A reader writes:
Are Sedevacantists excommunicated, outside the grace of the Church? What I’m asking, I guess, are followers of the schismatic doctrine of Sedevacantism (and to a lesser extent, I suppose, that of SSPX) in mortal sin?
Excommunication is an ecclesiastical censure that has specific effects that are defined by canon law. These effects are found in Canon 1331, which can be read HERE. The effects listed do not include being "outside the grace of the Church." The latter could be interpreted in several ways, and I’m not entirely sure what is intended, but I can say that excommunication neither places a person outside the Church nor does it deprive him of grace.
It does, however, presuppose that the individual has committed a grave sin. That is why, as an excommunicate, he is not allowed to receive the sacraments until he repents, for it would be sacrilege for him to do so in what must be presumed to be a state of mortal sin.
The grave sin that sedevacanists (and those who have formally adhered to the schism of the SSPX) have committed is the sin of schism. Schism is both a sin and a canonical crime, and its definition as a canonical crime is as follows:
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
If a person commits the canonical crime of schism, as defined above, then he is liable for the penalty of excommunication:
Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
The fact that it is latae sententiae means that the excommunication doesn’t have to be declared by an ecclesiastical authority. It occurs automatically when the person commits the crime of schism.
But the way canon law is written, it is not enough to note that a person has outwardly committed a schismatic act and then conclude that he is necessarily excommunicated. Canon law contains a number of provisions that could keep the excommunication from taking its effect, or at least from taking effect automatically. Many of these are listed in canons 1323 and 1324.
You’ll note that one of these provisions is that a person is not subject to the penalty if they committed their offense through innocent ignorance, inadvertence, or error (1323 no. 2). This means that if a person (sedevacantist or otherwise) committed a schismatic act in one of these conditions then he would not be automatically excommunicated.
It is thus possible for one to commit an objectively schismatic act without incurring excommunication.
But assume that a sedevacantist can’t get out based on one of these exceptions in the law (either the three I named or the others), would he then incur excommunication?
Yes.
If a person maintains that the current Roman Pontiff (Benedict XVI) is not a valid pope then he thereby refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff. It is not enough to say, "I’m loyal to the office, I just don’t think that guy occupies it." You have to be in submission to the actual pontiff. You can’t be in submission to an office. If there is presently a Roman Pontiff (and there always is except in interregnums) and you ain’t in submission to him then you’re a schismatic.
You can also fail to be in submission to the Roman Pontiff in other ways, as the leaders of the SSPX were when they participated in episcopal ordinations contrary to a specific papal order–see John Paul II’s motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei. As the pontiff warned in this same document, those who formally adhere to this schism also incurred excommunication.
All of this deals with the canonical censure of excommunication, but we still have to look at the moral (as opposed to canonical) question: Are sedevacantists and other schismatics in mortal sin?
It depends. Any time anyone commits an objectively grave sin (and schism is one such sin) then they are potentially in mortal sin. Whether they are actually in mortal sin depends on whether they committed their offense with sufficient knowledge of its moral character and whether they gave it deliberate consent.
If a schismatic lacked sufficient knowledge of the moral character of what they were doing (e.g., they didn’t realize that being a Catholic was important or they didn’t realize that what they were doing was actually schimatic) or if they didn’t give deliberate consent to the act (e.g., because they were suffering from a severe psychological illness that prevented them from deliberately consenting to any of their actions) then they would not be in mortal sin. They would still have sinned gravely, but the sin would not be mortal.
On the other hand, if they had sufficient knowledge of the character of their act (and they have sufficient knowledge as long as they had enough knowledge that they should have known what they were doing was gravely sinful, so their ignorance wasn’t innocent) and they just up and did it anyway then their actions were mortally sinful and they will not go to heaven unless they repent.
As always, we can’t judge whether any particular person is in mortal sin, but those are the underlying principles.
Can you define ‘formal adherence’? I’ve been told that even if one (say SSPX for example) goes to their services exclusively, supports them financially, sends their children to the school, etc. that this does not qualify as ‘formal adherence.’ Does one actually have to be clergy to qualify?
Hippo354,
Can you define ‘formal adherence’? I’ve been told that even if one (say SSPX for example) goes to their services exclusively, supports them financially, sends their children to the school, etc. that this does not qualify as ‘formal adherence.’ Does one actually have to be clergy to qualify?
Here is what the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts had to say on the matter.
What about a priest that obstinately refuses to obey the Pope’s orders on liturgical rubrics, such as the use of liturgical dancers, glass chalices, excessive use of extraordinary ministers etc.? What about a priest who refuses to submit to the teachings on contraception, or some other moral matter, and counsels people that they can do as their conscience dictates, what about those members of the US tribunals who obstinately refuse to apply the Holy See’s interpretation of canon law with regard to annulments?
And what of those bishops, who despite holding orthodox views personally, foster such disobedience by their lack of action despite repeated admonitions by the pope to do so? What about the refusal by most bishops to accept the authority of “Ecclesia Dei”? The resistance they showed to the authority of “Liturgiam Authenticum”?
It seems to me that far more damage is done by those who are in material schism, but apparently in communion with their bishop and the Pope than those misguided souls, who, sincerely believe that they are doing what is right in an emergency situation.
I suggest that the vast majority of obstinate refusal to submit to the Roman Pontiff is committed by the “wolves in sheeps clothing”.
Thanks, Brother Cadfael!
Matt, are you suggesting that because there are other problems in the church we should ignore the SSPX problem?
Matt,
Is the best defense a good deflection?
To shoot a gaping hole into this theory, if the Church after Vatican II now teaches that Protestants (are they not schismatics or as I understand after a certain number of years you no longer are considered as such), the schismatic Orthdox, Moslems and even Jews can now, per Vatican II be saved
So I wonder why the church and on many blogs have this hatred for those that only want to adhere and worship as Catholis have done for CENTURIES and not reform as the church has after Vatican II and in itself move more closely to the protestants (has anyone ever read the cover of their missalette (as they now call them) with regards to Holy Communion and the Protestants???)-why are the SSPX always singled out?
Here you have the Pope backpeddling to a group of Moslem clerics, invites them to his summer house, and, we have an entire division with Kardina Kasper leading the charge-but when it comes to Traditionalists, the church has much fear.
I read in one of Cardinal Ratzinger’s books that the biggest threat to the church is not the Moslems, Protestants, Homosexuality, etc-IT is the TRADITIONALISTS. Is it because the brand of Catholicism being sold today really is not true Catholicism and over time like everything else gets exposed as such?
Hippo, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that SSPX’s disobedience be ignored, but SSPX is what? maybe 400 priests worldwide? Practically the entire Church in North America is in disobedience right now. Which is the bigger problem? So why has there been more effort expended in bringing SSPX back into the fold without reigning in AmChurch?
To shoot a gaping hole into this theory, the possibility of non-Catholics being saved is not an innovation of Vatican II.
Dang, John! It seems Christ was telling us tales when he said that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church….
John,
Why are you so hard on the Protestants? By rejecting the Vicar of Christ, You have taken a Protestant position yourself!
So why has there been more effort expended in bringing SSPX back into the fold without reigning in AmChurch?
I would disagree with your premise. I know many, many faithful Catholics who are struggling non-stop to cure liturgical abuses in their parishes and in their dioceses, and who would not spend a moment’s worth of time on SSPX and their ilk.
In defense of the SSPXers and SSPX apologists posting here (and for full disclosure, I will admit that I might be one myself; I’m simply not sure at this point), it does seem as though a lot more of a fuss has been made about people who insist on Tradition than on those who insist on Innovation in these post-V2 days. I blogged on this issue recently: http://andynowicki.blogspot.com/2006/08/2-v-or-not-2-v-that-is-the-question.html
Bro. Cadfael,
I don’t disagree that among the laity, liturgical abuse and heterodox teaching does indeed get a higher priority in being addressed, but among bishops and the Vatican, it seems as though the issue has taken a back seat. I know that Rome doesn’t want to encroach upon the responsibility of the American bishops to have control over their own dioceses, but they are routinely failing in this, and I think Rome really does have to finally step in and do something tangible.
Anonymous poster,
I don’t disagree that among the laity, liturgical abuse and heterodox teaching does indeed get a higher priority in being addressed, but among bishops and the Vatican, it seems as though the issue has taken a back seat.
I haven’t done a numbers count, but I would guess that there are far more documents coming out of the Vatican dealing with liturgical abuse and heterodox teaching in recent years than with SSPX or sedevacantists. As to what individual bishops are doing with them, that’s another story.
The sins of the left do not create justification for the sins of the right.
One group says: “Well, we may be material heretics, but at least we’re in communion with the Holy See!”
The other says: “Well, we may be schismatic, but at least we have good liturgy!”
As much as I sympathize with the folks that are frustrated by the heretical Priests and crappy liturgy, going into schism is NOT the answer. You don’t leave the barque if it’s taking on water, you grab a bucket!
Sorry, the above link doesn’t appear to work for some reason. If you’re interested, go to http://www.andynowicki.blogspot.com and scroll to my posting on August 11, “2 V or not 2 V, That is the Question.”
As for the “grab a bucket” metaphor– with due respect, it seems a bit glib. Kinda like the whole “Vatican 2 wasn’t bad in itself; it’s the way it’s been ABUSED that’s bad” line.
SBG
Please show me proof where the church taught before Vatican II that even those who reject Christ such as Buddhists, Hindus and Moselems should be “revered” and saved
Please show me an infallible document which proves this as well as the church participating in these false worships as well as allowing the descration of our church’s, like at Fatima where non-Catholic pagan ceremonies were allowed to be performed on the sacred altar by pagans
Please show me-I am waiting…..
John,
Please show me proof where the church taught before Vatican II that even those who reject Christ such as Buddhists, Hindus and Moselems should be “revered” and saved
Shall we deal with your mischaracterization of what the Church teaches, or shall we deal with what the Church actually teaches?
It seems to me that you need to at least get that part right before you start comparing it to the Tradition (of which it is a part).
