It is being widely reported that Francis has ordered a review of the most recent translation of the Roman Missal for the Novus Ordo – the Third Edition, the official implementation of which took place in the United States on November 27, 2011.
This translation was carried out according to guidelines set forth in a 2001 document published by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments:
Liturgiam Authenticam – The Fifth Instruction for the Right Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council.
In the lead up to the implementation, I was still in my Catholic adolescence and very active in speaking at parishes around the country about the upcoming changes to the text and the nature of Holy Mass in general.
I had also developed a program called “Preparing the Way for the Roman Missal” that included books, DVDs, and web-based videos that I licensed to parishes to help them prepare their parishioners for the revision.
I was genuinely excited about the new translation; believing that it would go a long way toward restoring a sense of the sacred to the rite.
While the Third Edition is an improvement over its predecessors (e.g., providing a correct translation of pro multis – more on that in a moment), I now realize that it really amounted to little more than a band aid on a wound that continues to fester.
How could it be anything else given that it’s an attempt to implement a document (Sacrosanctum Concilium) that was written with the express purpose of making the liturgy more palatable to Protestants?
My efforts were not wasted, however, as I have to say that the process of putting together the “Preparing the Way” program ultimately served to open my eyes to the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo and lead me to the “Mass of all Ages.” God is good!
In any case, many commentators – in particular neo-conservative Catholics of the Novus Ordo kind – are shuddering to imagine what Francis might do to the missal.
The fruits and nuts over at America Magazine, on the other hand, are ecstatic at the prospect of seeing the language of the liturgy dumbed down, or perhaps better stated, re-dumbed down.
Fr. Michael Ryan, who is a vocal opponent of the current translation, recently wrote:
Pope Francis points to the importance of simplicity, clarity, directness and adapting to “the language of the people in order to reach them with God’s word…and to share in their lives” (Evangelii Gaudium No. 158). In light of this, how can we justify using words like “consubstantial,” “conciliation,” “oblation” or “regeneration”?
As for strict translations of the Latin typical text, Fr. Ryan points out with glee:
Pope Francis also goes after the sacred cow of ancient Latin texts.
Sacred cow… How else would a horse’s ass view liturgical Latin?
The most insightful comment Fr. Ryan made is perhaps this:
As an antidote to this, Pope Francis speaks of the importance of local bishops’ conferences, respecting the authority that should be theirs when it comes to deciding matters that pertain to the local church.
Which brings me back to pro multis…
In Spain (as our dear friend and Father José Miguel Marqués Campo can attest) the phrase por todos (for all) is still found in the translation currently in use there; even though por muchos (for many) is supposed to be officially implemented at some point in the future.
Francis likely couldn’t care less if the accurate translation of pro multis is ever implemented in Spain or anywhere else, and what’s more, it is obvious that “for all” is far more reflective of his self-styled Protestantism that the Catholic “for many.”
As such, it is no surprise that Catholics the world over are now holding their breath in places where “for many” is used in anticipation of a return to “for all.”
That could happen, I suppose, but the parts of the missal that Francis & Friends would really like to recreate in their own image and likeness are the Prefaces that precede the “Eucharistic Prayers.”
Why the Prefaces?
Because the missal itself describes them as “presenting an overall view of the mystery of salvation,” and based on the witness of the past three years and ten months, I think it’s safe to say that Francis doesn’t much care for a Catholic presentation of such things.
With this in mind, I thought I’d take a stab at just what a “Franciscan” Preface might look like. Tell me what you think…
V. Positive thoughts be with you.
R. Likewise with you.
V. Lift up your hands.
R. We lift them up to the sky.
V. Let us give thanks to creation.
R. It is good and green.
It is truly good and green, our duty and our salvation,
always and everywhere to care for the environment,
and to welcome the immigrant,
in imitation of Jesus the itinerant preacher,
who made all people happy, except the powerful,
was born of the Virgin Mary who felt betrayed by God,
and condemned nothing,
while judging no one.
Fulfilling our will and gaining popularity among the people,
we lend a helping hand to the poor,
so as to break the bonds of poverty, and to manifest equality.
And so, with all the United Nations and every religion,
we declare our glory,
as with one voice we acclaim:
Happy, Happy, Happy, we adore
Mother Earth in all her glory.
Nirvana she suppliest.
Rigid is he who invokes the name of the Lord.
Nirvana she suppliest.
I don’t know… Maybe I should submit this for consideration to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments; not to the Prefect, Cardinal Sarah, mind you, but rather to one the new hires he was recently forced to accept.
I mean, after all, if “Eucharistic Prayer II” could be composed in a Roman restaurant and allegedly written on a napkin, why can’t some guy in the U.S. with a laptop bang out a Preface in his living room?
By all means submit your preface Louie, I highly doubt that Jorge will find one written by his minions that will be more pertinent or to the point. It’s clear that his ultimate goal is to fulfill the desolation of abomination. ….The one world religion is just microsecond away with Jorge at the helm. Our Lady of Fatima, Ora Pro Nobis!
Regarding the reference you make in your article, Louie, the pro multis (por muchos) officially goes into effect in Spain on the first Sunday of Lent… ten years after Benedict XVI ordered the change worldwide. It also supposes the revised Castilian translation for the Third Typical Edition here.
A few years ago news like this would have had made me furious. Today I no longer care what goes on in Novus Ordo Land since in substance the Novus Ordo is not Catholic.
“Take this all of you and eat it.
This is the bread of life that coexists with Me.
Do this for unity with Me.”
(Shake tambourine)
—
“Let us proclaim The mystery of Faith.
Christ has died, so that all are saved.
Christ is risen; in our hearts.
Trump is not my president”
So when can we expect more dubias to be presented to Pope Francis? Maybe 1 year from now? Maybe 1 year after 1 year of meetings with him? Maybe after 2 years and another year of waiting to see if he responds before being more publicly vocal about it?
I know patience is a virtue, but perhaps the patience equation should be adjusted to compensate for the speed at which the heretical suspect runs at…
I suspect Francis will have already changed the Mass entirely, and we’d still be waiting to hear from the Cardinals who are ever so willing to extend him the benefit of the doubt, or that the Mass should be interpreted through the Hermeneutic of Continuity and in line with ‘Tradition’ and all manner of excuses for inaction. I’m starting to think that they really do not know what to do.
If they are waiting for Francis to one day up and say “I’ve always believed in Allah, and Jesus Christ never died on the cross” then they have failed to realize that Francis is much too clever to give the game away like that without confrontation… Kasper and Scalfari or some random adulterous woman on the phone will instead say it, and say the Pope said it to them and agrees, and the Novus Catholic Press will pretend that Kasper and Scalfari are lying and that there is no evidence Francis would ever say that. Then there will be another petition. And another year of waiting.
What a joke. It’s time for the Cardinals with any sense of Catholicism left to pull the trigger.
Careful. They might just plagiarise what you have just composed.
Hilarious on the surface. Underneath it is grim and dark. So many souls at risk-!
Malachai Martin [who claimed to have read the 3rd Secret of Fatima] said in 1997 we would see God’s justice in less than 20 years. My gut keeps saying: Be Prepared, Be Prepared.
The groundwork for Environmental “Eucharistic Prayers” has already been laid by the Jesuits. Their work can be read at the link.
https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/faith-and-justice/eucharistic-prayer-21st-century
The full text of some of the proposed changes can be read here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/336413490/Jesuit-Fr-Robert-Daly-s-Eucharistic-Prayer-for-21st-century
The USCCB already has a head start on degrading the title of the “Virgin Mary.” “The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, meanwhile, has thoroughly revised the Old Testament in its New American Bible…” The phrase “born of the Virgin Mary…” has been revised to read: “the messiah will be ‘born to a young woman,’ not to a ‘virgin.'” There are a few more “creative changes” at the link:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42215497/ns/us_news-life/t/bible-edits-leave-some-feeling-cross/#.WI1LectHahB
Perhaps the USCCB will find your new translation too rigid, but I like it and wish you would set it to music.
You know, Tom, I almost went for the holster, but, actually, I do not materially disagree with your statement. 😉
“Pope Francis points to the importance of simplicity, clarity, directness and adapting to “the language of the people in order to reach them with God’s word…and to share in their lives” (Evangelii Gaudium No. 158). In light of this, how can we justify using words like “consubstantial,” “conciliation,” “oblation” or “regeneration”?”
–
How can we, indeed, when we have words like, “dude,” “stuff,” “texting,” and “iOS”? How can one respond to such unbelievably man-centered blather? Oh, Lord, this spiritual chastisement is really the worst imaginable!
–
(Thankfully there is sanctuary from the Novus Ordo Rite, a new, bastard Rite of Mass never legally promulgated. Now, a false church would have made damn sure to legally bind every soul to its new Rite – and would have stripped it of *all* sacerdotal terminology and made it a direct Protestant meal, or worse – but, Paul VI didn’t legally bind anyone to this rite. There’s that Holy Ghost, still there, protecting the Church, which cannot fail.)
