 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21st, 2007 02:39 pm |
|
Recently, I came across a website called "The Remnant" which is a newspaper dedicated to restoring the Roman Catholic Church to her former glory. I had heard about these "purists" before but had not encountered the core of their beliefs. On this particular website, they expressed opposition to those who call the last two popes anti-popes. However, these Catholics do believe that Vatican II is responsible for modernism creeping into the Church. They are opposed to the altar rails being taken away, the "new" Mass with priests facing the people, receiving the Eucharist in the hand, altar girls, ecuminism, and much more. They disagree with the open acceptance (in their view) of Protestants and they believe that Protestantism has crept into Catholic worship. They are praying for the restoration of the Catholic Church and compare the condition of the present Catholic Church to that of Athanasius day when heresies were running rampant. Yet they do not think they should break away from the church, but pray for those in authority to bring back the Catholic Church to a pre-Vatican II era.
So how does the church hierarchy view these kinds of Catholics? Rather than dismiss all of what they believe, do they have legitimate complaints?
These Catholics seem to think that Vatican II actually opposes Vatican I and encyclicals by former popes, such as Pope Pius X & XI. They view Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI as too liberal.
Anyway, I would appreciate your comments on this. I must say, there is something disturbing about this whole restoration movement. I suppose I wonder, are they right? After all, the memories I have of attending a Catholic Church when I was very young with my Catholic friend were indeed very awe inspiring. Then, about 7 years later when I went to inquire about the Catholic faith from a priest and attended Mass, the experience seemed quite unlike that with my Catholic friend. I remember thinking that it didn't even seem like the same Catholic Church (although it was the exact same parish). The reverence seemed to be lacking and a coldness also seemed to be present. I remember thinking that if it had been like my first experience at Mass, I may have become Catholic. But the cavalier attitude (as I perceived it) along with other changes resulted in my decision to write off the Catholic faith.
Again, I welcome your comments.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5349 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21st, 2007 09:30 pm |
|
Darlene wrote: So how does the church hierarchy view these kinds of Catholics? Rather than dismiss all of what they believe, do they have legitimate complaints?
They are within their rights to feel the way they do, as long as they still accept and follow the teachings of the Church. The issues in question are matters of discipline, not doctrine, and so they are free to disagree. It would be similar to my saying that married men should be allowed to be priests in the Latin Rite. I'm entitled to that opinion as it does not oppose Church doctrine.
I've written before that it is common for there to be a period of 40 years of turmoil after a major council, followed by 10 years of seeking a new equilibrium. We're in that final period now. Many of the things that "disappeared" after Vatican II are returning, and Benedict XVI is commited to returning a sense of reverence and awe, along with traditional music and the Latin language, back to the Church. I think that's a good thing (strictly my opinion). I led my parish in a Latin hymn last weekend for the first time in a L-O-N-G time.
These Catholics seem to think that Vatican II actually opposes Vatican I and encyclicals by former popes, such as Pope Pius X & XI. They view Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI as too liberal.
And they have the right to that opinion, as long as they still follow the doctrines and teachings of the Church even when they disagree. They also cannot teach in opposition to the Church, but they can certainly hope for and pray for a return to practices more compatible with their beliefs.
I must say, there is something disturbing about this whole restoration movement. I suppose I wonder, are they right?
This isn't a right or wrong issue. Based on what you say, they are not claiming the Church has fallen into error, as some of the schismatic groups say. (I am not personally familiar with the group, so I can't say any more than that.) So really they are expressing their preferences for how worship should be conducted. LIke a person might prefer a youth band over an organist (or vice versa), they can hold these beliefs. That does not make me wrong if I disagree with them; I just have different preferences.
The Church is a wide tent, and there is room for many, many types of beliefs. As long as they accept the teachings and doctrine of the Church, they are free to hold their beliefs if they do not deny the authority of the Church.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
shawnbm
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Fort Lauderdale, Florida USA |
| Posts: | 24 |
| First Name: | Shawn | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle Episcopalian (Anglo-Catholic) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22nd, 2007 01:28 pm |
|
| I personally think that was an excellant response to the inquiry. Too many people who are ignorant of the Catholic Church, the difference between dogma, doctrine and discipline and ecclesiastical history are oftentimes too quick to attack Catholicism, and I say this is a High Catholic Episcopalian! By the same token, the Catholic Church has always had these internal struggles and they will continue for all earthly times, in my view. Even so, as long as a Catholic submits to the teachings authoritatively passed on by the Church and does not violate those with impunity and defiance, I understand the situation to be as Rick has stated. It seems to me that the Church has authoritatively spoken on relatively few parts of Sacred Scripture as binding on all Catholics. Hence, there remains room for contrasting points of view, except on the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, the meaning of Holy Baptism, intercessory prayer to the saints, apostolic succession, etc., for example (at least, that seems to be the case to me). Shalom.