“Revered and saved”? What on earth are you talking about? Where does V2 teach that non-Catholics should be “revered and saved”? By whom are they supposedly meant to be “revered and saved”? Only God can save, and only man can hold in reverence. You aren’t even making sense. Please communicate more clearly.
As regards the salvation of non-Catholics, I already provided you with evidence of the pre-V2 church teaching on this point. Please refer back to it and then return to the discussion when you have done so.
Ah, the old “non-infallible = non-authoritative” fallacy.
The sins of the left do not create justification for the sins of the right.
But isn’t the reverse also true? The reality is that for much of the church heirarchy the SSPX is biggest boogeyman out there. Though I do not believe that political terms like left or right are appropriate to describe traditionalist or modernist leanings, they do lend themselves to one maxim from the political world. “No enemies to the left and no friends to the right.”
They would still have sinned gravely, but the sin would not be mortal.
That does not sound right to me. Isn’t a “grave sin” synonymous with “mortal sin”?
I think a more accurate way to express what Jimmy is saying is that a person who sins without “sufficient knowledge of the moral character of what they were doing” would still have sinned gravely, but their soul would not incur the guilt of that grave sin.
Michael,
The reality is that for much of the church heirarchy the SSPX is biggest boogeyman out there.
What makes you say that?
I think the precise way to express this is that the sin would be materially grave (i.e., would involve grave matter), but would not be mortal in its effect on the soul due to the lack of one of the other preconditions for mortal sin (viz. sufficient reflection, i.e., moral understanding).
It is true that “grave sin” and “mortal sin” are used interchangably, but not every sin that involves grave matter is a “grave sin” in that sense.
I once attended a Latin Mass advertised in a publication of the–ahem!–Archdiocese of Los Ángeles. I then found out that it was SSPX, but a priest of my parish assured me that I had not committed a sin, thus no need to repent. A couple of weeks later the LA publication printed a “mea culpa”.
The reality is that for much of the church heirarchy the SSPX is biggest boogeyman out there.
What makes you say that?
I could list examples where Catholic clergy are far more charitable to protestants or even Muslims or Jews than they are to the SSPX. Yet many bishops are loathe to allow indult masses even when such a simple act could bring some of the SSPX’rs back. But it is all anecdotal.
http://andynowicki.blogspot.com/2006/08/2-v-or-not-2-v-that-is-the-question.html
Hippo354 and Brother Cadfael:
are you suggesting that because there are other problems in the church we should ignore the SSPX problem?
..
Is the best defense a good deflection?
My statement is here:
It seems to me that far more damage is done by those who are in material schism, but apparently in communion with their bishop and the Pope than those misguided souls, who, sincerely believe that they are doing what is right in an emergency situation.
What part of it says that we should ignore one problem in favor of the other? I clearly indicated that I believe those souls who are adhering to SSPX are misguided. I believe most are sincere in their belief that what they are doing is right, although there is a significant amount of pride floating around. I have always been clear that regardless of sincerity they are objectively in error.
In my opinion the major damage that SSPX does to the Body of Christ is in denying us their assistance in fighting the blatant that are going on by hiding in their little sanctuary. I completely agree with Chris:
As much as I sympathize with the folks that are frustrated by the heretical Priests and crappy liturgy, going into schism is NOT the answer. You don’t leave the barque if it’s taking on water, you grab a bucket!
If that’s not clear from my statement, then I apologize.
I read in one of Cardinal Ratzinger’s books that the biggest threat to the church is not the Moslems, Protestants, Homosexuality, etc-IT is the TRADITIONALISTS. Is it because the brand of Catholicism being sold today really is not true Catholicism and over time like everything else gets exposed as such?
John, care to post a citation?
SDG,
Thank you for your link to the 1949 Decree Regarding Leonard Feeney. This document seems to leave no doubts about either the validity of the doctrine of invincible ignorance or the fate of those Catholics who refuse to submit to the Vicar of Christ.
Matt,
Perhaps I misunderstood your post. In light of your explanation, I am still not certain that I understand it. I was simply referring to the fact that the first two paragraphs of your original post appeared to have nothing to do with the original post by Jimmy. I apologize if that was not the case.
Matt, thanks for the clarification! I have seen damage done by both extremes (I have both SSPX relatives and flaming liberal nun relatives), and I think they are equally damaging in their different ways, so I guess I’d disagree with you that the biggest fault of SSPX is omission, but that is based on personal experience so I probably shouldn’t generalize.
I could list examples where Catholic clergy are far more charitable to protestants or even Muslims or Jews than they are to the SSPX.
Why do I suspect that from your vantage point, you have far more chances to view impoliteness to the last group than the others?
SDG
You obviously could not produce such that said that non Catholics could be saved pre Vatican II because the church followed true to scripture that taught
The Holy Gospel of JesusChrist, according to st. Mark CHAPTER 16.
15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues.
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover.
19 And the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God.
20 But they going forth preached every where: the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed.
The following are obvious contradictions
“It is almost impossible to happen that Catholics who mix themselves with heretics or schismatics in any act of worship might be worthy to be excused from this shameful crime.”
Pope Benedict XIV, De Synodo Bk. VI, Chap. 5, Art. 2, 1748.
Vatican II taught:
“It is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren.”
Decree on Ecumenism, #8.
Pre Vatican II it was taught:
[It is an error to say that] “in the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation.”
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Error #16, Dec. 8, 1864.
Vatican II taught:
“The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion… these actions… can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation.”
Decree on Ecumenism, #3.
On the “Modern World”, Pre Vatican II taught:
“It is not fitting that the Church of God be changed according to the fluctuations of worldly necessity.”
Pope Pius VI, Quod Aliquantum, Mar. 10, 1791.
Vatican II taught:
“the Church… can and ought to be enriched by the development of human social life… so that she may… adjust it [the Constitution of the Church] more successfully to our times.”
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #44.
”
Pre Vatican II taught:
No man can serve two masters, for to please one amounts to contemning the other…It is a high crime indeed to withdraw allegiance from God in order to please men.”
Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiæ Christianæ, #6&7, Jan. 10, 1890.
Vatican II taught:
“Christians cannot yearn for anything more ardently than to serve the men of the modern world.”
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #93.
Pre Vatican II Popes taught:
“About the ‘Rights of Man’ as they are called, the people have heard enough; it is time they should hear of the rights of God.”
Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi, #13, Nov. 1, 1900.
Vatican II taught:
“The Church proclaims the rights of man.”
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #41.
On Religious Liberty, the Pre V2 church taught:
“They do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls…namely that ‘liberty of conscience and of worship is a right proper to every man, and should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society.’ ”
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, #3, Dec. 8, 1864.
Vatican II taught:
“The human person has the right to religious freedom…this right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right.”
Declaration on Religious Freedom, #2.
Pre V2 taught:
[It is an error to say that] “in this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.”
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, Error #77, Dec. 8, 1864.
Vatican II taught:
“a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people…the profession or repudiation of any religion…government is not to act…in an unfair spirit of partisanship.”
Declaration on Religious Freedom, #6&7.
Pre Vatican II it was taught:
“Men who really believe in God must… understand that differing modes of worship… cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God.”
Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, #31, Nov. 1, 1885.
Vatican II taught:
“The right of all… religious bodies to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice.”
Last chance, John.
Do you know how to read, or not?
Clearly you don’t understand logic, if you think that “The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion… these actions… can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation” equates to the error that “in the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation,” or that “The right of all… religious bodies to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice” is contradictory to “Men who really believe in God must… understand that differing modes of worship… cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God.”
This is not theology. It is logic. Statements that are contradictory or equivalent can be determined to be such by individuals who possess the necessary language and reasoning skills. If you think that the first two statements above are equivalent, or that the latter two are contradictory, you either don’t know how to read or you don’t know how to reason.
The (pre-V2) link above may be of some help to you in clarifying your understanding of the post-V2 quotes you provide. Beyond that, if you can’t or won’t understand, I can’t help you.
Why do I suspect that from your vantage point, you have far more chances to view impoliteness to the last group than the others?
Perhaps because you are prone to jump to conclusions?
Well said, SDG. I actually found it rather edifying to read John’s last post. Lots of good Magisterial teachings both in Vatican II and pre-Vatican II, helping to clarify each other.
I did have concern over this one part though
“Christians cannot yearn for anything more ardently than to serve the men of the modern world.”
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #93.
I will try to look up the context of that perplexing quote which isolated like that sounds intensely unchristian, but can someone help us out on it? What should we yearn more ardently for than God? This quote would suggest to me that even love for God must at most be equal to love for man. Is not love for God by far the primary and central thing to direct our attention to, with the love for and resulting service to men derrived from it? Probably this is a context issue, or I am just misinterpreting the words.
WORST. RULE 3. VIOLATION. EVAH.
WORST. RULE 3. VIOLATION. EVAH.
WORST. RULE 3. VIOLATION. EVAH.
WORST. RULE 3. VIOLATION. EVAH.
Hippo,
I didn’t say the biggest fault of SSPX is omission, it is clearly disobedience to the Vicar of Christ and so to Christ Himself. I said the damage they do is by denying their ministry to the members of the Church who are in such need of the guidance of Tradition which they could provide if they regularized their status. An analogy might be that the house is burning, some of the firemen are standing outside arguing about how bad it’s burning and who lit it. Of course they are causing damage by not doing their jobs, but the fact is the arsonists are truly responsible.
Br. Cadfael,
I’m not disagreeing in any way with Jimmy’s post, just wanting to point out that there are many who are in material schism and heresy who pretend to be in full communion (wolves in sheep’s clothing). I’m also urging compassion for those misguided souls who sincerely believe they must be involved with SSPX to find the Catholic faith, they are being chased out by the true Church by aforementioned wolves. I would add that there is an element of pride in the SSPX and other traditional elements that ought to be purged.
I doubt all that cut and pasted stuff above will be read by anyone, and it may well be deleted for violation of “Da Rulz.” If our friend had limited him/herself to a few points he/she may have been more successful getting his/her message across.
Amen, JRS. That was an awful lot of typing for nothing.