Unreal.
–
The Douay-Rheims will always be the translation to use.
Catholic Thinker said this:
–
“(Thankfully there is sanctuary from the Novus Ordo Rite, a new, bastard Rite of Mass never legally promulgated. NOW A FALSE CHURCH WOULD HAVE MADE DAMN SURE TO LEGALLY BIND EVERY SOUL TO ITS NEW RITE – AND WOULD HAVE STRIPPED IT OF *ALL* SACERDOTAL TERMINOLOGY AND MADE IT A DIRECT PROTESTANT MEAL, OR WORSE – but, Paul VI didn’t legally bind anyone to this rite. There’s that Holy Ghost, still there, protecting the Church, which cannot fail.)” [caps added for emphasis]
–
Pope St. Pius X said this:
–
“But since THE MODERNISTS (as they are commonly and rightly called) EMPLOY A VERY CLEVER ARTIFICE, NAMELY, TO PRESENT THEIR DOCTRINES WITHOUT ORDER AND SYSTEMATIC ARRANGEMENT INTO ONE WHOLE, SCATTERED AND DISJOINTED ONE FROM ANOTHER, SO AS TO APPEAR TO BE IN DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY, WHILE THEY ARE IN REALITY FIRM AND STEADFAST, it will be of advantage, Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out the connexion between them, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil.” [caps added for emphasis]
–
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html
–
Catholic Thinker has yet to master this simple teaching of Pope Pius X and actualize it in his thought and analysis of the crisis in the Church. He keeps on expecting the modernist heretics who have substituted a false church for the True Church to explicitly reject the dogmas of the Church, but Pope St. Pius X taught us that this species of heretic – the modernist – would never be so transparent.
More education for Catholic Thinker:
–
In recounting the doings of the Synod on the Family, Archbishop Bruno Forte recounted the thinking of Pope Francis of how to “nuance” his new teaching on the dissolubility of Marriage:
–
“In the reflection of Monsignor Forte: the causes of the ‘crisis of the family,’ from lack of work to housing problems, the phenomenon of migration, to the difficulties attached to ‘material and human misery.’ In this context, the sense of the apostolic exhortation of Pope Francis [is]: ‘Don’t judge, but reach out to all with the gaze of mercy, but without renouncing the Truth of God. IT IS EASY TO SAY, ‘THAT THE FAMILY HAS FAILED’; MORE DIFFICULT TO HELP IT NOT FAIL. NO ONE OUGHT TO FEEL THEMSELVES EXCLUDED FROM THE CHURCH’.
–
An approach that naturally has ‘practical’ repercussions in the area of direct indications for pastors and the ecclesial community. Archbishop Forte has in fact revealed a ‘behind the scenes’ [moment] from the Synod: ‘IF WE SPEAK EXPLICITLY ABOUT COMMUNION FOR THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED,’ said Archbishop Forte, reporting A JOKE OF POPE FRANCIS, ‘YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT A TERRIBLE MESS WE WILL MAKE. SO WE WON’T SPEAK PLAINLY, DO IT IN A WAY THAT THE PREMISES ARE THERE, THEN I WILL DRAW OUT THE CONCLUSIONS.’
–
‘Typical of a Jesuit’, Abp Forte joked, ATTRIBUTING TO THAT SUGGESTION A WISDOM THAT HAS ALLOWED THE MATURATION NECESSARY TO CONCLUDE THAT AMORIS LAETITIA, as Abp. Bruno Forte explained, DOES NOT REPRESENT A NEW DOCTRINE, BUT THE ‘MERCIFUL APPLICATION’ OF THAT [THE DOCTRINE] OF ALL TIME.”
–
Here we have it; Bruno Forte in recounting his discussions with Pope Francis has painted him as a modernist according to the description of Pope St. Pius X – a modernist like Pope Francis never sets forth his “new gospel” definitively, rather he “DO[ES] IT IN A WAY THAT THE PREMISES ARE THERE”.
–
How is this relevant to the discussion of the Novus Ordo? The liturgists never deny transubstantiation, but instead institute sacrilegious rubrics [e.g., communion in the hand] that effectively deny the real presence of Our Lord in the communion host.
–
“My people have been silent, because they had no knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not do the office of priesthood to me: and thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I also will forget thy children.
–
According to the multitude of them so have they sinned against me: I will change their glory into shame.
–
They shall eat the sins of my people, and shall lift up their souls to their iniquity.
–
And there shall be like people like priest: and I will visit their ways upon them, and I will repay them their devices.
–
And they shall eat and shall not be filled: they have committed fornication, and have not ceased: because they have forsaken the Lord in not observing his law.”
–
Hosea 6 – 10
The discussion of Archbishop Forte appeared here:
–
http://www.onepeterfive.com/pope-speaking-plainly-communion-divorced-messy/
–
DJR, thank you for this link. It would be funny if it were a joke, which I am still really not sure that it isn’t.
Thank goodness, WE have arrived! Now We, sophisticated, advanced, well educated, in a word, “enlightened”, can discreetly explain To God everything He MEANT to say, but didn’t quite get. Now We, in this, post Fatima, chaotic and queer saturated world, FINALLY see it so clearly (what, with our telescopes and all). I’m sure He looks down upon us with Great gratitude for our very existence. I mean C’MON, Dude! Without embarrassing You, We could see clearly, You got a few things wrong. – Hey, Don’t mention it.
–Babel, Babel, Babel–
I don’t know about you, but the sins of fear and anxiety have been gripping my heart at times these past few days.
DJR, thanks. After reading this CRAP I am now convinced that the world is flat.
Louis, I wish you wouldn’t mock the liturgy. Criticize it? Fine–but mocking it in this way is painful and offensive.
Who cares? The USCCB is not a Catholic organization. Pay no attention to them and stop all donations to the Novus Ordo V2 sect and any affiliate associated with them. Its the only language they understand.
It appears to me that Satan himself is many evil things, but at his most horrible core he is not a heretic. He and his minions know for a fact that transubstantiation is true. He knows all the tenants of the true faith. He simply refuses to submit his will to God. He uses his lies to teach a false faith to God’s creation. Satan is the author of the New Mass and V2. And those who support it are doing the work of Satan either knowingly or blindly.
You find it painful because at some core level you know there’s something wrong with the NO.
Touche! I don’t attend the Novus Ordo as my ordinary form any more. It’s become my extraordinary form with a TLM as ordinary form five minutes away by a visiting priest who’ from the SSPX and now diocesan. So yes, I don’t care what Francis does to the NO missal and in fact the further he goes the better as hopefully this will wake up (some of) the neo-caths. But even then they will produce their safe card of “well it’s been papally approved, so no problem here.”
LOL!
The new liturgy mocks the old so all Louie is doing is mocking the mocking.
Oh Miss Bee, if there were words to express the pain and the offense to our Lord and Savior that the New Order liturgy delves out every single time it is said. The sacrilege and blasphemy that it is is unbearable to those of us who love the Lord.
Dear Miss Bee, the Novus Ordo sets itself up for ridicule.
It is not in any way the liturgical Roman rite that was handed on through the ages.
I understand some people have been aware of this for decades, some for years, and some for months. There will always be those who just became aware this week.
So, where ever you are at, and especially if you have only recently begun to see the current crisis in its unvarnished horror, it bears repeating the following:
Keep in mind that the Deposit of Faith is that body of Divinely revealed, eternal truth which Our Lord entrusted to His Church. He commissioned the Church to “teach all nations” until the end of the world. So, no one has the authority to mess with the Deposit of Faith. No one has authority to add to it, to change it, or take something away from it.
The Novus Ordo Missae, or the new Mass, is a synthetic, fabricated ceremony created in the 1960’s. The men responsible had the express intention of suppressing several essential elements of the Deposit of Faith. This was supposedly to make it more acceptable to protestants, who being heretics, have been doing that for centuries. That was the pretext. The real reason was the destruction of the Church.
The Novus Ordo creators did this deliberately and systematically. They went through the traditional Roman rite and removed specific theological ideas, and while letting others remain. The main element that they suppressed was that the Mass is the renewal of Our Lord’s Sacrifice of Calvary upon the altar under the appearance of bread and wine. Not a sacrifice like Calvary, but the very same Sacrifice made present in time and space.
By suppressing certain specific theological ideas, it causes the ones that remain to take on a variety of possible meanings, and thus leads many into error and away from the Faith.
So in the traditional Mass, it is the action of God Himself, offering Himself to God, as both Priest and Victim. This Sacrifice is infinitely pleasing to God and we are invited to join and unite ourselves with it.
In the new mass, by shrewd and calculated skill, this element was suppressed. In it’s place, the new mass becomes about Man celebrating Man. God has been taken out, and Man has taken centre stage. Sure, if you want, you can understand it as our special meal, a re-enactment of the Last Supper, with Jesus showing up as the special guest. But it is not the renewal of Calvary.