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 803 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 25th, 2007 01:03 pm |
|
Groups like these have caused me trouble as well. However, it is more in how they presnt their views or how angry they seem to be at the church that cause me fear. There is some weird stuff floating out there, so be careful.
However, I would say tha they do have some valid points, and I would consider a few of them as well. I can consider that the mass has lost some reverence. David often admits (correct me if I am wrong) that the state of architecture and music are not what they should be. I would love to mix up more latin in there, correct a few phrases in the translation to what would be more accurate, and I would like to even go back the the altar not facing the people as we are there to all focus on God not on eachother. I see negative affects here and there with changes that have been made and a lot of protestant influence creeping in.
However, I will not become too extremely radical, and maintain that speaking ones opinion is good, but we must trust the church and her authority or we are in danger of chaos. Plus I have experienced some positive things as well from these more modern infulences. I see more unity between protestants and Catholics than what I expected. More similarities. A mass that is less threatening for people to visit. I mean, there are ways I would not be ashamed to be influenced by protestants in their love of the bible and strong emphasis on a personal relationship to Jesus instead of a merely corporate going through the motions as a church.
Also, I would prefer more sacred music, but occasionally I catch myself actually enjoying a song here and there led by guitar, and I am glad sometimes this option exists for people who more personally might fit with this style. I guess I would just like to see more options and balance. I am sad that it is very difficult for me to find a very traditional mass with some latin and sacred music on a regular basis in my area. I actually found one church where there was some because the music director is more traditional and was slipping it in with the rest of the more typical stuff. So I wish there was more available, but I do think there is a lot available depending on where you live. I could drive 30 minutes and still see a 1962 mass on any given Sunday, a more modern mass with rock music, a more middle road mass with an organ and some pep, or go to a Ukrainian or Ruthenian Church any given week. And I think we are working to create more options and corrections. So though there are problems and confusions, I see a lot of potential for a good and strong future as well.
But I fear the spirit of independence and liberty to alter things and other protestant influences. Still, the church does and will hold together. We need input from traditional people like these, so long as it is friendly and loving and not too hostile, and most importantly that they not lead anyone to not trust Vatican II for what it was intended to do and teach. I see they have a right to challenge certain liturgical practices, but not the teachings of the church as a whole on certain matters. If the church now believes more openly that protestants may somehow too achieve eternal salvation, fact is that we always were supposed to, this is not a Vatican II change and we are not free to say that all non-Catholics are going to hell and we should never talk to or pray with them. We should not say that we can not use altar girls because it is allowed by the church, and if it needs to change hopefully it will. But I know a person who refuses to accept this.
So be careful and discerning between the valid arguments and the hostile ones and the groups who make these arguments within unity to Rome and the ones who do not. I would stay away from the ones who have broken off. But according to your post it seems you were able to do this in noting that they still had not broken away. I would still keep a decent distance from groups like this unless they were friendly toward all Catholics and willing to accept certain changes we have gone through and embrace the second Vatican council while hoping for a return to more traditional practices.
In the long run I hope God helps us make all satisfied (actually I should say that we make Him more satisfied but I meant that we haave the liturgical balance and discipline we need) and restores the people who have left over these issues (which they are working towards) and I hope that these issues serve to bring us closer together.
But do not let it worry you that the church as a whole is in error. The church is working through these things, but the doctrine is still trustworthy and true and the mass still valid even if we may need to examine a few changes. I myself though am fan of liturgical reform and so would be many on this forum I would imagine. These groups do have some valid points but we must be careful.
Brian
Last edited on Tue Jun 26th, 2007 01:49 pm by brian
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 281 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 25th, 2007 01:59 pm |
|
I would counsel anyone to stay away from the Remnant, especially those not strong in the Faith yet and unclear on details of the Church's teachings. I have a family member who has been a regular contributor to this paper and I am very familiar with the movement the Remnant represents. This group is far too close to the edge, and it makes conclusions that can be dangerous to one's Faith. I am a cradle Catholic and am aware of precise details of the Faith, and I have learned to stay away from types like this. Once I come across questionable or downright incorrect statements, I know that I cannot trust anything they say, since I'm likely to come across information with which I am unfamiliar, which I'll "swallow". The constant vitriolic attitude is a big sign that these folks are on the wrong path.
Rick has stated it well - they aren't out of the Church because they discuss opinions and officially recognize the Pope.
The ambiguity of the language of the Vatican II Council allowed those with agendas unfaithful to the Church to take advantage of this ambiguity, leading us down some very wrong paths. Groups like the Remnant can give the impression that it wasn't just the ambiguity but that it may have been an illicit Council! Some in this group, not all, make conclusions like this. Only the Magisterium of the Church can make such pronouncements.