Rama Coomaraswamy –
KNOCK IT OFF with the cut-and-paste combox cramming.
NO ONE IS LISTENING.
Get your own blog to promote your wacky theories.
Consilum Secretary Fr. Bugnini prior to the drafting of the Rite states:
“We must strip from our Catholic prayer books and from the Catholic Liturgy everything that can be a shadow of a stumbling block to our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants” [L’Osservatore Romano, 19/3/65].
So how can one even contend that the form of worship which has transpired is organic and in line with the past teachings of the church when the chief Architect of the mass, the central form of our worship, is on record with statements as such?
Bishops seem to need continual reassurance that Traditionalists are not a threat to the Post-Vatican II Church, for they continue to refuse access to the Old Rite despite the desire of the Supreme Legislator that the 1984 Indult be applied “widely and generously” in view of our “legitimate aspirations” (cf. Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, John Paul II – motu proprio – 1988).
Let us be blunt: Traditionalists can only be a threat to the Church if Her own Tradition is a threat to Her.
Well, John, you just blew your last chance. Either you can’t read, can’t reason, don’t know how to hold a conversation, or some combination of the above. I don’t care which.
Let us be blunt: Traditionalists can only be a threat to the Church if Her own Tradition is a threat to Her.
A true traditionalist knows that there is no hope for salvation for those who knowing the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ, refuse to make themselves subject to the Roman Pontiff. Being subject means being obedient.
Those traditionalists who refuse to be subject, and especially those who encourage others to do so are doing damage to the Body of Christ.
Again I will reiterate, I think the modernists who remain in apparent communion do much worse.
Matt or anyone else with an answer,
If the Roman pontiff decrees something that is against what has always been the perpetual teaching of the Church, must one still obey the pontiff in order to be a good Catholic? If, for example (speaking hypothetically) a pope suddenly decreed that abortion and contraception were okay, would faithful Catholics have to do a “180” on these issues?
I know the stock answer is that Christ set up the Church and prophesied that “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it,” i.e., that such a hypotehtical case as what I have cited would never take place. But I am asking hypothetically, what if it did? Would faithful Catholics have to obey the teachings of the pope, if the pope suddently taught things that were objectively evil?
It seems to me that for the SSPXers, Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI both violated the traditional teaching of the Church by fostering the destructive changes brought about by Vatican II. For them, in other words, it was like what it would be for us if the next pope became an abortion advocate. For them, disobeying the pope doesn’t amount to the same thing as being unfaithful to the Church; rather, they would still see themselves as obedient to the pope, but would say that the pope overstepped his bounds in making changes that he had no authority to make.
You mean, hypothetically, what if the gates of hell did prevail against the church built on the rock of Peter? In other words, what if Catholicism, and ultimately Christianity itself, were false?
Obviously, in that case (per impossibile), Catholics should cease to be Catholics. I can’t see myself that Orthodoxy or Protestantism would be more viable under such circumstances, though the one most obviously false option still seems to me to be radical Traditionalism of the sede-vacantist/SSPX sort. Either Catholicism is true and I follow the Roman pontiff, or not.
As it is, though, Catholicism is true, and all should follow the Roman pontiff, including the rad-trad/sede-vacantist/SSPX types.
SDG,
But would it necessarily be TRUE that the gates of Hell had prevailed against the Church if such a hypothetical were to occur? In other words, might there be a way of being obedient to the pope’s authority, while dissenting from an innovation he introduces, as the SSPX claim to be doing?
Matt,
I agree with you. Thanks for clarifying.
Andy,
In other words, might there be a way of being obedient to the pope’s authority, while dissenting from an innovation he introduces, as the SSPX claim to be doing?
No. And the ironic thing is, the SSPX’ers would know that if they’d read St. Pius X and take him at his word.
Rosemarie posted this on an earlier thread, and it seems to me that it is worth re-posting:
In his Allocution of May 10, 1909, Pope St. Pius X said:
“Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her…But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments…, then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone.”
Love for and fidelity to the Pope is a basic characteristic of Catholics. If you don’t believe me then believe Pope St. Pius X.
Matt or anyone else with an answer,
If the Roman pontiff decrees something that is against what has always been the perpetual teaching of the Church, must one still obey the pontiff in order to be a good Catholic? If, for example (speaking hypothetically) a pope suddenly decreed that abortion and contraception were okay, would faithful Catholics have to do a “180” on these issues?
I know the stock answer is that Christ set up the Church and prophesied that “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it,” i.e., that such a hypotehtical case as what I have cited would never take place. But I am asking hypothetically, what if it did? Would faithful Catholics have to obey the teachings of the pope, if the pope suddently taught things that were objectively evil?
It seems to me that for the SSPXers, Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI both violated the traditional teaching of the Church by fostering the destructive changes brought about by Vatican II. For them, in other words, it was like what it would be for us if the next pope became an abortion advocate. For them, disobeying the pope doesn’t amount to the same thing as being unfaithful to the Church; rather, they would still see themselves as obedient to the pope, but would say that the pope overstepped his bounds in making changes that he had no authority to make.
There’s a major distinction between reforming an irreformable position, such as that abortion is murder, and reforming something which is reformable, even though it may not be prudent, such as participation in the ecumenical movement. This sort of error has happened in the past (yes, even before Vatican II). It is also possible for a pope to issue an instruction that is immoral (as long as it’s not “ex cathedra”), I don’t know of any instance where this has occurred.
If we are subject to the Roman Pontiff and he issues what we believe is an imprudent order, we have to give a due degree of assent. An example might be the request to participate in ecumenical prayer. There are conditions around the request that allow us to bow out if we don’t consider any particular activity to be prudent. We can be obedient to the order without taking part. If he gives us no leeway, we should participate to the minimal degree necessary in submission to him as the Vicar of Christ.
What if the pope gave an order to do something intrinsicly immoral without any possibility of being excused? In that extremely unlikely event, one would be morally obligated to not obey. If this were to happen, the pope would still be the pope, and we must remain his loyal subject. If he subsequently issues an order which is not immoral, we are bound to obey.
This is where the SSPX et al fall down. Even if one were to accept their specific criticisms of some of the acts of the post-concilliar popes as valid, they are being disobedient to pretty much all the popes have ordered. This is completely different from how St. Paul resisted St. Peter when he was in error, or how St. Athanasius dealt with the pope ordering him into exile. He submitted himself to the authority, this is pleasing to God and reaped great benefit to the Church.
Brother C,
So if (again, speaking hypothetically) the pope says abortion is okay, we have to discard 2,000 years of tradition which says otherwise?
Matt, I think I see your point– although you seem to be saying that it’s possible to disobey the pope and still be loyal to him under certain extreme circumstances. The question is, is it appropriate under the circumstances of the SSPX? You say no– my mind hasn’t yet been made up on the matter.
Hypothetically, if (per impossibile) the pope committed his teaching office to the proposition that abortion is okay in a way comparable to the commitment of the recent popes to the validity of the current rite of Mass, such that one had to choose between following the pope and maintaining the historic Christian teaching on abortion, then in the imaginary world of this hypothetical, impossible scenario Catholicism would be a false religion.
What is more, in such an imaginary world, both those who followed the pope into error on abortion and those who attempted to maintain a “more-Catholic-than-the-pope” alternative form of Catholicism would be fundamentally wrong.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the gates of hell have not prevailed against the church built on the rock, those who follow the pope have not been led into error, and only those who attempt to maintain a “more-Catholic-than-the-pope” alternative form of Catholicism are fundamentally wrong.
Italics off.
Thanks, AnotherCoward, I turned off my own italics. I used the Deep Magic. 🙂
I like the distinction between an imprudent directive and an immoral directive.
I’m thinking this would be like the use of the Traditional Latin Mass in a diocese where the Bishop does not permit it. Although the Pope stated that permission for the Traditional Latin Mass should be granted liberally, the permission is still up the the bishop of the diocese (until B16 grants a universal indult, which I hear might be in the works). Refusal to allow such Masses is certainly imprudent and will push away those Catholics that have a more traditional outlook. However, refusal to grant permission is not immoral. Therefore, Catholics must obey the directive of the successor to the apostles the Pope has set as their shepherd, and cannot attend an unauthorized Traditional Latin Mass, the way the SSPX does.
Now if the local Bishop said the words of institution should be changed to “Jesus, Jesus, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, no one can!” this would be an immoral directive, contrary to the Magisterium, and Catholics would not (could not?) have to go to such Masses (perhaps they would be required to go outside the diocese… I don’t know if they would be allowed to have unathorized licit Masses within that Bishop’s diocese). Then, the Bishop would be disciplined by Rome.
Now the diffetrence between that Bishop and the Pope is that, as the Vicar of Christ, the Pope, by virtue of who and what he is, could not and would not ever issue such an immoral directive. The Holy Spirit would not allow it. I imagine if a Pope insisted on making such an immoral directive ex cathedra, God would strike him dead before allowing the Church to be destroyed.
Does this make sense?
This is good, but perhaps even more to the point is the distinction between bad guidance that does not do violence to the essence of the faith and bad guidance that does do violence to the essence of the faith.
For example, in principle I expect it would be possible for a bishop of Rome to issue an immoral directive such as “Good Catholics should support war effort X” where in fact war effort X is not a just war. Whether a given war is or is not just is a question of moral discernment about which equally orthodox believers can and do disagree; in principle it seems possible that bishops of Rome could get a particular case wrong, and issue erroneous or even morally blinkered guidance on that basis.
OTOH, I reject outright the notion that a bishop of Rome could possibly commit himself to a normative order of Mass that is in fact invalid. The Mass is the center of Catholic worship and spirituality, and its guardianship and administration is among the highest and most critical duties of the hierarchy. I cannot escape the conclusion that if there is anything whatsoever to Catholic belief regarding the successor to Peter, it is absolutely impossible that the Mass should be massively and systematically invalidated all over the world with the explicit sanction and active participation of the Vicar of Christ.
If (per impossibile) this has happened, the SSPX/sede-vacantists/Lefebrites/rad-trads are as wrong as non-dissenting Catholics. If (per impossibile) this has happened, there is not and never has been any such divine institution as the papacy.
