mercy with out justice, unity without doctrinal integrity. Clever words are printed assaulting the sacrament of marriage, a liturgical revolution has been imposed on us in 1965. Fifty plus years since V. Council 2 (VC2) the so called improvements, some say aimed to attract those outside the Church, we now see were either misguided, or fabricated by the "Spirit of the Council" people who managed to retain or obtain high positions within the Church.
So, here we are 500 years after M. Luther, and 50+ years after VC2 none of the Protestants have returned to the Universal fold except some of the Anglicans but more than half of the active German bishops today are paying more attention to the rebellious German monk than the Holy Father in Rome. Actually, Anglicanorum Coetibus (2009), was an unexpected surprise when it happened. I remember reading some criticizing Benedict XVI at the time for putting out the Welcome mat, instead advocated the returnees stay in the rapidly collapsing Anglican community in the name of Christian Ecumenism(?).
Finally, judging from what is happening in the Church in Germany today M. Luther must be nodding in approval. You see Fr. K, he is still winning followers among the Catholic hierarchy there. "Those who do not remember the past, are condemned to repeat it." (G. Santayana).
I have a hard time seeing any Lutheran coming over except as a true conversion. They have a very basic disconnect with the Pope as the Pope that seems more pronounced in the more ‘traditional’ groups. I think the two things to be conscious of are that appearances do not signal similar beliefs and that ecumenism is not simply swapping aspects of two religions until a truce can be reached.
Strictly speaking, ecumenism refers to the unity of East and West - the two 'lungs' of the Church.
The Protestants seceded from the Catholic Church of their own volition and repudiated many of her essential doctrines. That is not to say that Catholics and Protestants do not agree on many truths of the Christian faith, and should not worship together (strictly forbidden until 1965 and in my opinion one of the few positive fruits of Vatican II).
Yet if the truth subsists in the Catholic Church she cannot achieve unity by convergence. At Benediction we recite a prayer written by Cardinal Wiseman. Addressed to Our Lady, it asks her to 'intercede for our separated brethren, that with us in the one true fold, they may be united to the chief shepherd, the vicar of thy Son.'
Father Faber put it even more clearly: 'Faith of our fathers, Mary's prayers shall win our country back to thee; and through the truth that comes from God, England shall then indeed be free.'
Fr McDonald's comment about Protestants moving the goalposts applies particularly to the Anglican Communion (which includes ECUSA). The CofE decided unilaterally in 1994 to ordain women, despite a personal plea to the Archbishop of Canterbury by Pope John Paul II. It then went on to consecrate women as 'bishops'. By then it no longer bothered to reference wider Christendom, preferring to cite the modern idea of 'gender equality'. It is now considering officially tolerating practising homosexual clergy.
Are they in the least bit interested in the unity which is the will of Christ? Obviously not.
Marc - You lack of competence is in determining "what is and what is not the Church's teaching." You don't determine what is the Church's teaching and what is not.
You can understand what those with competence have determined is and is not the Church's teaching.
You don't determine it, you accept it from those who have the authority to teach it.
If your conscience leads you to question what has been taught, that is your issue. But you can't determine what is taught.
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said... Marc - You lack of competence is in determining "what is and what is not the Church's teaching." You don't determine what is the Church's teaching and what is not. You can understand what those with competence have determined is and is not the Church's teaching. You don't determine it, you accept it from those who have the authority to teach it.
In the 5th century AD, when the layman Eusebius stood up in public and opposed the then Patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, to his face, accusing him of teaching heresy, who was competent to teach, and who was incompetent and just supposed to accept the Patriarch's teaching?
And who was right, and who was wrong?
If Marc lacks competence to determine what is Church teaching, how does he determine what is true when those who have such competence contradict each other?
German bishops: Divorced and civilly remarried Catholics can receive Holy Communion.
Polish bishops: Divorced and civilly remarried Catholics cannot receive Holy Communion.
Pope Francis on the same issue: ???
How does Marc determine which group is promoting the correct Catholic teaching if he is incompetent to do so?
Marc,
Let’s see if Presider Mike can cogently respond to John Nolan’s fact based response. I doubt it
I’m not understanding how I am supposed to “accept [what the Church teaches] from those who have authority to teach it” when I apparently lack the ability to “determine what is the Church’s teaching and what is not.” How I am I supposed to accept what I cannot even determine?