Stay away from the Remnant. There are other groups much less angry and more humble and obedient that can present more evenly the wonderful Traditions of the Church that have been lost over the last 40 years.
A good warning sign is any group or person that causes you anger, panic, or intensifies the feeling that the Church has abandoned you instead of strengthening calmness, obedience, and trust in God. Those that notice something fishy about the Remnant and these kinds of groups have good 'radar'.Last edited on Mon Jun 25th, 2007 02:02 pm by Tina in Ashburn
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
Annie
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 731 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 25th, 2007 02:38 pm |
|
Tina in Ashburn wrote: A good warning sign is any group or person that causes you anger, panic, or intensifies the feeling that the Church has abandoned you instead of strengthening calmness, obedience, and trust in God.
That is great advice.
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 26th, 2007 08:12 pm |
|
Thanks for the advice, Tina. I will stay away from them. The more I read articles from their website, the more unsettled I became. It was angry X-Catholics that often kept me from inquiring into the Catholic faith to begin with. So also, these Remnant folks tend to be angry. I was actually wondering that if they think the Catholic Church has gone way off base, then do they even take Communion or go to Confession? They made mention of the Novus Ordo Mass and that much of it is questionable as regards Catholic doctrine and discipline.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5349 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 26th, 2007 10:37 pm |
|
Darlene wrote: They made mention of the Novus Ordo Mass and that much of it is questionable as regards Catholic doctrine and discipline.
The only question that matters, Darlene, is whether that liturgy is approved by the Magisterium of the Church. If it is, it is legitimate, whether is may be called by some the "Novus Ordo" or the "Tridentine Rite" or anything else.
If Pope Benedict XVI says it's OK, then it's OK. Period.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 281 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 26th, 2007 11:05 pm |
|
Dear Darlene, eeeyah... smart you are!
Yes, you have identified the uneven logic that infests these groups. You'd think that those who doubt the validity of certain Masses or practices, and so much makes them so mad, that they would stay away from the Church of today entirely. But no, they do go to Communion and Confession. Thank goodness they stop short of cutting themselves off. They are in union with the Papacy, they are not Protestants, though there seems to be a lot of "protesting" over there.
Its okay to make observations about the "new" post-Vatican II Mass. I'll admit that there are some things about the "new" Mass that I don't like. I love the Mass in Latin, and the "old" Mass even better. What's not okay, is to make your own conclusions about the "new" Mass. That is the role of the Magisterium.
I will add this: much of the complaints about the "new" Mass are actually valid gripes about illegal abuses that the laity endures in many dioceses, and not what is really intrinsic to this "new" Mass. When our Mass is said reverently and in Latin, theres a lot less to complain about.
Whatever the beef is with the post-Vatican II Mass, Pope Benedict apparently intends to make the "old" Mass accessible everywhere. There will be less to complain about when the "old" Mass is more accessible to everyone and it is reverently celebrated.
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5349 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 27th, 2007 12:14 am |
|
Tina in Ashburn wrote: When our Mass is said reverently and in Latin, theres a lot less to complain about.
When our mass is said reverently and in English, there's a lot less to complain about! It's not the English or the "new mass" that's the problem, it's the lack of reverence! And contrary to what some people believe, the mass in Latin wasn't always reverent either. It's just that no one noticed the difference.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Ioannes silens
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Five | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Buddhist, UU, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 27th, 2007 11:20 am |
|
CajunRick wrote: It's not the English or the "new mass" that's the problem, it's the lack of reverence! And contrary to what some people believe, the mass in Latin wasn't always reverent either. It's just that no one noticed the difference.
Hello all,
Tu quoque, Brute? This is not an valid argument, especially since it is also dicto simpliciter. "Wasn't always reverent" means what? 10% of all Masses were irreverent? 20%? Perhaps you can supply some statistics and references.
I never attended an irreverent Divine Liturgy growing up, in my or any other Byzantine parish, and even the most earthly of the other altar boys toed the line once he stepped into the sanctuary. I never experienced an irreverent Mass until I went to an RC high school in 1974, against the advice of our priest. And he was right, too, at least in my case, for 4 years of education in the spirit of Vatican II convinced me that Catholicism, indeed Christianity, was a man-made sham. Thank you Raymond Brown; thank NAB commentary; thank you Father Drinan and his ilk, and the bishops who couldn't or refused to silence them.
It took me 25 years to get over those four years of reform. And it is safe to say that I wasn't the only casualty of Vatican II. Millions left just like me, and how many of those who remained are just like a very dear friend of mine, from that very high school. Soon to be a VP of Nursing in her hospital, she has divorced her husband of 19 years, scorns an annulment (probably because he did nothing to earn her one), intends to remarry soon in a civil ceremony, and holds "I am a good Catholic, I just don't believe half of what the Church says, and I am allowed to because my conscience trumps all." Her views on end of life decisions would keep me and my family out of where she works, let me tell you.