Andy,
So if (again, speaking hypothetically) the pope says abortion is okay, we have to discard 2,000 years of tradition which says otherwise?
You must be the lawyer who came up with the “are you still beating your wife?” question.
I could spend all day trying to figure out, (hypothetically, of course) what I would do if 2+3 suddenly = 7, but there would be far more productive uses of my time.
Andy,
So if (again, speaking hypothetically) the pope says abortion is okay, we have to discard 2,000 years of tradition which says otherwise?
…
although you seem to be saying that it’s possible to disobey the pope and still be loyal to him under certain extreme circumstances. The question is, is it appropriate under the circumstances of the SSPX? You say no– my mind hasn’t yet been made up on the matter.
First of all, it’s ridiculous, but if it were to happen it seems that he couldn’t possibly make it “binding” on the faithful without being struck dead by the Holy Spirit. It’s not a very good example.
It is true that one can disobey the pope if he gives an immoral order, and still remain loyal, loving and subject to him. In the same way that a wife is not permitted to sin under her husbands authority. This does not release one from the obligation to obey orders which are not immoral. That’s the problem with the SSPX. They are not following any orders from “Rome”, they are completely disobedient. When I say one can disobey an immoral order, that is not the same as “dissenting” in my opinion.
In 1 Kings 25, Abigail is disobedient to her husband and seeks to appease David. She did so to save her husband and family and did so while remaining loving and loyal to him.
SDG,
I think your analysis with regard to the mass is bang on. One can reasonably argue the prudence of the Novus Ordo, one cannot say that it does violence to the essence of the faith.
Hey “Bro,” I’m a lot of things, but I’m certainly no lawyer…
And your mathematical analogy doesn’t cut the mustard for me. Two plus three equals five, and it’s not possible for it to equal a different sum. But no mathematical law makes it necessary for the pope to uphold traditional morality. It may be a matter of faith to hold that no pope could ever become an abortion advocate, but it’s not impossible in the same sense that the statement “2 plus 3 equals 7” is impossible.
Matt, the difference between “disobeying” an immoral order and “dissenting” from an immoral edict seems to be a semantic one. And of course the SSPX would claim that they are only disobeying (if you prefer that word) Rome where Rome has begun to teach innovations that aren’t proper, but remains obedient to Rome insofar as Rome has remained obedient to Tradition.
Andy,
What you are asking is “if your faith were proved wrong, what would you do?”
Loose the faith I guess, but it is a pointless speculation because it will never happen. I’m sure that is Br. Cadfael’s point: if something impossible happened what would you do? Who cares!
I just don’t understand how it is “impossible” that a future pope could promulgate an immmoral doctrine. (I trust the current pope not to do any such thing, but then as we all know he’s pushing 80 and won’t be around forever.) It is certainly possible. If the argument is, “God would never allow that to happen,” then that (as I wrote before) is an issue of faith. Having faith that something won’t happen isn’t the same thing as saying that it’s impossible in the sense that 2 plus 2 equals 5 is impossible.
I think it’s possible to interpret “and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against (the Church)” in such a way that provides an escape hatch in case such a circumstance were ever to befall us. That is, a way that we could be faithful Catholics and uphold Catholic tradition while still opposing the introduction of evil or immoral doctrine by a pope.
The SSPX, of course, believe that such a thing has already happened with the introduction of the innovations of Vatican 2, which have undeniably done considerable damage to the Church in nearly every way imaginable.
Jesus assures us it’s impossible, Andy. If Jesus is wrong, then he is not God.
It is Church dogma that the Pope is infallible as to matters of doctrine when speaking ex cathedra. Belief in this dogma is mandatory for all Catholics.
Since the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra, he cannot promulgate an immoral doctrine ex cathedra, because an immoral doctrine is, by its very definition, wrong.
To say that the Pope could promulgate an immoral doctrine ex cathedra is like saying God can make a rock so big He can’t move it.
You see the point? Believing otherwise is in violation of Church dogma.
Also I do not agree that V2 has “undeniably done considerable damage to the Church in nearly every way imaginable.” V2, as an ecumenical council, was also infallible, just like Nicea and Trent. Therefore, any “damage” resulting from V2 is solely caused by misapplication by fallen man. The blame for any “damage” rests on people, not the council.
Andy,
I think it’s possible to interpret “and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against (the Church)” in such a way that provides an escape hatch in case such a circumstance were ever to befall us.
That’s not the way that the Catholic Church interprets it. You are free to interpret it however you like, but your interpretation breaks rank with the Church and 2000 years of Tradition.
That the gates of hell have so obviously prevailed against the Church, the only conclusion is that Christianity itself is proven false. We should all now convert to Buddhism.
bill912,
I agree with almost everything you have said. However, I don’t believe that it is technically correct to say that an ecumencial council is infallible. A council may teach infallibly, but only those teachings of a council that are clearly intended by the council to be infallible are so regarded. Other teachings would be authoritative, but not necessarily infallible.
Andy,
You seem to think that reason is the only thing that can determine what is possible or impossible. In fact both reason and faith can do so. Reason tells us that 2+3 will never equal 7. Faith tells us that the Pope will never lead the Church astray, particularly when teaching infallibly.
Faith shows that this is absolutely impossible, so it is just as impossible as 2+3=7.
About the phrase “the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church” using your logic one could justify any heresy or schism. That is why the good Christian does not become Protestant or SSPX. He believes that the Magisterium is the authentic interpreter of Scripture and Tradition, not you yourself or any other person or group.
Sorry, my last post should have been addressed to Tim B., not bill912.
Andy,
There is absolute impossibility, and then there is contingent impossibility.
Absolute impossibility involves a self-contained contradiction (i.e., A and not-A at the same time and in the same respect). Contingent impossibility involves a contradiction to some point that is implicitly given or taken for granted.
For example, that 2 + 3 = 7, or that God (being a necessary being) should cease to exist, are absolutely impossible. The former is an axiom of reason, the latter is an axiom of faith, but both are held to be absolutely necessary, not contingent upon any other condition.
OTOH, that a baptized Christian man and woman validly married should dissolve their marriage and lawfully marry others is contingently impossible — contingent upon God’s decree that the matrimonial union is absolutely indissoluble. In principle, God could have chosen otherwise, but he did not, and his choice once made establishes the “absolute” or utter impossibility of a contrary state of affairs.
The possibility of the Christian faith being entirely expunged from the world of men, or of the Roman Pontiff committing the Church to a course of action gravely contrary to the essential charter of the Church and the charge entrusted to her by Jesus Christ, belongs to this latter sort of impossibility. It is not an absolute impossibility, but a contingent one; nevertheless, granted the divine decree, it is just as impossible as if the impossibility were absolute.
Andy,
of course the SSPX would claim that they are only disobeying (if you prefer that word) Rome where Rome has begun to teach innovations that aren’t proper, but remains obedient to Rome insofar as Rome has remained obedient to Tradition.
…
I just don’t understand how it is “impossible” that a future pope could promulgate an immmoral doctrine…I think it’s possible to interpret “and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against (the Church)” in such a way that provides an escape hatch in case such a circumstance were ever to befall us.
…
the innovations of Vatican 2, which have undeniably done considerable damage to the Church in nearly every way imaginable.
Of course SSPX could claim is only disobeying Rome insofar as they are teaching improper innovations, and remaining obedient insofar as Rome remains obedient to Tradition but that just couldn’t be reasonably concluded.
First of all it’s a misunderstanding of Papal authority as has been taught by Tradition. The pope is the authority to regulate all matters of discipline, even mundane bureaucratic matters. All of these instructions are completely ignored by SSPX. They ordain priests repeatedly in violation of interdict, they move into diocese without the permission of the local ordinary, they establish tribunals without any jurisdiction, they perform the sacraments even though they are suspended or excommunicated, they perform weddings and confessions without jurisdiction (rendering them INVALID). They completely disregard any obedience to the local ordinaries who have jurisdiction where they operate. There is no loyalty, there is no obedience, there is only protest.
Once again, I will reiterate, as grave as the SSPX situation is, the situation of the wolves in sheeps clothing who are teaching modernism in the Church is far more serious.
With regard to papal infallibility you are proposing an innovation which is completely contradictory to Tradition, an innovation which is not in Vatican II, and would not be considered orthodox by even the marginally orthodox theologians.
Innovations of Vatican II? Perhaps you could tell me which ones specifically? I’ve read the documents, virtually everything in Vatican II can be reasonably interpreted as an acceptable reform of discipline or rephrasing of doctrine, and not “innovation”. The problems were caused by innovations in violation of Vatican II. Even the “Novus Ordo” missae bears little resemblance to the reforms called for by Vatican II.
I know this may be splitting hairs, but lay Catholics do not “become” SSPX. SSPX is a priestly fraternity. Laypeople may support SSPX, but they do not become members. The way some people talk about it, they make it sound like a parallel church. Practically, there may not be much of a distinction, granted. But there is a distinction, nonetheless.
I just have to mention this more specifically
in such a way that provides an escape hatch in case such a circumstance were ever to befall us.
Escape hatch from the Church? Right.
JR,
No, I didn’t mean an escape hatch from the Church– I meant an escape hatch from the sin should sin overtake the Church. (And didn’t Paul VI himself complain about the “smoke of Satan” having entered the Church? during his pontificate?)
Tim, I understand your point about how the notion that the pope would teach something erroneous contradicts the understanding of faithful Catholics that the pope and the Magisterium are divinely inspired and could never teach error.
What bothers me about this notion is that it seems to put our faith on something rather precarious. If a future pope were to promulgate immorality, most of you posting here would probably lose your faith instantly. You’d want to die if such a thing should happen, because it would mean that everything you ever believed to be true has turned out to be a huge lie.
In asking about an “escape hatch,” I am trying to see if faith can be rested upon something a little less precarious than the public statements of the guy who happens to be elected by the majority of the Cardinals gathered at a conclave in Rome. Should this happen in the future, the SSPX might provide a model to follow– that is, a way to remain Catholic and loyal to the Church even if the “smoke of Satan” has indeed entered it.