So in my opinion, the Novus Ordo is possibly a prototype of the Abomination of Desolation, if not the actual A of D. It is worthy of more than ridicule. It takes the honour that is due to God, and gives it to Man. Even if it’s nice and reverent, I hate it!
https://youtu.be/1xU9_A9r2Ac
I too feel a heightened anxiety. Or something. I guess under these circumstances that isn’t unusual though. We are after all in the middle of being de-churched.
Louie, I actually did laugh at that. Thank you! It has everything, comedy and reasonableness, given what are seeing.
One of these days a man will stand up to these destroyers. He’s going to boldly say what needs to be said, and use the plain words “heretic” and “sacrilege”. It wouldn’t solve everything but it would surely help us to feel a whole lot better. We are tired of seeing this man and his little demons driving their bulldozers through our faith unimpeded.
Many of its members no longer behave as good Catholics, but that doesn’t mean the Church has failed or become invisible, Tom. That’s heresy.
Blah, blah, blah. 🙂 You are quite an amusing fellow indeed, Cyprian. Your strategy: Quote Church teaching that no one denies (with random parts in all caps) to undo Church teaching you don’t like. It fools some people some of the time, certainly, but truth is truth. And you preach material heresy in denying either the perpetual visibility or indefectibility of the Church. Volumes and volumes of unrelated material do not change this.
https://akacatholic.com/francis-and-the-roman-missal-crisis/#comment-46049
Now, on to refutation of your confusion.
–
“Catholic Thinker has yet to master this simple teaching of Pope Pius X and actualize it in his thought and analysis of the crisis in the Church. He keeps on expecting the modernist heretics who have substituted a false church for the True Church to explicitly reject the dogmas of the Church, but Pope St. Pius X taught us that this species of heretic – the modernist – would never be so transparent.”
–
Firstly, like almost all sedes, you constantly change tactics – you have one argument solidly refuted, then move on to something else. This is clearly the mark of intellectual dishonesty or desperation.
–
Here’s something you ought to think about: Pope St. Pius X (you forgot the Saint part) was talking about modernists *in the Church*. You, on the other hand, refuse to believe that Catholic prelates holding ecclesiastic office ARE in the Church now: You say the Church has failed, and the pope is not the pope, and the bishops are not bishops. So, what is your point?
–
If the truth were as you claim, and the visible, hierarchical, apostolic, universal Church that Christ had failed, and what the world recognizes as the Catholic Church were not, and the pope were not the pope, THEN these non-Catholic imposters would have *no reason* to pretend anymore, to couch their heresy under a thin veil of ambiguity: They would be able to openly proclaim what all modernists believe, that there is no absolute truth, and that [true] religion arises from man and not from God.
–
I could say much more. Do you deny that modernists, at heart believe such things (if so, read some more)?
–
In closing, it is completely and totally illogical for you to assert, with no evidence, that I am not aware of the most simple aspects of modernism because I pointed out that a truly false church would, indeed, try to bind its subjects to some error. It is really absolutely batty logic, but it’s not logic at all: It’s sophism. It’s a fool (probably a young one) trying to save face.
–
You should go away; you do nothing but add to your embarrassment here.
Yup. He’s not a heretic because he & the other fallen angels are or were directly aware of God.These faithless leaders cannot be entirely forthright in their rejection of Catholic teaching since there are still many faithful Catholics in the Church who would be [more] scandalized. Such things must be done gradually (as, for example, Cramner did in converting the Mass to a Protestant supper).
–
Pope Francis has now been rather explicit, when he affirmed publicly that the Argentine bishops’ interpretation of AL (that the divorced and “remarried”) *are* to be given access to the Holy Eucharist. Did you miss that?
–
Yet, he has not promulgated this implicit heresy (that marriage is not indissoluble) as some sort of dogma binding on the faithful. Your logic that a false church would never do this because they’re modernists is idiotic – the modernists in St. Pope Pius Xth’s time (and later) were *hiding* *in the Church* and *had to be subtle*.
–
So you believe in a false church (you profess material in heresy denying the Church’s perpetual visibility) that just will never actually directly preach any heresy (like, say, the Anglicans or any other number of false Protestant churches), because modernism is always on the sly. This is ridiculous. You have some pieces but refuse to put them together, because all you want to do is “win,” it seems.
–
Come back when you can tell us what modernists really believe and what their end goal is. (Hint: It’s not an environment of perpetual ambiguity, but outright heresy.)
Well, I got two responses concatenated here. Please ignore this, Tom.
These faithless leaders cannot be entirely forthright in their rejection of Catholic teaching since there are still many faithful Catholics in the Church who would be [more] scandalized. Such things must be done gradually (as, for example, Cramner did in converting the Mass to a Protestant supper).
–
Pope Francis has now been rather explicit, when he affirmed publicly that the Argentine bishops’ interpretation of AL (that the divorced and “remarried”) *are* to be given access to the Holy Eucharist. Did you miss that?
–
Yet, he has not promulgated this implicit heresy (that marriage is not indissoluble) as some sort of dogma binding on the faithful. Your logic that a false church would never do this because they’re modernists is idiotic – the modernists in St. Pope Pius Xth’s time (and later) were *hiding* *in the Church* and *had to be subtle*.
–
So you believe in a false church (you profess material in heresy denying the Church’s perpetual visibility) that just will never actually directly preach any heresy (like, say, the Anglicans or any other number of false Protestant churches), because modernism is always on the sly. This is ridiculous. You have some pieces but refuse to put them together, because all you want to do is “win,” it seems.
–
Come back when you can tell us what modernists really believe and what their end goal is. (Hint: It’s not an environment of perpetual ambiguity, but outright heresy.)
The Church will never fail nor will it become invisible. Its the definition of “church” and “visible” that is subjective. The True Church that professes the True faith will never fail, with or without a True Pope, since Christ is the True Head of His Church. You and I both know our faith. We simply disagree on definition. And since none of this has been taught authoritatively, your opinion is just as valid as mine until this matter is resolved.
I have to say a bit more. Cyprian’s argument here is so silly it’s almost impossible to believe someone could make it. Let’s go over it top-to-bottom.
–
We’ve got Pope St. Pius Xth describing the nature of modernism in the Church as being one based on subterfuge and ambiguity. As everyone knows, the reason the modernists employed such tactics – at that time and for decades to come – was that, at that time, abject heretics were immediately rooted out. No modernist priest or bishop would have survived for 30 seconds under the watchful gaze of Pope St. Pius Xth writing things like, “Religious truth is formed by man, not divinely revealed by God,” or, “Objective truth does not really exist in matters of religion.”
–
So, he takes these wise words of warning, and applies them to *what he says is a false church, led by satan and an anti-pope*. Now, if things were as he says, who, exactly, would the modernists be hiding from?
–
This is either preposterous naiveté or the worst kind of sophism – take your pick.
All true.
–
The Holy Ghost protected His Church to the extent that it is possible to use the Novus Ordo Rite to confect a valid sacrament, but the Rite intentionally subjugates instead of proclaims the core Catholic theology of the Mass as a propitiatory Sacrifice, in fact the re-presentation of Calvary (its primary author declared this publicly). In that sense it is an abomination.
No, Tom, you’re wrong, which you’d realize if you read what the popes & theologians teach about the nature of the Church (which is de fide).
–
There is nothing subjective about either “Church” or “visible.” The Catholic Church is the sole Body professing all four Marks of the true Church: unity, holiness, universality, and apostolicity, and the three attributes: visibility (material & formal, the latter basically meaning it can be *identified* so that men can enter her), infallibility, and indefectibility.
–
If you believe what the Catholic Church teaches about Herself, where is it now? Your answer isn’t the same visible, hierarchical, apostolic Body that existed in 1958: You say it’s gone somewhere else. Or failed. So, where is it, without resorting to the Protestant heresy of an invisible Church with visible members?
–
Answer and I’ll reply further.
The Novus Ordo is the sacrifice of Cain. Read Genesis 4 and then look at the Offetory of the NO. Work of human hands. Cain’s offering was grains and fruits. Abel’s offering was flesh. Cain’s offerinf was not pleasing to God. Abel’s was.
Cmon Cath Thinker, Unity of Faith? That is completely missing in what you call the visible church.
@Catholic Thinker: You said this:
–
“Pope Francis has now been rather explicit, when he affirmed publicly that the Argentine bishops’ interpretation of AL (that the divorced and “remarried”) *are* to be given access to the Holy Eucharist. Did you miss that?”
–
Don’t you remember, Catholic Thinker, that the Pope’s teaching on the proper understanding of AL was contained in a PRIVATE LETTER to the Argentine Bishops that was leaked? That there was a controversy over whether the letter was authentic for some days before the Vatican was forced to confirm that the letter was, in fact, authentic? In the immortal words of Hudson from the Aliens sequel – “you haven’t been keeping up on current events.”
–
http://aleteia.org/2016/09/13/vatican-confirms-pope-francis-letter-to-argentine-bishops-on-amoris-laetitia-is-authentic/
Yes, I figured you’d dodge the question. And I actually figured you’d say exactly what you did.