The standard argument, employed in this thread and elsewhere, is that Vatican II didn't cause this; the ambiguity of the documents, and their deliberate misinterpretation by Modernists, or the carelessness of less inimical clergy and theologians, did. That is rather like saying of a gunsmith who manufactures a weapon that cannot be safed, "he bears no responsibility for the lives his invention has destroyed." Of course he does, and so too does Vatican II bear responsibility for the mass defection from the faith that followed it.
Does that mean that the sedevacantists are right, and Vatican II taught error? No, as the Holy Father said in 2005, the hermeneutic of continuity is there; but just because the Holy Spirit protected the Council from doctrinal error, doesn't mean that it didn't provide the opening for procedural abuse, protestantism, relativism, and general disbelief in the depositum fidei.
Catholics do not have to "embrace" Vatican II and its changes, as someone suggested as a litmus test for engaging Traditionalist parishes. The Institute of the Good Shepherd, established by the Vatican, with the Holy Father's personal approval, to accomodate priests and seminarians leaving the SSPX, not only has total freedom to celebrate the Pian Mass, but liberty to question the teachings of Vatican II. They most certianly do not embrace it.
They need only obey what needs to be obeyed, and believe what needs to be believed: which they do and will, I imagine, or why else leave the SSPX? I pray nightly that my friend, who most certainly does embrace Vatican II, woud do the same.
Dominus vobiscum, atque Beata Virgo Maria vos incolumes custodiat,
John K.
Last edited on Wed Jun 27th, 2007 11:21 am by Ioannes silens
|
|
|
Annie
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 731 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 27th, 2007 12:50 pm |
|
I am with John on this. There is a false blaming of the suppposed false "spirit of Vatican II" which is supposed to have caused problems but we are not seeing the forest for the trees. In opening the window to the world, the Church didn't foresee that that would let in the pollution of the world.
And by the way, a gun without a safety is a safer gun. Watch that trigger finger!
Shooter Annie (yee-ha!)
Last edited on Wed Jun 27th, 2007 12:52 pm by Annie
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 27th, 2007 07:57 pm |
|
Dear Ioannes Silens, (and anyone else)
I've seen SSPX before. What do the letters stand for and what exactly is it? So, if a Catholic, such as yourself, takes the position as you do, then what is your demeanor when attending Mass? Or do you only go to a traditional Mass? Do you have a Confessor that you are satisfied with?
Even from a Protestant perspective, I know that the "new" Catholics are not like the "old" traditional Catholics. I just began a new job working with the elderly in a personal care home, and I can notice the difference between these traditional Catholics and the modernist, liberal ones. (which are everywhere) Growing up in a Catholic neighborhood, with Catholic friends, I always had such a deep curiosity and respect for Catholics. I would watch many of the Catholic families walk to church together on Sunday morning. My one Catholic friend gave me a Catholic cross and told me to wear it. When I stayed over night at my friends' homes, I noticed a holy water font on the wall near the entrance of the bedrooms. Every room seemed to have a crucifix on the wall. The dining rooms had a picture of the last supper. They said grace before each meal. And my friends went to Confession often. I know, because they were not able to do fun activities with me on many Saturdays. When I asked why, they would tell me they had to go to Confession. The religious, who lived in a convent just at the end of my street, all wore the traditional habits. And all of my Catholic friends knew to observe the Friday penance. It was because of what I perceived as holiness and godliness among these dear Catholics, that I bought a rosary. Now, I really don't meet Catholics like this anymore, unless they are reverts or Protestant converts to Catholicism! (Or on forums like this)
The gist of it is this. I do want to become Catholic more and more. However, this liberalism which is rampant in the Church is something I want to distance myself from. Believe me, I've had enough modernistic ideas presented to me in Protestant land. I don't need more of the same thing in the Catholic Church. So, where do I find these traditional, conservative Catholics? Do they exist in the real world? Or are they merely sparcely scattered throughout Catholic parishes?
I welcome any and all responses.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2068 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 27th, 2007 10:45 pm |
|
Darlene, SSPX stands for Society of Saint Pius X. It is probably the largest of the “traditionalist” groups which have criticized the Mass of Paul VI (otherwise known as the New Mass or Novus Ordo). It was founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who soon after the promulgation of the new Mass liturgy declared his opposition and refused to use it. For about 20 years he and his followers in the society were still Catholics in good standing. However, at one point he deliberately disobeyed a direct order from Pope John Paul II not to ordain any more priests or bishops. By this act he was excommunicated, along with all who directly participated in the ordination. Non-clergy members and those members who were previously ordained were not, to my knowledge, excommunicated at that time. However, since the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, the society as a whole has moved into clear schism.