Yes. That is what he did. He complained about — or rather denounced — the “smoke of Satan.” The Vicar of Christ did that.
Oddly enough, the Vicar of Christ did not formally institutionalize the smoke of Satan as the authorized new incense approved for normative use throughout the Church. Nor have his successors. That is why Jesus gave them to us.
Incense? Wow, you still have incense in the Mass by you? I haven’t seen or smelled incense in a Catholic Mass in over 18 years!
“I am trying to see if faith can be rested upon something a little less precarious than the public statements of the guy who happens to be elected by the majority of the Cardinals gathered at a conclave in Rome…”
The Pope is not just “some guy”, and our faith does not rest (ultimately) on his public statements, but on the public statements of Jesus Christ, who established the Pope as shepherd over His sheep.
Christ protects the Pope and makes it impossible that he should promulgate error in the name of the Church.
My faith is in the power of Christ to accomplish this. I believe in papal infallibility BECAUSE I believe in Christ.
let me amend that–
excluding the one SSPX Mass I attended… otherwise, no incense
SDG,
There is absolute impossibility, and then there is contingent impossibility.
As cogent an explanation of this concept as I’ve seen. Thanks.
Andy,
The ex cathedra statements of the Pope are far more than “the public statements of the guy who happens to be elected by the majority of the Cardinals gathered at a conclave in Rome.”
Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter (and his successors), along with the power to bind and loose, both in Heaven and on Earth. This power was defined as the dogma of infallibility in the 1800s, and the belief in papal infallibility is mandated for all Catholics. No Catholic may deny this dogma or he/she is anathama.
Just as God cannot, by His very definition, sin, the Pope cannot, by his very definition, make an ex cathedra statement that promulgates immoral doctrine.
And you are correct. Were the impossible to happen (i.e. the Pope were to make an ex cathedra statement that promulgates immoral doctrine), my faith, and the faith of all Catholics, would be destroyed because this would prove that God does not exist, Jesus was simply a man, and the Church an invention of men.
Fortunately, Christ built his Church upon the rock of the papal office, first in Peter and then in the successors of Peter, so I don’t have to worry about the impossible happening.
I know this is a “hard saying,” one difficult to internaize. I was raised Protestant, then became Anglo-catholic, then came into the Church via the Pastoral Provision for the Use of the Anglican Rite.
Submission to papal authority and infallibility was my last holdout. All the rest of the Catholic doctrines I accepted. Finally, however, God granted me the faith to believe, and I submitted, because I recognized that all the rest was dependent upon papal authority and infallibility.
If you guys want the old time worship (High Mass, incense, bells, full vestments, mantillas, etc.) go to an Anglican Use parish if you have an opportunity (http://www.pastoralprovision.org).
Also, you might try one of the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches (though they typically use ethnic language as well as English). Finally, an indult Mass is nice if your Bishop permits it. All are permissible for Catholics and all meet the Sunday obligation.
I disagree, first, the gates of Hell will never prevail and this is true as Our Lord never intended to have the huge hierarchy that exists today with money going caching!
What he stated is that when he returns the saved will number few. Therefore, even if you have One Traditional Catholic whether in the church or without still adhering to what is CATHOLIC, then the gates of hell did not prevail. Infallability was only defined as late as 1870 as we have had some horrible popes
As far as what has happened after Vatican II, this is the first time that the schism has happened from within, except maybe the 4th century when 75% of the Bishops and there were 2 Popes and the faithful had to worship in the countryside (sounds like the Traditionals does it not?) as the heretics had possession of all of the church’s and property and sanity was not restored for almost a century
Yes actually, we do on solemn occasions, but the larger point is that “incense” as a metaphorical conceit (suggested by the “smoke of Satan”) here symbolizes something far more essential to the Church’s being and nature than incense at Mass (incense at Mass being a humanly instituted sacramental that is not necessary to the Church’s essential worship).
Perhaps the metaphor would be more evocative on this point if I stipulated that the Vicar of Christ did not inaugurate the “smoke of Satan” in the place of the “aroma of Christ.”
“all meet the Sunday obligation”
As do SSPX masses, provided that one does not attend them for the wrong reasons. Or so I have been told.
For the record, I don’t attend SSPX masses, because there isn’t an SSPX parish anywhere near I live. Thanks to the lack of generosity of the bishop of my diocese toward Traditionalist leaning folk, there is no Tridentine Indult Mass offered either, except on very rare occasions in out of the way places.
John,
…whether in the church or without…
Let me get this straight. “No salvation outside the Catholic Church” is infallibly true…but one may be saved “whether in the church or without.”
Got it. Impeccable reasoning.
I heard Father Corapi say this morning that (paraphrasing) Truth is not a “what”, Truth is a “who”… that is, Jesus Christ.
The same is true of what is truly Catholic. It’s not what you know, it’s WHO you know. Catholicism IS union with Peter, through his successor.
“Our Lord never intended to have the huge hierarchy that exists today…”
And we know this how?
Whether there are many or few, where the bishops are, there is the Church.
“I disagree, first, the gates of Hell will never prevail…”
Then you believe our Lord was wrong when he said that they wouldn’t. If you believe that Jesus was wrong, then you deny His Divinity.
“…this is the first time that the schism has happended from within…”
A schism (and we have had several) by definition happens from within.
Indeed; more precisely, a schism by definition is what happens when (some of) those “within” by their actions put themselves “without.” There is no such thing as a “schism within,” if by that we mean that the schismatics are simultaneously “within” and in schism.
Regarding SDG’s point about the “smoke of Satan” being discerned by the pope:
Well, at the risk of sounding glib or disrespectful, the phrase “he who smelt it dealt it” comes to mind.
Unfortunately, where I live, there is one indult Mass offered, and it is in a chapel that ordinarily caters to the hypercharismatics. And this is only offered on Sundays, not on solemnities. This despite the obvious demand for it. The SSPX chapel in our diocese (obviously not officially sanctioned by the diocese, but existing within its bounds) is very large and still can barely fit everyone who attends Mass inside. This is a heavily Catholic locality (~80% of the people who live in the two counties that make up the diocese are Catholic). But our Bishop has a modernist agenda. There are more diocesan programs for outreach to Muslims than there are for outreach to Traditional Catholics.
For many folks, their only options are 1) go to the “kumbaya” Mass at their local parish, 2) go to SSPX, or 3) stay home.
I don’t know why Rome doesn’t crack down on disobedient Bishops. For instance, our Bishop’s directive on EMHC’s is written so vaguely that it allows them in all circumstances and in all numbers. In our diocese, a ratio of 1 EMHC for every 10 congregants is pretty normal. I’ve even been to Masses where one Priest will celebrate Mass, and another Priest who is in attendance (not concelebrating) does not help distribute Holy Communion, but the 10 laywomen and 2 laymen EMHC’s do! Also, girl “altar servers” are the norm, rather than the exception in our diocese. And sure, we have even bigger problems than these, but these are such glaring disobediences to Papal directives that I wonder why Rome doesn’t intervene.
“At the risk” is overly optimistic — “glib and disrespectful” is putting it mildly. It would be hard to think of a comment (“argument” is far too dignified a word) more deserving of those two adjectives… although other adjectives come to mind including trivial, specious and self-defeating.
By the same principle, if we speak of sin as a stench in God’s nostrils, we implicate God in sin.
actually, besides SSPX, we also have SSPV and some other sedevacantists in our diocesan territory.. it is a very Catholic region of the country… yet our diocese isn’t interested in serving anyone who is not a modernist, charismatic, or radical ecumenist.. so literally tens of thousands of traditional Catholics in our diocese are left spiritually starved every Sunday.
Anonymous,
Rather than attend schismatic Masses (valid but illicit), I would say it is the Catholic’s duty to attend the “kumbaya” Mass at his/her local parish. If there are liturgical abuses, bring it to your priest’s attention. If your priest refuses to correct the problem, bring it to your Bishop’s attention. If your Bishop refuses to correct the problem, bring it to the attention of the archdiocese. If your Archbishop refuses to correct the problem, bring it to the attention of Rome.
I know… easy for me to say. I have an Anglican Use parish I can go to (some distance away) when I need my High Mass fix.
SDG,
Well… the metaphor can only go so far, can it? I had no design on implicating God for the sins of men.
But as far as efforts to win the glibness and speciousness sweepstakes go, how about the tired line, “Vatican II wasn’t bad in itself; it’s just the way it’s been INTERPRETED that’s bad.” I’m really tired of hearing that one. It’s not even clever, like my own glib statement (above) was.
Vatican II was bad in that the language used in many of its documents is imprecise. Anyone can read the same text and arrive at very different conclusions. Unfortunately, many people want to draw their own conclusions based on their own presuppositions rather than defer to the one person who is charged with authentically interpreting those documents!
my last post should read: “the metaphor can only go so far, can’t it?”
If Vat II wasn’t bad in itself, then somebody please tell me why every conceivable interpretation of Vatican II seems to suck? Sucky liturgy, sucky theology, sucky hippy-dippy touchy-feeliness, suck, suck suck!!
Andy,
Well, since you put it that way, how can anyone argue?
Actually, the liturgy you see today is not at all what was envisioned by V2. What was called for was a subtle change whereby the part of the server might be replaced by the people. It was not at all recommended to dispense with Latin altogether, switch to hippie music, remove all traces of sacrality from the sanctuary, and institute the “talk show” mass. But that’s what we got! That’s not V2’s fault, though.
Bro, I’d actually love to hear a convincing argument to the contrary. Got one?
I understand what you are saying, Anonymous, but the question I am left with is, why was Vat 2 necessary at all? Why did they decide to try to fix what wasn’t broken? The Church was thriving in the immediate pre-Vat 2 days; since Vat 2, it has been in precipitous decline in just about every way.
Come on, now, Andy. The Church is in “renewal”! Can’t you tell by all the hand waving, tongue-speaking, rolling-on-the-floor, laughing-out-loud, rock-music-singing, dancing, “on fire” Christians the Church is now producing? The Holy Spirit is alive and working in the Church. Can’t you tell?