Seriously, Presider Mike, you’ve really got yourself tied in all sorts of knots in your attempt to put me in my place. How about you give it one more go but this time try to be even more patronizing.
"If Marc lacks competence to determine what is Church teaching, how does he determine what is true when those who have such competence contradict each other."
Marc does not lack competence to understand what the Church teaches. He, and all of us who are not bishops, lack the competence to determine what the Church teaches.
We do not determine what is true. We rely on the gift of the Holy Spirit given to those with the charism to teach authoritatively to make that determination.
FrMJK: respectfully, as a student I wrote a paper that essentially corrected an article by a professor of another university across town. He had made a common mistake concerning probability of an outcome in an election. I was, of course, correct although I did not have credentials to teach and he was a full professor. In some cases we have the objective fact, perhaps a known theorem or the revealed knowledge from the lips of Christ Himself. Down the next tier of certainty we have the case where something taught, even by authority, deviates from the body of information the person in authority professes. This would be excusable if the person was presenting an advancement in understanding of that body of knowledge. But in the case of the professor he had made a classic mental mistake that is even included in the basic courses to demonstrate the error. When bishops teach or propose deviations from teaching or Doctrine of the Church they should at least identify it as such or risk appearing at worst heretic or at best incompetent. Every instance that leads to a specific divorce or interdenominational communion can not become the exception that proves the new rule. Compassion is too thin a coat to cover the lazy or ignorant because it leads them assume they can continue along that same frigid path of solipsism disguised as an internal dialogue. The dreadful outcome of these risks taken with faulty understanding are borne by the laity. So restraint and precision are vital when bishops speak or they may find themselves publicly corrected by a smartass undergrad.
DJR, how indeed! I do struggle with this issue...
Please, Fr. MJK, can you answer this very relevant question? Thank you.
Ecumenism does not refer, strictly or otherwise, to unity of the East and West. It refers, specifically, to dialogue and work between and among all Christian denominations. It the international, national, regional, and local levels, our Church engages in ecumenical dialogue with leaders and members of other Christian denominations. This work is officially sanctioned by the Church.
We have a unique relationship with the Orthodox, but that does not exclude other Christians from the ecumenical effort.
John Nolan asserts: "Yet if the truth subsists in the Catholic Church she cannot achieve unity by convergence."
Where is "convergence" stated as the methodology of the ecumenical dialogue? No one I know of is looking for the "least common denominator" upon which we all can agree. None of the dialogues, seminars, training sessions, or workshops I have participated in suggest that "convergence" is what we seek.
We all agree that the moving goalposts present new and significant challenges to the work. Our dialogue partners are very aware of this.
Is the CofE interested in Christian unity? I believe they are.
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said... We do not determine what is true. We rely on the gift of the Holy Spirit given to those with the charism to teach authoritatively to make that determination.
And how does Marc determine who is correct among those with the charism to teach when they contradict one another?
In the case of Holy Communion for divorced and remarrieds, who is correct?
The German bishops with the charism to teach? Or the Polish bishops, who have that same charism?
rcg - Marc claims to have the competence to determine what the Church teaches. He does not for the same reason you and I do not - we are not bishops who have been given that competence as an effect of their ordination to the episcopal office.
You state, "When bishops teach or propose deviations from teaching or Doctrine of the Church they should at least identify it as such or risk appearing at worst heretic or at best incompetent."
Who, and by what authority, determines what is or is not a "deviation?" Is The Decree on Ecumenism a "deviation" from previous statements, such as Mortalium Animos, on the question? I say it is not because the magisterium of the Church says it is not. Marc says it is because Marc says it is.
Marc - I am not trying to put you in your place. I am trying to explain that you and I are in the same place when it comes to not having the authority to determine what is contained in the Church's teaching.
Neither of us is ordained a bishop, so neither of us is a part of the magisterium.
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." Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."
And
CCC 88 "The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these."
If you want to contest what the Church teaches, that is your right, I suppose, to a degree. But you nor I have the competence to determine what is contained in the Church's teaching.