Yes, there are many individuals and some small groups around, even on occasion entire parishes, which adhere to the faith as God intended, both doctrinally, morally and liturgically. You have to seek them out, but if you do you will find them. They are not in the majority, simply because Catholics who actually practice their faith are not in the majority. But this situation will be not get better if no one works for it.
Your affinity for “the real thing” when it comes to religion is precisely the reason I became Catholic in my own day. The only way the Barque of Peter is going to become and remain a beacon in the darkness, whether in our own lives or in those who come after us, is if we are willing to do what we can to bring it about and maintain it. That is to say, the responsibility is ours, not somebody else’s. This is why, for instance, I volunteer with the Coming Home Network. It is my “widow’s mite” to help build up the Church. I do this not by cutting notches in my belt as converts come into the Church, but by helping people to know and understand the faith, to recognize the difference between sin and virtue and strive for true union with God both here and hereafter.
David
|
|
|
mg57
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tolland County, Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 180 |
| First Name: | mg57 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Infant Baptised Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 27th, 2007 11:12 pm |
|
Darlene -
SSPX - Society Of St. Pius the 10th.
In my experience, I think you're more likely to find dynamically orthodox Catholics scattered throughout Catholic parishes these days - as you mentioned.
Please realize that things even in the "old days" were not "pristine", even though there was a stronger sense of a Cathoic "culture" among Catholics, the depth of faith would vary often quite a bit from family to family, - and I'm talking about the early 1960's before catechetics and society went in decline.
The differences I see now include less intact families, and greatly multiplied aggressive distractions through the media. I also believe along with many others that the poor catechetics throughout the late 60's to just fairly recently, has contributed to the religious and societal decline because of the lack of well-formed laity that could have had an effective apostolate out in the public square during those years, - the general lack of recognition of objective truth for one example.
The solution, as was always the case throughout millenia, is individual leadership / example by serious well-formed Catholics, of which I hope you'll be one !
|
|
|
Ioannes silens
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Five | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Buddhist, UU, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 28th, 2007 10:03 am |
|
Hi Darlene,
First, let me say that it's just John, pretentious screen name notwithstanding. Second, while what David wrote generally about the SSPX is correct, it is perhaps not the case that the SSPX is in clear schism.
David W. Emery wrote:
However, at one point he deliberately disobeyed a direct order from Pope John Paul II not to ordain any more priests or bishops. By this act he was excommunicated, along with all who directly participated in the ordination. Non-clergy members and those members who were previously ordained were not, to my knowledge, excommunicated at that time. However, since the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, the society as a whole has moved into clear schism.
In 1984, His Holiness John Paul II, as part of the negotiations with traditional Catholics, issued an indult that allowed priests to offer the Mass of Pius V with the permission of their bishop: the vast majority of bishops simply refused to grant permission. Some might say that, in effect, the Holy Father resorted to parliamentary tactics that allowed the continued suppression of the Pian Mass. In 1988, the aging Archbishop Lefebvre despaired of any significant rapprochement with Rome, and consecrated four bishops to continue the SSPX. His Holiness then acted swiftly to declare, in the motu proprio letter Ecclesia Dei, the Abp. and the new bishops schismatics and excommunicated latae sententiae under CIC can. 1382. But good did come out of all of this, for he also ordered the creation of the FSSP (Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri) and traditional parishes slowly began to return to the western Church (http://www.pittsburghlatinmass.org/ as an example. I highly recommend that you read Fr. Myers' "A New Look at the Old Mass," linked on the right hand of the page).
Now, the SSPX has always maintained that it acted out of necessity - to preserve the old Mass and as a foil to the modernists intent on destroying the Church - and therefore the latae sententiae excommunication never happened. They cite canons 1323.4 and 1323.5.
That the status of the SSPX as a whole is not clear can be seen in these statements of Cardinal Castrillon, who heads the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei: http://www.catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=39361
and in this article by Monsignor Barreiro, written to rebut a piece that appeared in The Remnant, the very publication that prompted you create this thread. http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?id=6848&repos=1&subrepos=&searchid=21381
It is probably more charitable and accurate to say that the SSPX has an irregular canonical status. Personally, and there is an SSPX parish not far from me, I think the members of the SSPX are far more concerned about their relationship with Rome, and whether or not they are living as good Catholics, than the vast majority of liberal Catholics for whom the Catechism and the CIC are little more than the "Pirate's Code" in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies - guidelines to be ignored when they prove inconvenient. And whether or not the SSPX is in formal schism, there are many U.S. bishops in de facto schism right now.