–
Formal unity exists because no new dogmas have been declared by what you call the false church. The set of de fide teachings is the same as it was in 1958.
–
Gonna take a stab at that question?
I’m not a Protestant so I don’t invent my own theology. The Novus Ordo Rite of Mass is indeed seriously deficient, designed as it was to subjugate core Catholic theology on the Mass, but it can still be used to confect a valid sacrament. Again, you believe the Church has failed. You’ve lost faith in the Body of Christ and have gone your own way.
The laughs never stop. Quiz for you: Did he also state publicly that this letter was the “only possible interpretation” of AL?
–
Not to mention that that point was not germane to the argument in any sense. What’s your point?
Again the post appeared in the wrong place.
–
Quiz for you: Did he also state publicly that this letter was the “only possible interpretation” of AL?
–
Not to mention that that point was not germane to the argument in any sense. What’s your point?
I’m going to answer an objective to my own argument. Cyprian might say, “You are arguing that modernists in St. Pius Xth’s time could not be overt because they would be rooted out, and that a false church need have no such concern, but then you use the example of Cranmer’s *gradual* changes from the Mass to his heretical service! Aha! So you admit that a false church might also be sly with heresy!”
–
First, Cranmer’s changes were in the areas of things comfortable to the laity – smells & bells, as it were. The Church of England was blatant with its heresy from day 1 – heck, it’s even the same heresy we’re dealing with today! Except that, unlike with the Church of England, the Catholic Church still *officially* teaches that marriage is indissoluble, and, in fact, Francis has never made the slightest move toward changing *dogma*. (He knows he can’t – one way or another.)
–
So, while we have examples in history of breakaway heretical sects trying to maintain the outward appearances of the true Church (look at an Anglican High “Mass” even today!), it’s beyond any dispute that the modernists before the Revolution (council) were deep in hiding, and, more importantly, that a truly false church would have every reason to change it’s *teachings*, officially, not just its praxis.
–
Furthermore, such a change in teaching is *exactly what the world wants* (this is the opposite of what Cranmer was dealing with). The world, and most self-identifying Catholics, would absolutely love for the Catholic Church to change its moral dogmas to suit it, across the board.
–
And that is what a false church would do.
“Objection,” not “objective.”
@Catholic Thinker: The Church judges solely by external acts. If Pope Francis states to a subordinate that his definitive understanding on the dissolubility of marriage would not be set forth where one would expect – his apostolic exhortation AL – because to do so “would create a mess” and then later attempts to tie “the premises that are there” in AL together in a PRIVATE LETTER what can we infer? That he knew he was teaching a new heretical doctrine that would be rejected out of hand if set forth explicitly. In secular law these facts are evidence of a guilty mind.
Cath Thinker, I went to an SSPX chapel this morning. It was quite visible to me. In fact it was so visible that I could see it from the road. Inside they said a real true Catholic Mass. Inside was a real true priest, ordained according to the pre V2 rites by a bishop ordained according to the pre V2 rites. Hosts were validly consecrated by a true priests. The faithful, who I assume profess the One True Faith were present. And while I may disagee in a matter of opinion as to who currently occupies or does not occupy the See of Peter, it was all quite visible to me and my fellow Catholics. I am assured that all around the globe there were many more of us who profess the One True Faith who also attended chapels or churches or oratories that offered a Rite pleasing to God. That is where the Church was this morning and everyday. And by the way, I can tell you where the church was not this morning, nor will it not be in the morning, nor where it has not been for the past 50 plus years. Yes, you guesses it, it has not been in Rome.
I also attended Mass at my SSPX chapel as we do every week.
–
Your answer demonstrates you don’t understand the material or you’re playing games. And, of course, the SSPX rejects the material heresy you’re preaching here and always has. They recognize the Church as the Church.
I should also point out for the audience that the SSPX do not reject the Paul VI rites of ordination and consecration as invalid, although they DO sometimes perform conditional ordination (and confirmation) when there are material reasons to doubt the validity of one done by the regular hierarchy (for example, a case of a bishop openly denying he is consecrating a priest for the purpose of offering the Sacrifice).
Why would the Holy Ghost protect the NO so transubstantiation takes place, knowing that great sacrileges would take place in the handling of those hosts? It seems to me that the Holy Ghost would protect the Blessed Sacrament from such sacrileges by making null and void and invalid the NO abomination.
If valid, which is debatable, the NO would still be displeasing to God since the structure of the NO is a meal and not a sacrifice. The reason a host is consecrated is to be immolated and consumed thus completing the Most Holy Sacrifice. To be used for any other purpose is sacrilege. The NO in most parish masses treats the Eucharist as a community meal solely for the nourishment of the congregation.
Once again I am wondering what your point is.
–
First, for clarity, it’s pretty much immaterial whether or not the pope has stated publicly or privately that he wishes AL to be interpreted to allow Communion for the “remarried.” He did so in a private letter and then, later, publicly, confirmed that position. In point of fact, there’s been virtually no doubt among those paying attention that this was the wish of this pope all along. He was praising this so-called “Kasper Proposal,” what, three years ago now.
–
So, I completely agree that this is what the pope wants and what AL was designed to achieve. These things are plain for all with eyes to see. (As for whether or not Francis may actually believe that Christ wants this kind of “mercy,” he just might be diabolically disoriented enough for that to be the case. But if he is, he might still be culpable for it. The Church does not judge internals, as you note, so that’s all academic.)
–
Whether he’s admitted it privately or publicly and whether or not it’s true, my point is still standing off in the corner twiddling its thumbs: Pope Francis is playing only with praxis, leaving dogma untouched. A false church would have no reason to do this. All those actual false churches we’ve had to observe for a good long while now don’t do it; they make their false teachings as “official” as can be (or fail to define positive moral law, etc.).
–
AL is really plain enough. What it intends to say as been plain to everyone except the neo-Catholics with their heads in the sand since before the ink was dry. But it’s nothing but praxis. (Now, that’s not to say it isn’t deadly serious: How many souls will perish forever due to taking advantage of the moral laxity it allows along with the profanation of the Eucharist? How many priests and bishops will fall into the pit for keeping silent or, even worse, promoting its errors?)
And for the umpteenth time, the Church has not failed. What has failed are the clergy and faithful who no longer know the Catholic faith and believe that an organization headquartered in Rome that professes protestant ideas is the Catholic Church. That Cath Thinker would be you. You have failed. You have failed the basics of logic and reason. You want me and others to believe that some one who professes protestant ideas is Catholic. It is simply absurd and you know it, but for some reason you keep believing it.
Tom, according to you, yourself, the Catholic Church that existed from 33 to 1958 (or is it 1965? what’s the year for you?) no longer exists as the same visible, hierarchical Body. That is saying that the Church failed, because there’s always ever been or will be one true Church.
–
So now you come to simple personal insult, always a sign of desperation. (Now, if you insulted me AND offered something of substance, that might be a slightly different thing, but we don’t have that here.)
–
“…an organization headquartered in Rome that professes protestant ideas is the Catholic Church” – again, no distinction whatsoever between binding and non-binding teaching, doctrine & praxis, etc. Nothing but a ridiculous, childish – to be frank – gross oversimplification of Catholic teaching and of reality.
–
During the Arian crisis, 90-99% of the bishops professed a material heresy that *denied the divinity of Christ*, and the Pope himself signed a heterodox formula to attempt to appease the Arians. The Church did not fail then. Other popes have been condemned for heresy (*by the Church*), but the Church didn’t stop being the Church then, nor did it when John XXII preached his (rather mild, admittedly, yet heresy is heresy) publicly.
–
The set of defined dogmas is the same now as it was before the Council. No Catholic is bound to new, false teaching.
–
I do wonder what you are doing in an SSPX chapel. The Society does and always has rejected your errors. Priests who profess what you do are expelled from their ranks if they do not recant. You really should talk to your priest; he may be able to help. In any case, as long as you keep spreading your errors here, I’ll do my best to stay on top of them.
–
Keep insulting me if you like; it reveals the value of your arguments.
Tom, according to you, yourself, the Catholic Church that existed from 33 to 1958 (or is it 1965? what’s the year for you?) no longer exists as the same visible, hierarchical Body. That is saying that the Church failed, because there’s always ever been or will be one true Church.
–
So now you come to simple personal insult, always a sign of desperation. (Now, if you insulted me AND offered something of substance, that might be a slightly different thing, but we don’t have that here.)
–
“…an organization headquartered in Rome that professes protestant ideas is the Catholic Church” – again, no distinction whatsoever between binding and non-binding teaching, doctrine & praxis, etc. Nothing but a ridiculous, childish – to be frank – gross oversimplification of Catholic teaching and of reality.