This looks very much like a Lutheran or Episcopalian service and not a Catholic mass.
Presider Mike, the problem with your argument is that it is based on the unproven and false premise that I contest what the Church teaches. In point of fact, I believe absolutely everything the Church teaches.
Extending your premise, what you seem to have been suggesting these last few weeks is that it is not possible to ascertain what the Church's teaching is. So far as I can tell, you appear to think that reading what the Church teaches in some Magisterial document and then believing it is tantamount to determining what the Church teaches. I disagree with this idea because it is inherently illogical, as well as unfounded. To illustrate, if a person cannot determine what the Church teaches, the Church might as well teach nothing since determining what the teaching is would be impossible, according to you.
It follows that I reject your argument that it is not possible to take note of deviations from prior teachings that emanate from the bishops or even the pope. Your simplistic argument fails to account for the various levels of teaching authority as properly understood by the Church herself. To take note of deviations while maintaining the integrity of the faith entire is not to usurp the God-given authority of the bishops and pope to teach.
I gather you're making all of these illogical and inconsistent points in an effort to assert that I must "accept" this "Decree on Ecumenism." I'll speak plainly since, frankly I'm tired of discussing this with you: I might as well argue with an Episcopalian "priest" since I see little difference between such a one and yourself, except the former is being honest and you are not. So, no, I do not and will not accept it or any of the Vatican II and post-Vatican II ideas. I do not and will not attend the Novus Ordo "Mass" nor will I allow my children to do so.
During the debates in the General Synod of the CofE on the ordination of women (they already had women deacons, few of whom considered their diaconate to be other than transitional) the wider implications for Christendom were at least considered. Robert Runcie had sat on the fence for so long that it was said he had splinters in his arse; his successor George Carey, from the evangelical wing, wanted to move things forward.
One argument was that the CofE was being 'prophetic', leading the way and expecting the rest of us to catch up sooner or later. However, JP II's decisive intervention put paid to that conceit.
When the issue of women bishops came up, it was noticeable that its proponents (including the Prime Minister, David Cameron) based their arguments on modern ideas of equality, without reference to the unity of Christendom or any theological argument.
Workshops, seminars, training sessions etc. are good at generating verbiage but actually achieve little of substance. To state the obvious, that the Catholic Church cannot compromise on essential truths, or reach agreement via convergence (especially when your partners in dialogue have, by their own admission, moved further away from you) does not imply any 'methodology'. I might ask Fr Kavanaugh precisely what 'methodology' his workshops use, but quite frankly it is of little interest or significance.
I understand the CofE far better than Fr Kavanaugh does. It is busily pursuing its own liberal agenda, and has sidelined its own Anglo-Catholic wing. Its cathedral and collegiate worship can still be impressive, not least in terms of music. But it has given up any pretence of, or desire for, unity with the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Cosying up to the Methodists is an easier option.
Marc - No, you do not believe all that the Church teaches. You believe all that YOU THINK or that YOU WANT TO BELIEVE the Church teaches.
On this thread you have rejected the Church's teaching that ecumenism is an essential aspect of the Church's nature. Your words, "You heard it here first, folks. According to Presider Mike, ecumenism is an essential aspect of the Church's nature. Somehow that "essential aspect" didn't manifest itself until the middle of the 20th century." (It is the Church's teaching that ecumenism is and essential aspect of the Church's nature.)
In another recent post you declared that the Church teaches it is a sin against the First Commandment to join with Protestants in worship. (This is not the Church's teaching.)
Both of these positions are false. Ecumenism is an essential aspect of the Church's natures and worshipping with Protestants is not a sin against the First Commandment .
Then, you tidily finish off your rejection of the Church's teaching with, "So, no, I do not and will not accept it (Decree on Ecumenism) or any of the Vatican II and post-Vatican II ideas. I do not and will not attend the Novus Ordo "Mass" nor will I allow my children to do so."
YOU become the one who determines what the Church teaches, having never been given the gift, the necessary charism, to determine such.
I'll rely on the Church - you can continue to rely on yourself.
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said... Who, and by what authority, determines what is or is not a "deviation?" Is The Decree on Ecumenism a "deviation" from previous statements, such as Mortalium Animos, on the question? I say it is not because the magisterium of the Church says it is not. Marc says it is because Marc says it is.