“Bad” is such a slippery word, and for that matter so is “interpreted.”
Can we at least agree that the vast majority, and all of the worst, of the shenanigans that have gone on under the banner of Vatican II in fact have nothing to do with any actual directive of any actual conciliar document?
What has instead happened is that non-authoritative post-conciliar documents, or even just the whim of local pastors, has been cloaked in the mantle of “Vatican II.” “Vatican II” has also been associated with liturgical and cultural changes that in some cases predated the Council or were otherwise independent of it.
Having said that, it is certainly possible to raise reasonable criticisms the actual V2 documents for faults and shortcomings of various kinds. Such reasonable criticisms do not, however, extend to charges of “reversing the traditional Catholic teaching on the salvation of non-Catholics” or “gutting the Eucharistic Liturgy of its essential character.”
Yes, Anonymous, there’s so much renewal going on out there that I can just barely see straight. So…”be not afraid,” and all that.
This seems to me akin to saying that everything was great in the 1950s and then along came the 1960s. It doesn’t work that way. History is organic. The Greatest Generation raised the Woodstock Generation. Nor was Vatican II foisted on the Church from outside by space aliens.
Andy,
It is impossible for me to address, for example, a complaint about “sucky theology.” Have you read Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals and apostolic letters? Have you sat down and tried to digest his Theology of the Body? What about then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s theological works? Perhaps his Introduction to Christianity, or any one of the dozens of other theological works that he has put out? What about von Balthasar? Have you read him, or just the descriptions of others (who also probably have not read him)? Without knowing what you regard as “sucky” I can’t really address it.
And I really don’t know what “sucky hippy-dippy touchy-feeliness” is, but if that refers to hand-holding during the Lord’s Prayer, I’m with you. I wish it would go. But I’ve been looking and looking for that one in the Vatican II documents, and I can’t seem to find it. Could you point out for me where it is?
I have this peculiar problem Andy, maybe you can help me with it. I like all the odd numbered Councils, starting with Jerusalem. But I really find the others objectionable. There are all kinds of bad results like crusades and famines and illuministic movements and icky liturgical practices. I just don’t like the results.
I hold the same position regarding the Popes. I only accept every other one. It’s a very satisfying position really and mathematically based.
Is there a place for me in your Montanistic collection of traditionally minded “Catholics”?
Mark, do you have a surname by chance? Your tone and attitude sound strangely familiar. I can’t quite place it, but I think we may have met before.
Whoever you are– no, I can’t help you. You’re on your own, big guy. But thanks for asking. Glad to be of service.
Yes, Bro, I’d do away with the hand holding, as well as the passing of the peace moment, and the nausea-inducing hymns, and the churches that resemble plush hotel lobbies or post-modern gas chambers. That’s for starters.
I meant no sweeping indictment of all theology that anyone in the Church has done since Vat 2. I like and admire both JP 2 and Benedict XVI as thinkers. What I meant to indict was the informal theology that has been the fruits of the so-called “spirit of the Second Vatican Council.” The de-emphasis of the sacred, and the elevation of the vulgar and the tacky. The loss of a sense of sin, the loss of a sense of God’s otherness, and the overall decline in belief and practice.
Andy,
I’d do away with the hand holding, as well as the passing of the peace moment, and the nausea-inducing hymns, and the churches that resemble plush hotel lobbies or post-modern gas chambers. That’s for starters.
Post-modern gas chambers! I love it. But I don’t disagree with any of that, including the fact that it would only be a good start.
Andy said: “If Vat II wasn’t bad in itself, then somebody please tell me why every conceivable interpretation of Vatican II seems to suck? Sucky liturgy, sucky theology, sucky hippy-dippy touchy-feeliness, suck, suck suck!!”
My tone and attitude Andy?
Theology of the Body? I have read at least part of that. Seems like a porno title for a pope to be getting involved in the “Theology of the Body”. If he wants a woman to abstain from birth control and use the “rhythm method”-then why not say so! Theology of the Body is like the crowning achievement of a pontificate that lasted 26 years. Sad
Some would accuse traditional Catholics – those that insist on retaining the fullness of the Catholic faith intact and who therefore refuse the new religion of the post-Conciliar Church, of being in “schism.” The accusation is a lie. In reality, the schismatic is one who removes himself from the truth, and not one who insists upon it. And if it is necessary to separate oneself from something in order to save the truth, long live Schism! But in reality, it is not the traditional Catholic who is in Schism, but those who are responsible for changing the Catholic faith. But let is be both clear and honest. The new Church is not schismatic. It is heretical. In similar manner traditional Catholics are accused of being Protestants because they disobey the pope. Such accusations are false. Traditional Catholics do not “pick and choose” what they wish to believe; they are adhering with all their hearts to what the Church has always taught and always done. Nor are they disobeying the pope. They believe that the pope, being Christ’s vicar on earth and “one hierarchical person” with our Lord, is to be obeyed. They know that when Peter speaks he is infallible because it is Christ who speaks through him. They are the out and out papists and are doing nothing less than refusing to disobey Peter. In such a situation they are obliged to disobey those who falsely speak in Peter’s name. To obey modernist and heretical “popes” is to declare that they are “one hierarchical person” with our Lord and hence that Christ teaches falsely – quod absit!
Well, that’s how I feel about Vatican II, Mark Whomever. I’m open to dialogue on the matter, however. If I’m wrong, show me where I’m wrong.
And yes, to answer your question, your tone and attitude are what I thought I recognized.
Andy,
Just out of curiosity, how many of the Vatican II documents have you read? In their entirety, not just bits and pieces, here and there?
Yes, you’ve demonstrated in this thread how well you read, John.
Andy
I have read much of the 16 documents and to basically summarize one paragraph will say something that is “traditional” and in line with church teachings and you say to yourself, hey, that sounds Catholic. Then the next paragraph says something that is either contrary or vague so that you scratch your head and say I cant believe that the church would want me to hold Moslems “In High Esteem” when I know they reject Christ? And this goes on for most of the documents, so that it falls under the “renewal” that the council fathers like John XXIII wanted and at the same time can appear to be in line with past teachings
And if you count how many times the documents say the words “liberty” and “respect” and “dignity” you feel you are reading a manuscript from the time of the American and French Revolutions who we all know were founded by Masons. Connect the dots?
Is it true that the prohibition against being a freemason was written out of Canon Law in the 1983 Code?
“It has been asked whether there has been any change in the Church’s decision in regard to Masonic associations since the new Code of Canon Law does not mention them expressly, unlike the previous Code.
This Sacred Congregation is in a position to reply that this circumstance in due to an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories.
Therefore the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.”
…
Rome, from the Office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 26 November 1983.
Joseph Card. RATZINGER
Prefect
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19831126_declaration-masonic_en.html
Thanks for clearing that up, Mary. It came up on another thread and never got addressed.
What I meant to indict was the informal theology that has been the fruits of the so-called “spirit of the Second Vatican Council.” The de-emphasis of the sacred, and the elevation of the vulgar and the tacky. The loss of a sense of sin, the loss of a sense of God’s otherness, and the overall decline in belief and practice.
Andy,
I agree 100%, I think most every Catholic who’s ever heard a lie preceded by the words “in the spirit of Vatican II”. This “spirit” is what has chased many otherwise solid Catholics to schismatic sects and driven many others half insane.
JPII and B16 have been trying to correct this problem, as is evident in their talks and writings. Benedict XVI has especially been critical of this “spirit”, read his Dec 22, 2005 address to the curia. It’s bang on, and even proposes an orthodox understanding of “religious liberty”.
God Bless,
Matt
Matt,
Thanks– I’ll check it out. I like our current pope a lot, but wonder if even he (brilliant and incisive as he is) is equal to the task of excising the malignant tumor that is “the spirit of Vatican II.:
Bro, no, I haven’t read the Vatican 2 documents in their entirety, although from what I have read or read about, John’s summary seems pretty accurate.
See, the whole “Spirit of Vatican II” thing is a lie.
The people who always claimed to do things in the “Spirit of VII” continually reject the actual teaching of Vatican II. I have experienced this first hand.
This mythical “Spirit of Vatican II” was never anything but the Spirit of the Age dressed up in religious language.
It was the old bait-and-switch.
All the garbage that has taken place in the name of VII had nothing to do with the Faith and everything to do with the World. It did not proceed from the council.
We should not allow ourselves to be fooled by this abuse of language. These people can claim no support from Vatican II, and we MUST NOT allow their crooked agenda to define the work of that council.
The rot was already there, and VII was merely used as convenient cover.
At the same time, we shouldn’t buy the idea that liturgical abuse was unknown in the pre-VII church. The Latin mass lent itself to certain kinds of abuses, just as the Novus Ordo mass does.
Of course, I think abuse has been much more widespread since VII, but I think this would have taken place to a great degree anyway. VII didn’t CAUSE the abuses, our sick Western culture did.
Also, if we stand in judgement of the VII documents because we find them vague and open to misinterpretation, then we would have to admit that the Bible has been treated in the same way for as long as there has BEEN a Bible.
Scripture, too, is misinterpreted and twisted, sometimes to say the exact opposite of what it actually means, but the fault doesn’t lie in the scriptures.
I certainly am not putting the VII documents on a par with scripture, and I do see the weaknesses there that can be exploited, but the root of the problem IS NOT with the documents.
The problems start when Church documents (as well as the scriptures) are approached in bad faith, by people with an agenda who’s minds are made up, and who are only looking for proof texts and loopholes. They see the text as something to exploit in support of their arguments.
In this they break with the magisterium of the Church. The magisterial authority of the Church ALONE is where we must turn to find the authentic interpretation of these documents, as well as the scriptures. Not surprisingly, these folks reject that authority.
Submission to the authority of the Church – the Pope and the bishops – is key.