–
During the Arian crisis, 90-99% of the bishops professed a material heresy that *denied the divinity of Christ*, and the Pope himself signed a heterodox formula to attempt to appease the Arians. The Church did not fail then. Other popes have been condemned for heresy (*by the Church*), but the Church didn’t stop being the Church then, nor did it when John XXII preached his (rather mild, admittedly, yet heresy is heresy) publicly.
–
The set of defined dogmas is the same now as it was before the Council. No Catholic is bound to new, false teaching.
–
I do wonder what you are doing in an SSPX chapel. The Society does and always has rejected your errors. Priests who profess what you do are expelled from their ranks if they do not recant. You really should talk to your priest; he may be able to help. In any case, as long as you keep spreading your errors here, I’ll do my best to stay on top of them.
–
Keep insulting me if you like; it reveals the value of your arguments.
Sorry for the duplicate post (again) below.
–
First, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is both a sacrifice and a meal, but it is the Sacrifice that is primary. (Just as with the Old Testament sacrifices, which were confused, there can be no meal without a sacrifice; the meal is entirely secondary and subordinate to it.)
–
Secondly, yes, it’s true, obviously, that the Novus Ordo Rite obscures the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and for that reason alone IT (the RITE, not a Mass offered by it) is, objectively an abomination, as I’ve said here a number of times.
–
“If valid, which is debatable, the NO would still be displeasing to God…” In a valid Mass, of course, the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ are offered to the Father. You are now saying that God the Father finds the offering of His Son, God, displeasing to him. Hmm.
–
I’m going to just state what the Society says about the Novus Ordo, given that you’re an SSPX Mass-goer and all. The Rite is, per se, defective, as described here. However, God, in His goodness, has retained in it the elements necessary to use it to confect a valid Eucharist.
–
To ask whether or not the Novus Ordo *Rite* is valid or not is nonsensical – the question, rather, is whether or not Masses said with it are or can be valid. The answer is that yes, they can be. However, because intent – one of the three pieces necessary for any valid sacrament – may well be lacking (there are priests who do not intend to offer the Sacrifice when they say Mass), the validity of individual Masses can certainly be doubtful.
–
Further, because the Rite itself is a danger to the faith, it is to be avoided.
@Catholic Thinker: In the comment thread to a previous post, you provided two examples as follows [your words]:
–
“Pope Francis has not publicly renounced the Catholic faith, and the Church teaches that when that is not the case, PERTINACITY IN HERESY (which is the rejection of the Church per se as teacher) CAN ONLY COME FROM THE CHURCH.” [caps added for emphasis]
–
“Thus, every cafeteria Catholic who says, “I’m Catholic BUT DON’T ACCEPT WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES ABOUT X” is, from all appearances at least, a formal heretic.” [caps added for emphasis]
–
Your apparent position in that prior discussion is that Catholics – in the absence of a Church declaration – can conclude that a person is pertinacious and hence a formal heretic if that person states in so many words that he rejects the Church as the rule of faith [like the cafeteria Catholic did in the second of your examples].
–
In contrast, you argue that since Pope Francis has not yet added to his material heresies that he rejects the Church as the rule of faith we cannot conclude that he is a formal heretic – only the Church can try him for pertinacity.
–
Your position is untenable for several reasons, one of which is that it is now heretical. I am not concerned with your flirtation with condemned gallicanism here. Rather, I argue that anyone who is paying attention to the antics of Pope Francis can conclude that he knows exactly what he is doing. We don’t need to wait form him to say the magic words “I reject the Church as the rule of faith”.
–
We know that what Pope Francis teaches in AL – that marriage is effectively dissoluble – is materially heretical. I argue that it is clear from his behavior and statements reported above that we can infer that he knows he is rejecting the Church as the rule of faith – hence he is a formal heretic.
–
In secular legal terms his documented behavior and statements evidence a guilty mind – he knows what he is teaching is heretical. Further, he attempted to spread his false teaching out in a disjointed collection comprising a public apostolic exhortation and a private letter – just like Pope St. Pius X warned us was the manner of modernist heretics. He is now like the cafeteria Catholic in your examples reproduced above. Both the cafeteria Catholic and Pope Francis publicly deny the Church as the rule of faith – except that the cafeteria Catholic stated it in so many words, whereas Pope Francis demonstrated it in a combination of words and actions – words and actions that evidence malice.
–
So why are Siscoe and Salza still arguing that a trial is needed? The simple teaching of Pope St. Pius X and the treacherous public statements and behavior evidence that his heresy is willful.
Do you know that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais thinks the new rites of Holy orders are either doubtful or invalid?
This is the issue with the Novus Ordo.
It was either legally promulgated by the pope, or it wasn’t.
I think it was not properly promulgated, as do you. If it was not made law by the pope, and it wasn’t, then it cannot properly be called a Catholic rite. This much is knowable with reasonable certainty by comparing it to what the Church teaches. So what guarantee do we have that it is valid? Substantial changes were made, even to the consecration itself, and we agree that it does not officially come from the Church. So, why assert that it is valid rather than invalid? There is no law from the Church to give you any assurance.
Cath Thinker, in the 4th Century the Church did not fail because Athanisius and a few others held to Tradition and the true faith. Thank you for pointing out that even if 99% of the Church defects, yet only a small remnant remain to profess the True Faith, that the Church survives, exists, and is visible. That is what I and others have been trying to tell you. The Church still exists and is visible even though the Pope defects.
Tom, could it possibly be that the Holy Ghost might “protect the NO so transubstantiation takes place” so that the thousands, maybe millions of us who hold the faith but have no access to the TLM might be able to receive our Lord? Sacrileges did not begin with the NO, they existed before. But just as everyone who attends a NO Mass does not fall into the category of “neo-catholic”, neither did all who assisted at Mass before the Second Vatican Council receive our Lord worthily. When I look at Christ on the cross, I often marvel how He could love us so much that He continues to make Himself vulnerable to sacrilege and blasphemy so that those of us who love Him might be fed and might adore.
It seems to me that our good God loves us so much, even those of us who can’t worship fully in the way He desires, that He is willing to suffer even more for us than He did on Calvary. That, to me Tom, is amazing. And I offer back to Him the sacrifice of not being able to worship Him in the way that most pleases Him.
Tom, again you prove my point: You asserting that the visible, hierarchical Church failed in the time of the Arians, surviving only as an invisible group (of visible people). That is a heretical, Protestant definition of the Church. In fact, the specific, hierarchical Church that Christ founded did not disappear or change form during the Arian crisis or this one: The Body was the same, in both cases, before, during, and after.
–
Your teaching is no different whatsoever than that of the Lutherans, who claim that the Church that Christ founded defected and that they (a loose body of individuals) and other like-minded individuals are now the true Church.
–
Because you clearly do not understand the topic, and are unaware of what the Church teaches regarding Her visibility and indefectibility, I will provide relevant quotes this evening when I’m at home and have the time.
–
For now, I’m going to point out that there is a popular quote attributed to St. Athanasius that is actually a forgery. He never said, “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ”; it does not appear in the source document. This is detailed in “True Or False Pope,” page 35. Salza & Siscoe remark, “[W]homever first translated it evidently added that sentence at the end.” The source document, newly translated, does not have anything akin to that sentence. (This was an eye-opener for me since I’d used it in the past myself.)
That is nothing but a rumor. It’s not something he teaches publicly, and, in any case, has never been the position of the Society.
Dennis, maybe, but then again maybe not.
Cath Thinker, you raise valid questions. Everything since V2 is ambigious and therefore doubtful. That is why I advocate St Paul’s words to hold fast to tradition. It is why I believe doubt even creeps into the issue of who occupies or doesnt occupy the See of Peter. Nothing since that dreadful Council can be trusted except Tradition. When in doubt with sacraments we are to avoid them. To approach a doubtful sacrament is a sin. This is why I must disagree with your dogmatic sedeplenist position and prefer my sedevacantist opinion. One day it will be settled by competent Church authority.
I would like to agree with you, Catholic Thinker, but with respect, here is some information that is contrary to what you say in your post, which in charity I assume you are not aware of.
I don’t think you will like the sources, but they simply present the factual statements of the Bishop.
On Bishop Tissier de Mallerais’ doubt regarding the validity of the new Episcopal Consecrations in 1998, please scroll to point 2 on the linked page.
“…I concluded there was a doubt about the validity of episcopal consecration conferred according to the rite of Paul VI.”
http://www.fathercekada.com/2013/11/28/sspx-bishops-on-bishops-and-bishops/
On his doubt regarding the new Ordination rite, please see this from June 2016.
“…we cannot accept this new, tampered with ordination rite, which casts doubts on the validity of numerous ordinations [done] according to the new rite.”
http://novusordowatch.org/2016/07/tissier-invalidity-novus-ordo-ordinations/
Perhaps I should be more succinct.
The Novus isn’t made binding upon anyone. What guarantee does one then have that the tampered words of consecration, and the supression of the theological ideas which manifest the correct the intention, produce a valid sacrament?
Why not leave it as doubtful and to be avoided, rather than insist that it is valid?