Father, of course, the glaring fallacy in the above statement is that it is merely your opinion that the Magisterium of the Church says what you claim it says.
The Magisterium has made no pronouncement on whether the two documents you mention above can be reconciled, and you're not the Magisterium, so you are not competent to say whether it can.
So, you're in the same boat as Marc. You say it is not because you say it is not.
John Nolan, I ask again, "Where is "convergence" stated as the methodology of the ecumenical dialogue?"
You'll not find it in the Church's own ecumenical documents, nor would you encounter it at the workshops, seminars, training sessions I have attended.
SO, where do you get the idea that Catholic ecumenism is seeking "convergence?"
And as a man of education, you know very well that workshops, seminars, training sessions can and often do produce far more than verbiage. They can produce understanding, they can encourage further exploration and learning, they can become the catalyst for monumental changes. (You'll recall that little governmental workshop known as the Continental Congress (1774-1789) and the changes that arose from the seminars the delegates attended on 'How to Run Your Own Country,' and 'How to Free Oneself From a Tyrant.')
Presider Mike, as DJR aptly points out, your logic is flawed. I can add nothing to his succinct rebuttable of your untenable position.
It is humorous to watch you chop logic so incoherently in an effort to make a point, though. Do you want to give it yet another try?
DJR you say "Father, of course, the glaring fallacy in the above statement is that it is merely your opinion that the Magisterium of the Church says what you claim it says."
My claim is that The Decree on Ecumenism is a magisterial document from the Second Vatican Council.
I don't know that any Council ever said "This, our document, is entirely in continuity with every preceding document authoritatively taught by the Church on this subject."
Hey Kavanaugh,
Here is what YOUR party is up to in Maryland!!! Enjoy:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/7/maryland-gubernatorial-candidate-kisses-his-husban/
You are opposed to right-wingers, you will enjoy this too!
DJR, with Kavanaugh you must realize "It is HIS opinion, THUS it is a fact!"
"My claim is that The Decree on Ecumenism is a magisterial document from the Second Vatican Council."
That's your claim. But you can't point to a magisterial teaching that asserts the magisterial nature of that document because (1) no such document exists, and (2) even if it could, your argument is that it is not possible to know what is magisterial in the first place.
The answer to MJK's question is 'nowhere', closely followed by 'so what?'
I didn't introduce the term 'methodology'. It can't include convergence or compromise and if it means simply stressing the many beliefs held in common by Catholics and Protestants while glossing over real doctrinal differences, it's not much use.
Cardinal Woelki is correct in declaring that Catholic and Lutheran concepts of the Eucharist are incompatible. No amount or workshops, seminars and training courses can square that particular circle or undo the Reformation.
From Msgr. Fernando Ocariz (Osservatore Romano, December 2011)
Since it was an ecumenical council, meeting and promulgating its acts to the whole Church under the authority of the Pope, the Second Vatican Council’s doctrinal sentences demand assent in the following ways:
1. Whenever the Council teaches something about faith and morals, what it teaches is certainly true, either through the specific note of infallibility or from the religious submission of mind and will owed to the ordinary Magisterium.
2. If such a teaching on faith or morals appears to anyone to conflict with earlier teachings, the problem is not with the truth of the Council’s statement but with our understanding of the Church’s full teaching of which the Council’s statement is inescapably a part.
3. Proper method demands that an understanding of the matter in question be found that accepts the truth of all relevant statements. Later statements can be illuminated by earlier ones and earlier statements can be illuminated by later ones, until a more complete and precise understanding is formed.
4. Where the Council was not teaching on matters of faith and morals, such as where it was describing contemporary conditions or offering recommendations for renewal, its statements are to be received with respect and gratitude but are not necessarily flawless in either their factual accuracy or their prudential judgment.
5. It follows that any arguments which undermine this understanding, whether based upon the pastoral interests of the Council or any other factor, are specious.
For consideration: "Assessing Vatican II: A Response to My Critics" https://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/assessing-vatican-ii-a-response-to-my-critics
From OnePeterFive.com:
"First, the ordinary magisterium is exercised only by the whole Church in its state of being dispersed throughout the world for the quite simple and obvious reason that the teaching of popes and ecumenical councils are necessarily formal and explicit acts of teaching formulated in public documents of the supreme magisterium (which is exactly what the teaching of the ordinary magisterium is not)."