To answer the specific questions you asked of me, Darlene, I am a Byzantine Catholic, and we are still very traditional: Our liturgy is, with certain prescribed exceptions, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Crysostom; my parish priest is my confessor; there are crucifixes on the walls; icons with votive lights in a few corners (with palm leaves and willow branches behind them); the house is blessed every year; there is even a little jar of "just in case" holy water in the fridge. And while my spirituality is probably more Orthodox than Roman Catholic, I am a Thomist and an avid student of Sts. Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross. My educational background is in math and physics.
But modernism is making inroads in the Eastern Rites, too; there is division right now in the Metropolia of Pittsburgh over a new revision of the Divine Liturgy. David Emory and MG57 are right about the need for a well-formed laity. I hope you pursue your inquiries into the traditional Catholicism, always remembering as you do that there is indeed a hermeneutic of continuity in the Church.
Pax,
John
|
|
|
Annie
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 731 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 28th, 2007 10:37 am |
|
Our diocese is large enough to have an "indult Church" to which the real traditionalists have fled. They have a Tridentine Mass every Sunday and the diocese put all the really orthodox priests there, judging by the website and by what I have heard. I will probably end up there eventually.
It's like any group of people, you have to "consider the source" and not try to be like everybody you meet. You know what God's requirements are from the Gospels and you look for people who live them.
On the other hand, it is important for me to keep in mind that in the really "good old days" I would not have been as welcome in the Church as I am now because I am a single professional married to my career and am not traditionally feminine. I would definitely have encountered more hostility than I do now in the Church.
find my own way through life,
Annie
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
Ioannes silens
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Five | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Buddhist, UU, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 28th, 2007 11:38 am |
|
Hey Shooter,
Annie wroteOn the other hand, it is important for me to keep in mind that in the really "good old days" I would not have been as welcome in the Church as I am now because I am a single professional married to my career and am not traditionally feminine. I would definitely have encountered more hostility than I do now in the Church.
find my own way through life,
Annie
I am always leary about anyone's account of the "good old days," whether they call themself a liberal, neo-conservative or traditional Catholic.
Some years back, I gave my now 87 year-old father Marija Gimbutas' Civilization of the Goddess to read - no nihil obstat and imprimatur on that book, to be sure! One evening I asked him how it was, and he laughed: "So the women ran everything back then? Sounds like our parish back in Derry." That would be his boyhood parish back in the 20's and 30's.
It is common, especially on TV, to hear ex-Catholics talk about how, before Vatican II, they were taught that all non Catholics went to Hell, yet that was not the teaching of the Magisterium. Indeed, Feeneyism was explicitly condemned years before the Council. So much for liberal bias.
But on the other hand, the SSPX insists that the primary purpose of marriage is to have children, and condemns that the Magisterium now places children after the spouses spiritual support of each other. And yet, if you read the Catechism of Trent, written in the 1500s, that is exactly the order of purpose. So much for SSPX bias.
Or take a statement in this thread as an very recent example of this phenomenon: "And contrary to what some people believe, the mass in Latin wasn't always reverent either. It's just that no one noticed the difference."
No one? No one at all? This statement conjurs an image of the parish of ignorant Catholics, superstituously attending a ritual they cannot understand; and yet, oddly enough, my copy of the 1962 missal is bilingual. Perhaps the statement refers to medieval Catholics, but if so, what possible value does it have in this thread?
It's all about catechesis, precision of speech, avoidance of hyperbole, and religious assent, I think.
Pax,
John
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 803 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 28th, 2007 02:06 pm |
|
John,
I am practicing aspects of the Byzantine tradition as well and visiting Divine Liturgy more frequently.
I am newer at this, but I am curious as to what you think a Catholic is free to embrace and free to be critical of regarding Vatican II? I know that this council did not define anything new or that it is said to be more of a, "I forgot the word", council. But I would think that as Catholics we can not openly disagree with teachings that arose from councils. Maybe we could disagree with things that happened as a result, but with the council itself?
I am not saying you are wrong, you seem quite knowledgable, but I am just curious as to how someone remains faithfully Catholic while being in opposition to an important council, which many of us still think a lot of good will result from when all is said and done.
|
|
|
Annie
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 731 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 28th, 2007 02:34 pm |
|
| The problem lies in the non-binding nature of the conciliar documents.
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 281 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 28th, 2007 02:48 pm |
|
generally, rules issued by bishops ARE binding.
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
Annie
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 731 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 28th, 2007 03:06 pm |
|
| Oh, I see, then the statements that I have seen that they are not binding is at least part of the source of the chimerical "spirit of Vatican II."
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 281 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 28th, 2007 03:10 pm |
|
so bishops saying that their statements aren't binding... Is that binding?
wait. i'm confused.