There are a few things that bug me about Fr Malachi Martin. I hope I’m wrong about them.
The sacerdotal terminology which remains in the Novus Ordo only refers to the “priesthood of all believers”, which is an acceptable protestant idea. While there is nothing at all heretical in this type of priesthood, whose duty is to offer the sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise to God, the Novus Ordo’s supression of the ministerial priesthood ordained to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, distorts yet again the Faith in the minds of the Faithful, because the common priesthood remains unqualified by the lack of reference to the ministerial priesthood.
“It is now theologically possible for Protestants to use the same Mass as Catholics.”
Max Thurian, Protestant Theologian, 1969.
I’m aware of the statements. His opinion is in the minority, and even he is not asserting that the rites cannot be used to confect valid sacraments (though his language is certainly more negative on the question than the official Society position).
–
There is really no doubt that the rites have retained essential form and have no inherent invalidity – this is covered in detail in True Or False Pope (a work endorsed by Bishop Fellay and which supersedes in time Bishop de Mallerais’ statements).
–
Very little is necessary for proper form (the words) in these rites. Unfortunately I’m not an expert on this topic because I always thought these sede arguments to be even sillier than their other ones, but, I’ll post just a bit here, opening up TOFP.
–
The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Ordination is based on the ancient “Apostolic Tradition Of [St.] Hippolytus,” which dates to about 217, and is the oldest rite of its kind known to exist. Its language is very similar to that used in Maronite and Coptic Eastern Rite Churches. On page 592 of TOFP one can see the text of the Rite of Hippolytus against that of the 1968, and they are virtually identical in form.
–
Very much unlike with the Novus Ordo Rite, which he rightly condemned, Cardinal Ottaviani and the other conservatives of the Council approved this new rite with no complaints.
Yes, this is one more example of the Protestantization of the Mass.
That’s not a terrible line of reasoning, but I think the Holy Ghost would choose to not deprive the vast majority of Catholic with the graces of the Most Holy Eucharist for many decades.
–
Though I can no longer attend even the most reverent NO because I know what I know, it is not true that a Rite of Mass said using it in a reverent manner is a blatant affront to God. The *Rite* is an abomination in the sense of what it *omits* (think of St. Thomas’ definition of evil as the lack of a necessary good), but a Mass using it is not offensive *in and of itself*. Now there is the brilliance of the Holy Ghost.
“To be avoided” – without doubt.
–
“Not Catholic” – also true in a sense. It was designed to strip away those “barriers” Protestants see in the Holy Sacrifice. It is not the received and approved Rite of Mass for the Latin Church – the Tridentine is.
–
The question of the possibility of validity of a Mass said with the Rite is what it is: We answer not with any goal in mind, though I don’t think the Holy Ghost would allow such a thing as a rite of Mass that absolutely could not be used to confect a valid sacrament to be used in the majority of the Catholic Church for the better part of a century.
–
What do you think the first Mass after the Ascension looked like? What is the bare minimum necessary to confect a valid Eucharist? Form, matter, and intent. The latter two are simple enough, and, in fact, so is the form: “This is My Body… This is My Blood.”
–
Now, I’m by no means promoting the error of antiquarianism here: The ancient is NOT preferable because it is simpler. The Mind of the Church was intended to grow, and the Mass evolved, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, into greater over pomp & reverence for the Eucharist. To slash & burn that natural and holy advance (development of doctrine in the true sense) is not holy, and if done so expressly to obscure the core truths of the Mass, it is evil.
–
However, to come back to the point, it does not take much to be able to confect a valid Eucharist. To be honest, there is not much question here for the theologians.
Again Cath Thinker, the last authoritative word we have on ordinations and all sacramental forms comes from Pius XII. This puts any changes to those forms not in compliance with Pius XII into doubt until authoritatively ruled upon (by a True Pope).
I have no desire to get into any further quarrel with you, so I am simply providing a reply in charity.
St Thomas Aquinas and Pope St Pius V disagree with you that the mere “This is My Blood” effects the Sacrament. They teach that the entire form all the way down to “the remission of sins” is required for validity. This is because the words after “My Blood” signify the effect of the Sacrament – i.e. the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ, and the cause of the unity is the shedding of the Precious Blood. A Sacrament signifies what it effects, and effects what it signifies, as you know.
This is why it was argued that “for you and for all” made the consecration invalid for 45 years.
Pardon the interruption, but if the Church is reduced to just a few bishops, priests, and faithful, how can it have failed?
Also, the VII council seems to say that Jews don’t need Jesus to be saved but that their covenant remains valid for them which goes against dogmatic and Biblical teaching that the older covenant was done away with in Christ. All the modernist popes taught this from John XXIII down to Francis, particularly, with regard to Francis, in his Encyclical Evangelii Gaudium. That to me is a form of apostasy or a denial of Christ as the only Savior and is far worse than changes to the Mass, bad as they are. As an aside, no faithful Catholic can participate in the NO Good Friday liturgy prayers,particularly when it comes to the prayer for the Jews.
It is dogma that Peter will have perpetual successors.
–
But, besides that, your assertion presumes that the visible Church *has* failed, since the visible Church that *used to be* the Catholic Church (before 1958, or whatever) is no longer.
–
How would your random group of priests or bishops ever elect a pope again? Obviously, that’s not possible.
–
Even more importantly, according to this thesis, the Church has lost its formal and universal visibility: The ability for people to know and recognize the Church as a specific Body they must enter for salvation. According to your suggestion, this isn’t possible/necessary.
–
Again, you’re suggesting exactly the heretical Protestant definition of the Church: some community of true believes. Who or what they are is not plain for all the world to see.
–
That’s not what the Catholic Church teaches about herself. I had a busy night with family and did not provide for Tom the theological definitions I’d intended to. I will do that. They make clear that the true Church cannot be reduced to just a few people here & there, while the Body that *was* the true Church is no longer.
Many things are argued. 🙂 I know some Seventh Day Adventists that make a heck of a case.
–
I DID NOT mean to assert that ONLY the words I gave were required – that is why there were ellipsis there. I’d thought about making that explicit, and now wish I’d had. Of course more than those eight words are necessary – but the bare minimum necessary in form is still met by the NO rite.
–
I don’t think St. Thomas taught quite what you seem to be suggesting. Also, I thought you’re SSPX. The greatest minds in the Society, including Archbishop Lefebvre, held the position that the rite could be used for a valid sacrament. Certainly that’s at least of strong interest. +Lefebvre did have a doctorate in theology from probably the premier source of Catholic teaching at the time and all.
–
But this tangent is not welcome for me either at this point. Heck, I have to go to bed.
–
The bad English translation that stood for so long is an interesting case, but I don’t think that God is bound by such a degree of legal formality. Neither did St. Thomas.
Your lack of logic and circular reasoning can be pretty amazing to behold. That’s about all I can say.
Before speaking of the visibility of the Church per se, a brief detour into the nature of the papacy. Is it possible for the office of the papacy to be empty for extremely long periods of time – decades, even the better part of a century, as the sedevacantists assert? No, not really.
–
Vatican I, Session IV, Ch. II: “…if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter *should have perpetual successors in the primary over the whole Church*; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.”
–
“Perpetual” means continuous as well as unbroken – large gaps in time are not congruent with this teaching. The illustrious 20th century theologian, Fr. E. Sylvester Berry (whom sedes like to quote, actually), notes that, “the successors of St. Peter… form *an unbroken line of supreme pastors to rule the Church in its continued existence*… the Church must have a custodian, a supreme law-giver and judge, if she is to continue as Christ founded her.” The illustrious Msgr. Van Noort echoes: “It is a fact beyond question that the Church can never fail to have a successor to Peter.” (Both these quotes are on p21 of True Or False Pope.)
–
(Note that in times of multiple papal claimants, such as the Great Schism, there was a true pope, though his identity was not plainly known – his reign was not a dogmatic fact (unlike the situation today) since he had not been accepted by a moral unanimity of the episcopate. It should also be apparent to common sense that the brief period of an election, necessary as they are, do not violate this rule.)
–
On, now, to the visibility of the Church. Van Noort wrote that, “That the Church is visible follows necessarily from the fact that it is a real society, for there can be no genuine society in the world of men unless it is visible.” (Christ’s Church, quoted in TOFP, p25.)
–
This visibility has both material and formal aspects – the latter, basically, speaks to the ability of people to recognize the Church for what She is – the true Church, which men are *commanded* to enter for their salvation (God could not command such a thing if the Church were not both materially visible and able to be recognized as the true Church). It is the Church’s four Marks that give it formal visibility.
–
Fr. Berry, “The Church of Christ”: “The Church of Christ is formally visible, not only as a Church, but also as the true Church of Christ. **This is an article of faith, having been defined by the Vatican Council in the following words: ‘God established a Church through His only begotten Son, and endowed it with manifest marks of its institution, that it might be known by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed world.”