Also
Vatican I states: “All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith that are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which by the Church, either in solemn judgment or through her ordinary and universal magisterium, are proposed for belief as having been divinely revealed” (Dei Filius, Denz. 3011).
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said... From Msgr. Fernando Ocariz (Osservatore Romano, December 2011). "Since it was an ecumenical council, meeting and promulgating its acts to the whole Church under the authority of the Pope, the Second Vatican Council’s doctrinal sentences demand assent in the following ways..."
1. Monsignor Ocariz is not the Magisterium, so his opinions about Vatican II are worth no more than Marc's.
2. Nowhere has the Magisterium told anyone what the "doctrinal sentences" of the Second Vatican Council actually are, so Monsignor Ocariz's opinion on the matter is quite useless.
FrMJK, Marc does indeed have the competency to tell us what he has been taught, or what he percieves he has been taught. He might be wrong; he shares that frailty with every other human including the Pope and those people assigned the duty to teach. If a person hears a statement and tells us that it differs from another we can test to see if what he says is true. It does not mean that he, Marc, is determing Church teaching. Even if he seems a little bossy about it we know that he is not speaking ex Cathedra so no matter how firm his position we can evaluate it objectively. On the other hand we find many clergy spouting nonsense or even heresy when they find themselves carried away by by the moment. So simply stating that what Fr. X has said differs from Church teaching does not mean the layman is assuming to establish that teaching.
DJR - I never suggested that Ocariz was part of the Magisterium.
None of us here are part of the Magisterium. However, that does not mean that our discussions or our opinions or our "bombshells" are "quite useless." (Well, the "bombshells" are, but I digress...) I have learned things here and I hope you have as well. Our discussions have given me greater understanding of some things and I hope you have gained that too.
We are all seeking understanding. Personally I look to people like Ocariz, who is a consultor for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the prelate of Opus Dei, and who has been involved mightily in discussion with the SSPX, to bring insight and wisdom to discussions. He simply knows WAY more than any of us. And yes, his views on Vatican Two have far, far greater value than Marc's, yours, or mine.
The very question we are engaged in here - the Magisterial authority of Vatican Two - is what Ocariz and the SSPX have been working on.
But if you or anyone else says "Well, he's not "the Magisterium" and, therefore, anything anyone who is not "the Magisterium" says is "quite useless," then all of us non-magisterial types ought to cease posting immediately. But I don't think that's what you want, is it?
The Cult of Individualism is alive and well in the Church. We have failed to be the community we are meant to be. We see ourselves as "Persons of God" rather than "People of God" and that to our great detriment. Fr. McDonald speaks of its expression in "congregationalism" and I have often cited the book "Habits of the Heart" as a way of understanding this societal/cultural blight. Not you, not me, not Marc, nor anyone else can define the faith.
Kavanaugh is slowly morphing into MT, cutting and pasting lots of non sequiturs and dodging the real issue at hand. LOL
"Not you, not me, not Marc, nor anyone else can define the faith."
This is where everyone agrees. Where I disagree with you is your supposition that we cannot know what the teaching is. In point of fact, we can know precisely what the Church teaches are there are myriad resources available for just that purpose.
The divergence manifests itself practically in the question of the magisterial authority of Vatican II. Since we know that the Church cannot propose X teaching and then subsequently propose not-X teaching, we are able to take the Church's teaching at some specific point in time and hold to that teaching without fear of having that teaching later held to be incorrect.
It follows that for Vatican II to have magisterial authority, it must restate what the Church previously taught. If anything in Vatican II does not restate what the Church previously taught, then it lacks magisterial authority.
By holding to the teachings of the Church as they were clearly expressed prior to Vatican II, I am necessarily holding to the teachings of the Church post-Vatican II because, again, there can be no contradiction, at least at a magisterial level.
What Mike suggests, though, is that I must "accept" Vatican II or else I am defining the faith for myself. Implicit in this argument is that Vatican II taught something that must be accepted and that I am not believing if I hold to the pre-Vatican II teachings. But, for the reasons stated above, that cannot be the case.