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
Annie
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 731 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 28th, 2007 03:40 pm |
|
Oh, Tina, you are funny! What a great way to lighten up my day!
Annie the Unbound
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
shawnbm
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Fort Lauderdale, Florida USA |
| Posts: | 24 |
| First Name: | Shawn | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle Episcopalian (Anglo-Catholic) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 28th, 2007 03:55 pm |
|
| I find this topic quite enlightening and am happy to see concerned Catholic discourse civilly bantered about. I can assure you that discussions on the direction of the American branch of the Anglican Communion are not quite so civil and DEFINITELY involve way too much hyperbole and grandstanding. Turning to matters of substance, I would like to know if what a Catholic bishop rules on or states is binding on all congregants in his archdiocese or is there a proper forum for discussion and even opposition to whatever the bishop states. It seems to me one could always go to the American College of Catholic Bishops (is that what it is called?) for clarification, or the Vatican; is that right? Since the Vatican just approved teh use of the Tridentine Mass with or without the consent of the local bishop (if I read that correctly), then some of what has been discussed may be water under the bridge. From what I have seen and read about Vatican II, there appears to be a lot of upset over non-dogmatic things; i.e., the procedure of the mass, disciplinary matters concerning Lenten fast and whatnot. These things don't change the catholic and apostolic faith, at least to my ears--then again, I was not raised Catholic and certainly have very little exposure to eastern orthodox tradition and custom. At any rate, shalom to you all.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2068 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 28th, 2007 05:32 pm |
|
To clear up a couple of points:
1. When I stated that “the society as a whole has moved into clear schism,” I failed to make clear that I am speaking of the actual society, and not its followers and sympathizers. The SSPX is a society of clergy, and does not include lay folk. So my comment refers only to the priests and bishops of the movement, not to the laity who have tagged along. At first, only a few of the clergy were excommunicated. But after the founder’s death, the new leadership of the society has taken steps to insure that they are a body apart from the institutional Catholic Church, which they consider to be in error on a number of points. This is the schism of which I was speaking. The laymen who attend SSPX Masses (which are valid but illicit according to Catholic canon law) are in the grey area of which Ioannes silens speaks. They are not officially either excommunicated nor in schism, but their status is irregular, and according to what I have heard, they would probably have to make a profession of faith and receive the sacrament of penance for them to again be recognized as Catholics in good standing.
2. Rules and teaching officially designated as such by a bishop are indeed binding on the faithful who belong to his diocese. Other comments are not binding. This parallels the rule concerning the pope: If he says it is binding, it is. If he does not, it is not. Benedict XVI recently published a book, and he went out of his way to insist that what he wrote is not binding on the faithful, because his intention was to write it as a private individual and not as pope.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5349 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 28th, 2007 10:29 pm |
|
Ioannes silens wrote: Or take a statement in this thread as an very recent example of this phenomenon: "And contrary to what some people believe, the mass in Latin wasn't always reverent either. It's just that no one noticed the difference."
No one? No one at all? This statement conjurs an image of the parish of ignorant Catholics, superstituously attending a ritual they cannot understand; and yet, oddly enough, my copy of the 1962 missal is bilingual. Perhaps the statement refers to medieval Catholics, but if so, what possible value does it have in this thread?
Excuse me for generalizing. Few Catholics prior to Vatican II understood Latin well enough (in my opinion) to truly understand whether the priests meaning, inflection, and movement was reverent or not. Since the priest had his back to the congregation, few (in my opinion) could see exactly what he was doing at any given time. I am old enough to have been there, and I studied enough Latin to be able to understand what was being said and how it was being said. As a seminarian, I was usually either serving on the altar or sitting on the altar where I could see what was happening. And I have been to more than a few irreverent Latin masses. Language (in my opinion) does not equal reverence. I have been to some extremely reverent masses celebrated in English, and I have been to some very irreverent masses celebrated in Latin.
But I should not have said "no one". I should also have made it clear that I was expressing an opinion. There certainly were Catholics who knew the difference, but they (in my opinion) were in the minority. However, now that the mass is in a language that the people in the congregation really do understand, and they can see the movements of the priest, the average Catholic (in my opinion) is a much better judge of the reverence of the liturgy than the average Catholic was prior to Vatican II and, more specifically, the revision of the liturgy into the vernacular.
Last edited on Thu Jun 28th, 2007 10:31 pm by CajunRick
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 281 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29th, 2007 01:36 am |
|
The Council of Vatican II was supposed to have been a reform. Instead, chaos ensued. Now Pope Benedict is calling for a "reform of the reform".
Just before the Council, many saw the need for this reform back then. At the time, observers saw a Church that needed re-invigoration, and were very excited about this new Council. The laity, musicians, schools, the clergy - all were looking forward to this great Council. Apparently, the need for reform was obvious to many.