–
Sede objections of, “the Church isn’t teaching truth anymore!!” and so on do not really hold water because the *official* teachings of the Church have not changed one whit in the past 50 years. The set of defined dogma is the same now as then; yes, this is the protection by the Holy Ghost of His Church, and, yes, this is the *opposite* of what we’d expect to see from a false church aping the true Church.
–
It should be readily apparent that this formal visibility is indeed a *necessary* attribute of the Church, as Fr. Berry points out is, in fact, a de fide teaching (this means, in point of simple fact, to deny or obstinately doubt it is material heresy). Next, we come to the closely related additional attributes of indefectibility, which means, simply, that the Church cannot “fail.” Despite what has been asserted here time and again, having one Catholic in his basement with his Bible somewhere in the world is *not* sufficient to hold back “failure” – the Church must remain materially and formally visible, as noted above.
–
Fr. Berry, “The Church Of Christ,” TOFP p30: “Perpetuity is indefectibility in existence. Strictly speaking, indefectibility pertains to the essential qualities of the Church, perpetuity to her existence. These two qualities, although distinct, are so closely related that it is difficult to treat them separately… If the Church is indefectible in her essential qualities and perpetual in her existence, **she must be perpetually indefectible in all essential qualities**.”
–
There we have it: The Church will always be formally visible. Period. This is *not* the hidden, underground, invisible church of the sedevacantists.
–
According to the sedes, there was the Catholic Church, in 1958, then the day after John XXIII’s election, POOF – she’s just plain gone. And still nowhere to be found – except in sede chapels here or there. Again, this is textbook Protestant ecclesiastical theology – PERIOD!
–
Just as the evil, heretical Arian bishops (90-99% of the hierarchy at the time) did indeed constitute the visible Church then, along with its head, the predominantly (that may even be slightly too harsh) modernist bishops of today do as well, like it or not.
–
Cardinal Billot – another eminent theologian – explained that the Church publicly adhering to a false pope would irreparably damage her indefectibility – it would make Christ’s promise a lie: “… the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined pontiff, and therefore also of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself… For the adhesion of the Church to a false pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith.”
–
(You can’t wiggle out of this by saying it’s a false church that’s accepted these false popes – see above.)
–
Was this fun? All this is contained in only the very first chapter of “True Or False Pope,” folks. And, FYI, I paid for my copy like everybody else.
In the comments above the topic of the “visibility” of the Church became quite relevant. Can the Church just “disappear,” formally (meaning people cannot recognize Her to be able to join with Her)? Is what the sedevacantists teach – that the Church has now morphed into an invisible body of visible members, essentially identical to the Protestant definition – tenable? No and no. That is not what the Catholic Church teaches about Herself. Below is something I just put together, more or less cliff notes from chapter 1 of True Or False Pope.
–
Before speaking of the visibility of the Church per se, a brief detour into the nature of the papacy. Is it possible for the office of the papacy to be empty for extremely long periods of time – decades, even the better part of a century, as the sedevacantists assert? No, not really.
–
Vatican I, Session IV, Ch. II: “…if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter *should have perpetual successors in the primary over the whole Church*; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.”
–
“Perpetual” means continuous as well as unbroken – large gaps in time are not congruent with this teaching. The illustrious 20th century theologian, Fr. E. Sylvester Berry (whom sedes like to quote, actually), notes that, “the successors of St. Peter… form *an unbroken line of supreme pastors to rule the Church in its continued existence*… the Church must have a custodian, a supreme law-giver and judge, if she is to continue as Christ founded her.” The illustrious Msgr. Van Noort echoes: “It is a fact beyond question that the Church can never fail to have a successor to Peter.” (Both these quotes are on p21 of True Or False Pope.)
–
(Note that in times of multiple papal claimants, such as the Great Schism, there was a true pope, though his identity was not plainly known – his reign was not a dogmatic fact (unlike the situation today) since he had not been accepted by a moral unanimity of the episcopate. It should also be apparent to common sense that the brief period of an election, necessary as they are, do not violate this rule.)
–
On, now, to the visibility of the Church. Van Noort wrote that, “That the Church is visible follows necessarily from the fact that it is a real society, for there can be no genuine society in the world of men unless it is visible.” (Christ’s Church, quoted in TOFP, p25.)
–
This visibility has both material and formal aspects – the latter, basically, speaks to the ability of people to recognize the Church for what She is – the true Church, which men are *commanded* to enter for their salvation (God could not command such a thing if the Church were not both materially visible and able to be recognized as the true Church). It is the Church’s four Marks that give it formal visibility.
–
Fr. Berry, “The Church of Christ”: “The Church of Christ is formally visible, not only as a Church, but also as the true Church of Christ. **This is an article of faith, having been defined by the Vatican Council in the following words: ‘God established a Church through His only begotten Son, and endowed it with manifest marks of its institution, that it might be known by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed world.”
–
Sede objections of, “the Church isn’t teaching truth anymore!!” and so on do not really hold water because the *official* teachings of the Church have not changed one whit in the past 50 years. The set of defined dogma is the same now as then; yes, this is the protection by the Holy Ghost of His Church, and, yes, this is the *opposite* of what we’d expect to see from a false church aping the true Church.
–
It should be readily apparent that this formal visibility is indeed a *necessary* attribute of the Church, as Fr. Berry points out is, in fact, a de fide teaching (this means, in point of simple fact, to deny or obstinately doubt it is material heresy). Next, we come to the closely related additional attributes of indefectibility, which means, simply, that the Church cannot “fail.” Despite what has been asserted here time and again, having one Catholic in his basement with his Bible somewhere in the world is *not* sufficient to hold back “failure” – the Church must remain materially and formally visible, as noted above.
–
Fr. Berry, “The Church Of Christ,” TOFP p30: “Perpetuity is indefectibility in existence. Strictly speaking, indefectibility pertains to the essential qualities of the Church, perpetuity to her existence. These two qualities, although distinct, are so closely related that it is difficult to treat them separately… If the Church is indefectible in her essential qualities and perpetual in her existence, **she must be perpetually indefectible in all essential qualities**.”
–
There we have it: The Church will always be formally visible. Period. This is *not* the hidden, underground, invisible church of the sedevacantists.
–
According to the sedes, there was the Catholic Church, in 1958, then the day after John XXIII’s election, POOF – she’s just plain gone. And still nowhere to be found – except in sede chapels here or there. Again, this is textbook Protestant ecclesiastical theology – PERIOD!
–
Just as the evil, heretical Arian bishops (90-99% of the hierarchy at the time) did indeed constitute the visible Church then, along with its head, the predominantly (that may even be slightly too harsh) modernist bishops of today do as well, like it or not.
–
Cardinal Billot – another eminent theologian – explained that the Church publicly adhering to a false pope would irreparably damage her indefectibility – it would make Christ’s promise a lie: “… the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined pontiff, and therefore also of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself… For the adhesion of the Church to a false pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith.”
–
(You can’t wiggle out of this by saying it’s a false church that’s accepted these false popes – see above.)
–
Was this fun? All this is contained in only the very first chapter of “True Or False Pope,” folks. And, FYI, I paid for my copy like everybody else.
Catholic Thinker, you don’t have to say so either way, but I am wondering if your first name might be either John or Robert.
A heretic cannot succeed to the Chair of Peter to begin with though. You throw things out there (out of context) just like a typical protestant bible-verser.
What a silly reply.
–
First, you didn’t engage the material *at all*, as usual – you threw out some unrelated red herring.
–
Secondly, you’re just repeated, ad infinitum, one of the root sede errors: The complete failure to distinguish between the sin and the crime of heresy. The former (judged only by GOD, not you) does not severe from the Body of the Church. No theologian in the history of the Church has ever taught that. It is complete nonsense.
Asserting that someone who commits the *sin* of heresy loses membership in the *Body* of the Church is quite false, and a gross oversimplification of Catholic doctrine – according to ALL authorities that have ever taught on the matter (and according to common sense as well).
–
Suarez: “I affirm: if he were a heretic and incorrigible the Pope would cease to be Pope **just when a sentence was passed against him for his crime, by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church**. This is the **common opinion among the doctors**” (De Fide, disp. X, sect. VI, nn. 3-10, p. 316). This is what is all theologians and popes who have spoken *on the question of loss of ecclesiastical office, which is a matter of the external forum* agree on: a person must be convicted of the *crime* of heresy to be severed from the Body. This means that every person on the Internet cannot decide for himself which popes are or were actually valid popes.
–
(In addition to the “common opinion of the doctors,” the above position is also the *most liberal* on the matter – the other school of thought (the so-called Dominican) holds that a pontiff, once judged a pertinacious heretic **by the Church**, must still be deposed by an (imperfect) general council of the Church. John of St. Thomas also held that the declaration of heresy can *also* come only from such a council, citing the historical examples of popes Marcellinus (Council of Sinuesso) and Symmachus.)