Since Mike is relying on an argument (to varying extents) from authority based on the comments of the person involved in the discussions with the SSPX, it would seem to make just as much sense to do, as I do, and rely on people involved in those same discussions: the SSPX theologians.
"I have learned things here and I hope you have as well. Our discussions have given me greater understanding of some things and I hope you have gained that too."
I echo this sentiment, and I am glad to see this written. These discussions are edifying and helpful for me in clarifying my understanding of the Church's teaching. And I find them enjoyable too!
"Marc does indeed have the competency to tell us what he has been taught..."
No doubt about that whatsoever.
"If a person hears a statement and tells us that it differs from another we can test to see if what he says is true."
Maybe. The person who hears may THINK it differs - he/she may be wrong.
As to "testing" - another maybe. If that is a matter of chemistry, plate tectonics, or the capacity of genes to be the bearers of inheritable information, etc., yes.
If it is a matter of what constitutes the teaching of the Church, that capacity belongs to the bishops.
If a non-Bishop says "The Church teaches that participation in worship with Protestants is a violation of the First Commandment" and the Church's magisterium says, "No, it is not" it is the magisterium that holds sway.
No, we cannot evaluate doctrinal assertions "objectively" because there is always, in matters of what is and is not the Church's teaching, the very subjective involvement of the Bishops who possess the charism to teach.
"It follows that for Vatican II to have magisterial authority, it must restate what the Church previously taught."
This is not correct.
Multiple councils - probably all of them - have done far, far more than merely "restate" what was said at previous Council. They have refined, expanded, and developed doctrines.
While Marc sees Unitatis Redentigratio as a repudiation of earlier doctrine, a break in continuity if you will, the Church sees as an expansion in continuity with earlier doctrine.
Marc will say that he disagrees with this assessment. Marc will say there is a contradiction. Narc will say that others agree with him. That's his prerogative.
I will say that, because the Church through its Magisterium has said that Unitatis Redentigratio is in continuity with earlier teaching, I will stick with those whose charism it is to teach the faith.
I “refuse... to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.”
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said... "No, we cannot evaluate doctrinal assertions 'objectively' because there is always, in matters of what is and is not the Church's teaching, the very subjective involvement of the Bishops who possess the charism to teach."
The German bishops possess "the charism to teach."
When they state that it is permissible for a Catholic to receive Holy Communion, even if that Catholic is divorced, remarried, and living in a conjugal relationship with the second putative spouse while the first spouse is still living, are the German bishops teaching Catholic orthodoxy?
The Polish bishops possess the exact same "charism to teach" as the German bishops.
When they state that it is impermissible for a Catholic to receive Holy Communion if that Catholic is divorced, remarried, and living in a conjugal relationship with the second putative spouse while the first spouse is still living, are the Polish bishops teaching Catholic orthodoxy?
How does "Non-bishop Marc" figure out what the teaching of the Church is under these circumstances?
"How does "Non-bishop Marc" figure out what the teaching of the Church is under these circumstances?"
"Non-bishop Marc" can open his catechism and read in #2390, "The sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes one from sacramental communion."
(This presumes, of course, that one recognizes the magisterial authority of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I do. Saint Pope John Paul II wrote, " "The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.")
I can't find the German bishops' proposal in English. The news reports indicate that the proposal would be exceptional and allowed only under certain conditions. Without the text I'm not sure what these conditions might be.
Well, I guess we can stop discussing this, then, since Mike has now conceded that I’m right.
What the German bishops are proposing exposes them for what they are - losers. Apparently they can’t articulate and persuade people of the beauty of the Catholic Faith . If a German Protestant believes in the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence they should convert. Think of the tax dollars the German bishops are leaving on the table!
"Well, I guess we can stop discussing this, then, since Mike has now conceded that I’m right.
Whatever you think I have conceded, think again.
You don't determine what is and what is not the Church's teaching. You can read and accept it or you can read and reject it. You can't determine it.
Kavanaugh, give it up. You are the original inartful dodger and you're past your sell date. Marc and John Nolan are correct. You should move to Germany and join the loser bishops. You would be happy there.
Post a Comment