Tim-The magesterium interprets the Bible and we dont live and practice Sola Scriptura
Vatican II changed the entire landscape of the church, not since Trent which SOLIDIFIED and reaffirmed the faith instead of weakening it as V2 has, had a council had so much effect on the faithful
It was a pastoral council as John XXIII clearly stated in his opening address, but the winds of change after WWII , Modernism, Communism, not to mention Masonic influences infiltrated the church thought. One should read “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber” a great account of how the left wing of the church bonded together to get what they wanted, a Protestanized church
“Tim-The magesterium interprets the Bible and we dont live and practice Sola Scriptura”
‘kay.
Did I imply anywhere that this was the case?
Andy,
Bro, no, I haven’t read the Vatican 2 documents in their entirety, although from what I have read or read about, John’s summary seems pretty accurate.
If you think John’s summary seems accurate, it is pretty clear that you have done more reading “about” them than you have done actually reading them.
So… when’s Vatican III?
FWIW, the subject of sedevacatism recently came up at Mark Shea’s blog, leading Mark to cite a beautiful, luminous passage of Chesterton that absolutely epitomizes the brittle, implacable belligerence of sedevacantism and related forms of radical Traditionalism.
Brief excerpts (more at Mark’s blog):
Attentive readers will have no difficulty discerning some (not all) of these very symptoms in a number of posts in this very thread.
I could have only guessed that SDG was a regular on Mark Sheas blog. Talk about the perpetual wolf in sheeps clothing, pretending to be a neo con but anything but
John,
Talk about the perpetual wolf in sheeps clothing…
Looked in a mirror lately?
Andy,
I like our current pope a lot, but wonder if even he (brilliant and incisive as he is) is equal to the task of excising the malignant tumor that is “the spirit of Vatican II.
Of course he is not up to the task.
For that we need the Holy Spirit, and for this we need to pray. In fact the Holy Father has asked us to pray for him that he will have the strength to fight off the wolves.
Matt
Speaking of “connecting of one thing with another in a map more elaborate than a maze…” 😀 Thanks for illustrating my point, John.
curious that John seemed to take that personally…
Am I the only one who thinks that Chesterton was a dimwit and a blowhard?
Anony: Yep, you guessed it.
Attempts to change the subject from Chesterton’s observations to Chesterton himself have no bearing on the applicability of his comments regarding the intellectual smallness and sterility of crackpot theorists.
Having said that, while one could certainly argue that Chesterton, like many great rhetoricians, was a blowhard, to suggest that he was a dimwit would be tantamount to declaring intellectual bankruptcy.
I myself think Chesterton’s a bit overrated. He often seems infatuated with his own cleverness. The whole “paradox” motif just gets old after a while.
Bishop Sheen thought that Chesterton “never used a wasted word”.
As for the application of the Chesterton quote, it’s really a classic study in ad hominem and question-begging. Shea takes it for granted that the individual whom Chesterton calls the “madman” is identical to today’s typical Sedevecantist. He doesn’t explain how this is the case. He just lays it out there as if it were self-evident.
And if you try to argue with Shea about it, he’ll display his intellectual prowess by banning you from his site and making ad hominem attacks against you. What a mind!
Chesterton is someone that people who think they’re intellectuals quote in an attempt to prove to other people that they are intellectuals.
I usually tune out the moment I hear the initials “G.K.”…
The applicability of the Chesterton quote to the sedevacantist/rad-trad mentality is blindingly obvious to those with eyes to see, and again this very thread illustrates the point.
Chesterton’s prescription is dead on: Step outside of your mental rat run. Breathe the fresh air. Feel the sun.
Learn to take your neighbor more seriously — and yourself not so much. Charity and a sense of humor will take you further toward sanity than wire-drawn arguments.
SDG and the Good Brother in the same “camp”
Boy that is a surprise
Maybe we can stay away from personal attacks here on this blog as seems to be the norm with certain persons who cant defend their positions and stay on the topic
All I said was Mark Shea was a wolf in sheeps clothing who pretends to be a neo con but at the same time ADMITTED on his blog he HATED the FSSP and traditionals.
The gall of some people is just astonishing. That you, John, of all people should talk about people “defending their positions and staying on the topic.”
You claimed that the salvation of non-Catholics was a Vatican II innovation. I showed you that it isn’t. Have you defended your position and stayed on the topic?
You claimed that Vatican II taught that those who reject Christ “should be revered and saved.” Both Brother Cadfael and myself challenged you to defend this characterization of Vatican II. Have you defended your position and stayed on topic?
You claimed that Cardinal Ratzinger had said that the biggest threat to the church was the Traditionalists. Matt McDonald challenged you to produce a reference. Have you defended your position?
You pasted a lot of pre-V2 and V2 texts that you said were contradictory, when in fact anyone who can read and reason can see that they aren’t. I called you on it. Have you defended your position?
You replied to Tim J with the non-sequitur claim that “The magesterium interprets the Bible and we dont live and practice Sola Scriptura.” Tim challenged you to explain the relevance of this crushing observation for his comments. Have you defended your position?
Why did I bother wasting my time to document all that? It’s time to move on.
Feel free to have the last word, though, John. That’s another reason for Chesterton’s point about the futility of arguing with a crackpot. Not only is he not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity, he lacks the sense of proportion to know when all hopes of constructive conversation are dead and buried. By that standard I’m half cracked myself, I guess, to still be there at this point.
SDG,
I’m happy to be in your camp, man, especially given the alternatives.
Let John have his cafeteria Catholicism, as if he (or his interpretations) were the standard by which the Magisterium should be judged. But if ever there were a wolf in sheep’s clothing…
SDG and Brother
My arguments were “smashed”? No they were basically ignored as one can not defend these documents as they have defected from the teachings of the church. There are theologians much smarter than you or I who have proven that-or else for that matter why would B16 himself say we need a “reform”. But with a Priesthood and one is safe to say Bishops and Cardinals all of whom are anywhere from 30% to 80% homosexual-has one ever heard of a “conservative homosexual”?
Besides that-all one has to do is enter the church today if they can recall what was taught and how we worshipped and ask yourself-is this the same or “Catholic”-forget about being a canon lawyer-and the obvious answer is NO
If “30% to 80%” is “safe to say”, I presume you can provide the evidence to back up those numbers?
John,
Shea’s contempt for traditionalists and overall hatred of being contradicted leads him to even more extreme behavior than you have mentioned, like for example stalking his enemies on other people’s websites, and turning up–under the cover of a half-assed half psudonymn– to apply some cheesy, attempted smackdown (see my interactions with “Mark,” above).
John, either you believe that the Holy Spirit guided Vatican II or you don’t.
Apparently you don’t.
Mary Kay,
Since when is it neccessary to believe that Vatican II or any council was “guided” by the Holy Spirit?
Of course it is a legitimate and authoritative council, and the Holy Spirit as always prevented it from making any infallible errors, but behond that how can you suggest that any Magisterial act is directly guided by the Holy Spirit? Magisterial documants are authoritative, and in some cases infallible, but not inspired.
J.R.,
You seem to be equating “guided” with “inspired.” I would suggest that it is perfectly appropriate to say that the Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit, and that each of the ecumenical councils has been so guided. See, for example, CCC 81, 86, 113.
And the Church has always understood this guiding by the Holy Spirit to more than simply a prevention against making infallible errors (which might be regarded as the negative aspect of the charism, so to speak).
Brother Cadfael,
I know “guided” and “inspired” are not equivelent. The Holy Spirit certainly does guard Sacred Tradition as the CCC citations you gave suggest. However, I would hold that this guarding of Sacred Tradition does not automatically extend to any kind of direct guidance of individual Popes or Councils beyond the charism of infalliblity. I would hope that were the bishops sufficiently open to the Holy Spirit they would find their words flowing more from Him than themselves, but belief in whether this was the case in any given situation would be something more akin to belief in private revelation than something we should hold by faith.
If for example a group of not-so-faithful bishops decided to hold a council to revolutionize the Church to please the world rather than God, the Holy Spirit would not allow them to bind the faithful to error and I doubt He would allow them to significantly, directly distort Tradition by their teachings, but that does not mean the Holy Spirit would be “guiding” them, at least not as the word by itself suggests.
J.R., is your last paragraph a thinly veiled reference to Vatican II? Just want to clarify.
Brother Cadfael answered your question when he said, “And the Church has always understood this guiding by the Holy Spirit to more than simply a prevention against making infallible errors (which might be regarded as the negative aspect of the charism, so to speak).”
Andy-Yes I agree!!
Mr Shea followed me onto Amy Welbornes and the topic was Nostre Aetate some time back and was trying to instigate her against me
He even used names against my wife-he basically deletes any post that does not agree with his liberal philosopy of Catholicism and if you ever notice it is the same group that post on his site, never anyone new cause they eventually get tired of seeing their posts mysteriously disappear
Mary
On October 11, 1962, John XXIII in his opening address stated the following:
For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.
So what exactly does this mean-was the council invoked to “retranslate” Trent and V1 and that V2 was “pastoral only” as the Vicar of Christ himself said?
If the holy spirit was not invoked, and the purpose of a council is not to reinvent new doctrine but either to clarify or address a pressing issue at the time (what was the pressing issue in 1959???)-then indeed this council was pastoral
Bill
I will give you USA Today as well as other sources. USA today quotes the percentage as 20-50%-others higher, as well as Christianity today which posts some alarming statistics of priests and AIDS
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/04/25/gay-catholics.htm
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/106/26.0.html
Survey of AIDS Infection Among Priests Shocks U.S. Catholics
Kansas City Star says priests dying at much higher rate than American population
By Cheryl Heckler-Feltz, Ecumenical News International, in New York | A survey of Roman Catholic priests by a newspaper, the Kansas City Star, has stunned many American Catholics with its finding that priests are dying of AIDS at a much higher rate than the average US population.
The survey results—implying that a significant number of priests are gay and not celibate—have prompted anger by some Catholics at “wayward clergy,” while others are pleading with the church and its members to be more tolerant about the sexual orientation of those who serve the church.
The Star posted the random, confidential survey to 3,000 priests late last year, and 801—or 27 percent—responded. The results showed that:
Seven respondents—about 1 in 114—said they either had HIV or AIDS or might have but had not been tested. This would translate into about 400 priests nation-wide. In the general US population, the average is between 1 in 300 and 1 in 420, according to the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. (The National Catholic AIDS Network, established in 1989 to minister to those who suffer from HIV/AIDS, supports the survey’s projected estimate.)