–
With sedevacantism, it’s all about what establishes establishes formal heresy, or even what “is” heresy as referred to by the theologians (because this is also misunderstood). The *sin* of heresy separates one from the Soul of the Church (as a mortal sin against the divine virtue of Faith, it divests one entirely of Faith as well as sanctifying grace), but is actually totally unrelated to the external forum, in which ecclesiastical office lies. The *crime* of heresy, on the other hand – which is declared *by the Church* – *can* sever a man from ecclesiastical office. (There is more to it in the case of a pope, since he is not subject to canon law and cannot be judged by the Church for any *other* crime, which is why the case of deposition of a heretical pontiff is treated very much as a “special case” by the mind of the Church.)
–
Let’s start with the definition of formal heresy. What it is, in fact – its very nature – is *rejection of the Church as the rule of faith*. This is what a manual of dogmatic theology will tell you. Note that that is more than simply the willful rejection of a specific (implicit or defined) dogma: The subject must consciously reject the Catholic Church *as* the arbiter of truth. As Cardinal Billot puts it, “… the nature of heresy consists in withdrawal from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium” (“De Ecclesia Christi”).
–
Next, there is the question of how the guilt of such a crime – the worst there is, actually – can be determined. Can I determine a pope is a formal heretic, as the sedevacantists insist? No, actually, I cannot; no individual can do such a thing, because none of us can judge the soul of a man, which is what is necessary to know that he does, in fact, willfully reject the Church
–
This frustrates sedevacantists, and, in a sense, this frustration is understandable. I am faced with a personal detestation of Pope Francis again & again, every time I hear some new blasphemous comment, clearly erroneous statement, insult of faithful Catholics trying to live their faith, etc. But I recognize that any personal judgements I might make of his soul, however tempting and even seemingly obvious, are simply meaningless. They can’t change the fact that he’s the pope, and it’s patently ridiculous to believe otherwise. It’s an emotional comfort to some, but nothing more.
–
(Here’s a little mind game we can play. They will quote Bellarmine stating that heresy cuts a man off from the Church, not realizing that he is referring to the *crime* of heresy (as determined by the Church, by definition), rather than the personal sin of heresy. If they are correct in what they’re asserting – that the SIN of heresy cuts a man off from the *Body* (as opposed to the Soul, which is actually the case) – then they really ought to become Protestants in fact as well as spirit, since this makes the Church nothing but a house of cards. Consider: Pope Pius V, some time before he ratified the Council of Trent, committed the sin of heresy, cut himself off from the Church, and became an anti-pope. Thus, Trent’s dogmas are nothing; they are not truth. Its anathemas are likewise meaningless. This is what the sedevacantist mindset does to the Church: It neuters it completely. In reality, the answer to this crisis of the Church, as history shows us was the case with prior abuses of papal power and papal error, is to recognize valid ecclesiastical authority but resist its public material errors, in the very rare cases such exist.)
–
So, as Suarez himself tells us above, it’s the common opinion – and the alternative opinion is further yet from the sedevacantist thesis of private judgement – that a pope loses his office when, but certainly not before, a judgement of heresy against him by the Church. Let’s now take a look at the common sede “objection” (which are de facto objections to the mind of the Church): The pope cannot be judged by the Church; he is not subject to canon law.
–
While it’s indeed true that the pope is *not* subject to canon law, the common opinion is that heresy is the one exception to the rule that a sitting pope cannot be judged.
–
St. Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church: “We must point out, besides, that the faithful can certainly distinguish a true prophet (teacher) from a false one, by the rule that we have laid down, but for all that, if the pastor is a bishop, they cannot depose him and put another in his place [recognize]. For Our Lord and the Apostles only lay down that false prophets are not to be listened to by the people [resist], and not that they depose them [recognize]. And it is certain that the practice of the Church has always been that heretical bishops be deposed by bishop’s councils, or by the Sovereign Pontiff” (from “De Membris Ecclesiae”, as quoted in “True Or False Pope”, pp 645-646; bracketed portions are from True of False Pope). So, the sedes’ go-to theologian tells us that false prophets are “not to be listened to” *and* specifically that they “not depose him”.
–
Pope Adrian II: “It is true that Honorius was posthumumously anathematised by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in mind that he had been accused of heresy, **the only offense which renders lawful the resistance of subordinates to their superiors, and their rejection of the latter’s pernicious teachings**” (Cited by Billot, “Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi”, as quoted in “True or False Pope”, pp 647, emphasis mine).
–
The canon Si Papa, part of canon law for around eight centuries, says this: “Let no mortal man presume to accuse the Pope of fault, for, it being incumbent upon him to judge all, he should be judged by no one, **unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith**.” (This quote is sometimes attributed directly to Pope Innocent III; it is likely not his, but clearly reflects not just theological opinion but Church law. It is also used by sedevacantists to justify individuals’ formal separation from/deposition of a pontiff, but it clearly justifies no such thing.)
–
This (“a pope cannot be judged by the Church”) is the only objection the sedevacantists have against these teachings (which are what Bellarmine, Suarez, and every other theologian who spoke on the matter taught). It’s not a real objection. The sedes have no answer to the fact that heresy has long been recognized as the sole exception to this rule. (And it’s far from an arbitrary exception: Heresy does indeed make a man until to hold any ecclesiastical office, much less the highest, but the judgement of heresy has to be that of the Church. As Bellarmine also noted, just as the Church is intimately involved with binding a man to the form of the papacy, so must she be involved in severing the bond. If this were not the case, the result would be de-facto anarchy at any time.)
–
Note that these Doctors of the Church, popes, and theologians taught these things knowing full well that the supreme pontiff has full juridical authority over the Church Militant (this was taught since the time of the Fathers – the teaching was formalized, not invented, at Vatican Council I).
–
(Regarding he canonical warnings given to a possibly heretical pope, as John Salza states, “Because the Church has no authority over the Pope, these warnings **do not constitute an act of jurisdiction (as they would for other Catholics), but only an act of charity, as St. Thomas teaches in regard to fraternal correction. Although the Pope is not subject to the positive law of the Church, because these warnings are rooted in Divine Law, and are afforded to lesser clerics in the hope of their amendment, they most certainly are afforded to the Vicar of Christ, both as a matter of justice as well as under the philosophical principle omne majus continet in se minus – ‘the greater includes the lesser.’”).
Catholic Thinker, two points to consider.
1. Bishop Tissier de Mallerais’ sermon on priestly ordination which is quoted above in my post was from an ordination just seven months ago, in June 2016.
2. The new rites of Holy Orders, like the Novus Ordo, were not officially promulgated by Paul VI.
The Novus Ordo was not made binding, so it can get away with murder because it is merely advice, not law, so the argument goes. The 1968 inventions regarding Holy Orders are therefore as safe as the Novus Ordo. Neither were binding, so neither technically came from the Church. Why trust one and not the other?
Well, we’ll have to finally disagree on something 🙂 You say St Thomas didn’t think God was bound by legal formality. I say St Thomas did.
Have you read Omlor’s study by the way? He didn’t exactly pull his argument in “Questioning the Validity” out of thin air.
Dear Cortez, One would need to be very hard of heart not to be distressed by the great evil everywhere swallowing up soyls at an unprecedented rate within and without our ravaged Church. Lord, give us consolation and strength.
Dear Catholic Thinker, Your obvious knowledge, understanding and perspicacity, as well as the perspicuity of your rendered analysis, is very impressive. Not to mention your perseverence. I hope many persons benefit from your teaching talent here and elsewhere. God bless us.
Catholic Thinker, I *believe* I have a fair grasp on “Recognize and Resist” from your posts. We should recognize Francis as the legitimate head of the Catholic Church, but we resist any and all of his teachings that contradict Tradition, correct? I am just wondering if R&R allows for the possibility that IN THE FUTURE Francis may be officially found to have been an antipope or something other than a legitimate pope. All these posts begin to run together after a while, but I’m thinking you have stated that this is a possibility – but it must be declared officially by the Church and not just by some members? Please answer this in your own words as clearly and simply as you can. 🙂 Thanks.
Dear Catholic Thinker,
You may find the Suscipe Domine Forums interesting. I am going to take a wild stab and say that you are aware of the forum.
If not, here’s a thread that might make you want to register and jump in.
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=15724.0
As long as it is not technically binding, poisonous liturgy can come from the fallible section of the Church, but not the infallible section. Thus, the part of the Church that can teach error can lead the Faithful into heresy and out of the Church.
The Faithful in the pew are bound to know the difference, and resist the poison from the Church. Not only this, but they are also bound to submit to the men in purported legitimate authority who are trying to kill their souls. If they get lead astray and don’t resist, because they trust what they think is milk instead of cyanide, then that’s their fault.
I want to see it how you see it, but I keep getting stuck here. Is this really the lengths one has to go to to keep Montini or Bergoglio as the pope? I am not trying to pick a fight with you. It is much more enjoyabe being civil and charitable.
I am wondering how many converts you have brought to the Faith while presenting them this understanding of the Church?
Wish there was an edit button! Some syntax needs cleaning up. Typing on a phone !