Six of 10 respondents said they knew at least one priest who had died of an AIDS-related illness.
One-third of those surveyed knew a priest currently living with AIDS.
Three-quarters of those responding described themselves as heterosexual, 15 percent said they were homosexual and 5 percent bisexual. The remainder declined to categorize themselves. By contrast, in the general population an estimated 5 to 10 percent are homosexual.
Two-thirds of the respondents said that sexuality either was not addressed at all or not addressed enough in their theological training.
Gay Catholics angry, say they’ve been singled out
By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY
By Pier Paolo Cit, AP
Bishop Wilton Gregory says priesthood shouldn’t be “dominated” by homosexuals.
Gay Catholics were livid Wednesday when some church leaders meeting in Rome appeared to blame the sex abuse scandal on homosexual priests. Spokeswomen for two groups say they fear a “witch hunt” in which homosexuals will be banned from entering the priesthood and driven from current pulpits. At a press conference after the two-day crisis meeting among America’s top clerics, the pope and Vatican officials, two cardinals and the USA’s top bishop detailed the “skeletal outline” of a proposed new policy. It would set nationwide procedures for rapidly defrocking serial pedophiles and assessing the danger of new abuse cases with local review boards led by lay people.
Read more below
——————————————————————————–
Latest news Alleged victim sues former L.A. bishop
——————————————————————————–
Talk Transcript: Plaintiff’s attorney Carmen Durso
——————————————————————————–
Statements U.S. cardinals’ statement on sex abuse
Text of U.S. cardinals’ letter to priests
——————————————————————————–
Video Shanley extradited on rape charges
——————————————————————————–
From our archive Zero-tolerance approach comes with conflicts
Priest arrested on child rape charges
Lay Catholics demand more church control
Law: Boy was partly at fault for abuse
Vatican summit confounds, angers
Church leaders stop short of zero-tolerance policy
Commentators find ‘tough’ talk, ‘evasion’ in Pope’s words
——————————————————————————–
But when asked whether allowing homosexuals in the priesthood might foster a “bumper crop ” of abusers, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., said no “active homosexuals” should ever be admitted to seminary.
And the president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, Wilton Gregory, said the question would get “comprehensive study.” Gregory already was on record calling it a “struggle to make sure that the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by homosexual men.”
Those remarks sent Marianne Duddy, executive director of Dignity/USA, a nationwide group of gay Catholics, sputtering with anger at the prospect of a “witch hunt.”
“Gay Catholics are absolutely outraged,” she says. “There is no link between homosexuality and child molestation. And this negates any pretense by the church that they will treat us with respect. The church hierarchy is refusing to acknowledge their own failings in moving abusive priests from parish to parish, and protecting criminals instead of children. And now the American church has joined the Vatican in cynically shifting the blame to gay priests.”
She notes that last October, New York firefighters presented to the pope the helmet of their chaplain, the Rev. Mychal Judge, a gay priest who was killed while ministering to victims at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. His funeral was at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York, where he headed Dignity/USA’s AIDS ministry.
“Can you imagine a church that would toss someone like Mychal Judge out if he were still alive?” Duddy asks.
Catholic doctrine says homosexual orientation is not a sin, but homosexual behavior is “disordered.” And some church experts estimate that 20% to 50% of the current 45,000 U.S. priests are homosexual. In February, the pope’s spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, was quoted as saying homosexuals should not be in the priesthood, even if they maintain celibacy.
Former priest and psychotherapist A.W. Richard Sipe says his study of priests from 1960 to 1985, when many of the abuses now coming to light took place, found only about half of all priests maintained celibacy. He estimated 30% of all priests had a homosexual orientation.
Sharon Sherrard, 62, of San Rafael, Calif., a Catholic lesbian, says she’s sickened and saddened by church leaders’ remarks. “It is so easy to use us as scapegoats. It’s so easy.”
And it won’t work, says Paul Wilkes, who studied 600 parishes for his book, Excellent Catholic Parishes: A Guide to Best Places and Practices.
“If we drove all the gay priests out of the priesthood, our Masses would be on videotape,” Wilkes says.
Most Catholics don’t care about their priest’s sexual orientation, “they just want him to be a decent human being, a good honest pastor,” Wilkes said Wednesday. He cites studies showing that “through all this scandal, people’s love for their parish has not changed. Their faith in the hierarchy has been decimated, but I don’t hear people running away from Catholicism.”
The bishops’ remarks especially sting gay priests. “It makes me angry. They are trying to take the blame away from those truly responsible and put it on an exclusive class of people. It’s wrong,” says a gay priest no longer in active ministry, who asked that his name be withheld. He left his diocese after more than a decade but still attends services with the Dignity group. “We have to meet at an Episcopal church because the bishop won’t let us use a (Catholic) church.”
Contributing: Janet Kornblum
So Bill
With the above statistics-20-50% USA today, KC star quotes up to 80% possibly one of every 2 Bishops, Cardinals, Priest being homosexual-How can one expect tradition to be adhered to?????
It is obviously impossible!
John, if you want a discussion, it would be very helpful if you could provide a link or cite your source. I have not been able to find the paragraph you quote.
Your post still does not reply to the observation: either you believe that the Holy Spirit guided Vatican II or you don’t.
Mary Kay
J.R., is your last paragraph a thinly veiled reference to Vatican II? Just want to clarify.
It reflects an idea about what Vatican II at least in part was that I have not totally commited myself to. The point is that I see no reason why such a situation could not happen.
Mary
If I am not mistaken the opening address of the Second Vatican Council could be found on the vatican webite or any book on the council
http://www.vatican.va/
As far as the holy spirit-if the Pope did not invoke the holy spirit as he announced the council was to be pastoral and not doctrinal as many theologians have stated , as well as Pope Paul VI who repeated likewise that this was a pastoral and not a doctrinal council, then the holy spirit was not invoked
J.R., yes I had the impression that you’re working this one out.
There’s been a lot of theoretical “what ifs” in this thread, but Vatican II happened at a real historical moment through real people and circumstances that you can read about from a number of sources.
There are two presuppositions in your paragraph that sound like they’ve come from those hostile to Vatican II.
One is the Vatican was by “unfaithful bishops.”
The second is these “unfaithful bishops” had the intention to “revolutionize the Church to please the world rather than God.”
I would suggest that you check those presuppositions out by reading say, biographies of those involved. Did Karol Wojtyla’s early life and writings suggest that he would be an “unfaithful bishop?” Read up on John XXIII and the others.
The Vatican documents themselves are good to read.
Last but not least is the role of the Holy Spirit. To what extent does the Holy Spirit guide a person and/or a group? While I could give you an answer, it’s one of those things that you have to discover for yourself.
Good wishes to you as you sort all this out. 🙂
John, I have a book of The Documents of Vatican II. Although I could not find the paragraph you cited (and I did think that if you presented it, that you could say where you found it), I did the opening message released 9 days after the opening of the Council.
“Message to Humanity (followed by) issued at the beginning of the Second Vatican Council by its fathers with the endorsement of the Supreme Pontiff.”
The third paragraph says, “In this assembly, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we wish to inquire how we out to renew ourselves, so that we may be found increasingly faithful to the gospel of Christ.”
The rest of it is beautiful to read and I leave it to you to read it.
John,
Mr Shea followed me onto Amy Welbornes and the topic was Nostre Aetate some time back and was trying to instigate her against me
I doubt very much that Amy needs any instigating, as you say, against your noxious posting, unless you are very much different on her site than you are here.
John,
As far as the holy spirit-if the Pope did not invoke the holy spirit as he announced the council was to be pastoral and not doctrinal as many theologians have stated , as well as Pope Paul VI who repeated likewise that this was a pastoral and not a doctrinal council, then the holy spirit was not invoked
Are there no depths to which you will not stoop to try to sell your particularly vile version of cafeteria Catholicism? Suggesting that the Holy Spirit was not invoked for the Second Vatican Council is preposterous, but what else should we come to expect from you?
The Holy Spirit was quite clearly, specifically and repeatedly invoked, and the entire Second Vatican Council took place under his guidance.
Here, for example, is the prayer that was used before every meeting of preparatory commissions and conciliar commissions of Vatican II:
We are here before You, O Holy Spirit, conscious of our inumerable sins, but united in a special way in Your Holy Name. Come and abide with us. Deign to penetrate our hearts.
Be the guide of our actions, indicate the path we should take, and show us what we must do so that, with Your help, our work may be in all things pleasing to You.
May You be our only inspiration and the overseer of our intentions, for You alone possess a glorious name together with the Father and the Son.
May You, who are infinite justice, never permit that we be disturbers of justice. Let not our ignorance induce us to evil, nor flattery sway us, nor moral and material interest corrupt us. but unite our hearts to You alone, and do it strongly, so that, with the gift of Your grace,we may be one in You and may in nothing depart from the truth.
Thus, united in Your name, may we in our every action follow the dictates of Your mercy and justice, so that today and always our judgments may not be alien toYou and in eternity we may obtain the unending reward of our actions.
Amen.
In his opening message on October 11, 1962, the Holy Father called for the bishops’ “prompt obedience to the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit,” and he called on Almighty God to “aid their counsels and their legislation with the light of your divine grace.”
The opening message of the Council restates it quite clearly, as Mary Kay has pointed out: “In this assembly, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we wish to inquire how we ought to renew ourselves, so that we may be found increasingly faithful to the gospel of Christ.”
And that same message concludes, “To be sure, we are lacking in human resources and earthly power. Yet we lodge our trust in the power of God’s Spirit, who was promised to the Church by the Lord Jesus Christ….”
You may not like what the Holy Spirit did with the Council, you may think that He did not provide enough guidance, you may not like the pontiffs He has chosen to lead His Church, you may think that He has somehow abandoned His Church, but do not think that you are being Catholic when you think those things.
Kansas City Star… that’s what I are!
Yodle-odle-ay-ee… you oughtta see my car!