The language of the Church is Latin, and it will remain so. The point is, a badly said irreverent Mass can be perpetrated in English as well as in Latin.
The hierarchy we have today were the priests of the 50s. Certainly something was "rotten in Denmark" way back then for the Church to be in the state it is today. It wasn't simply the occurrence of a Council that contributed to today's confusion but that which caused the problems of the Council. There is always a place for reform and restoration of Church Traditions and Teaching. This has always been the case throughout Church history. Wasn't St Athanasius the only bishop that stood up to the heresy of all the others? This is nothing new. And the Church will prevail again because of the love and devotion from the hearts of man to our God. The onus is on each of us and how we act.
More to the point, each of us is called to personal holiness and union with our Creator. Our own reform and conversion of heart is a never-ending objective no matter where we are on our journey.
Isn't the Confraternity of St Peter similar to SSPX without the "irregular" risks?
Last edited on Fri Jun 29th, 2007 01:47 am by Tina in Ashburn
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 281 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29th, 2007 01:42 am |
|
Shawn,
Glad you are enjoying this - I hope we can keep our grandstanding to a low roar here.
Yes, one can go through the hierarchy of bishops, or commissions, to get answers.
And yes, anyone can ask Rome for help. The Church is also a bureaucracy and answers aren't always immediate. However depending on the severity or need, some help is more rapid than others.
There are very recent cases of bishops being privately censured pretty durn quickly after appeals to Rome.
There are many arguments and concerns about Vatican II. Everybody seems to have an opinion on this very complex and emotional subject. But to understand completely enough to make a competent conclusion all the context, history, rationale, canon law, what's not dogma, influences, and relevant encyclicals vs. irrelevant documents ....well, that's why we have a Magisterium. And until a pronouncement occurs, most of this can be nothing more than our personal conjecture no matter how smart we think we are.
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
Ioannes silens
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Five | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Buddhist, UU, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29th, 2007 10:41 am |
|
Thank you, Rick, for clarifying, with so much repeated parenthetical humility, the anecdotal nature of your comments. Normally, that would be sufficient to qualify them, but since you are a list Moderator and also suggest in your post that your opinions should carry some authority because you are an ex-seminarian from that period, it seems important to apply some context to them.
CajunRick wrote:
However, now that the mass is in a language that the people in the congregation really do understand, and they can see the movements of the priest, the average Catholic (in my opinion) is a much better judge of the reverence of the liturgy than the average Catholic was prior to Vatican II and, more specifically, the revision of the liturgy into the vernacular.
Fair enough, that is your opinion. According to your profile, you were born in 1951, so you were 11 when Vatican II began and 16 when it ended. Therefore, you are offering to inquiring Protestants like Darlene your opinion of pre-Vatican II Catholics based on the remembered observations of a prepubescent child and a callow youth.
Now, as I stated above, my copy of the 1962 missal (for the pews) is bilingual: the daily prayers, prayers before Mass, and litanies are entirely in English, and the Proper of the Mass is printed in two columns - Latin and English. Is this not a representative text? My understanding is that it is, but I will defer to your remembrances of teenage days past.
If it is representative of 1962 missals, though, then you are asking us to believe that pre-Vatican II Roman Catholics not only couldn't follow the Latin, they couldn't follow the English, either. This is hard to believe (in my opinion), because the pew books of the Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh have been, throughout my life and until just this year, bilingual in English and Church Slavonic: Despite the fact that the Divine Liturgy is celebrated ad orientem, I have never seen any problem on the altar, rubrical or vocal, or with the cantor, go unnoticed - to be commented upon after Mass in the church basement! But that is just my anecdotal observation, and I am not an ex-seminarian.
On that, born in 1951, you would have entered the seminary no earlier than 1969 (unless you were precocious, and if you wish to assert that, I will believe you). This presents a problem, though, concerning the opinion you offer about the state of reverence you observed as a seminarian apropos the celebration of Latin masses. 1969 was the year Pope Paul VI's Missale Romanum promulgated the revised rite, with its publication in 1970, so it would seem that any irreverence you saw at the seminary in the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was either directed at a rite that everyone knew was on its way out, or to the new rite you praise. And it is necessary to observe that the late 60's and 70's are when Roman Catholic religious where leaving the Church in droves; i.e. the seminaries at that time were in chaos.
So, your opinions about the knowledge level of pre-Vatican II Catholics and the reverence with which the Mass of Pius the V. was celebrated are based on the memories of a child, a teenager and seminarian in a time of transition and chaos (admittedly, you may have gone to seminary later in life, but that only serves to further weaken the validity of your opinions of traditional Catholicism).
Finally, there is this statememt: "Language (in my opinion) does not equal reverence." I will only offer in rebuttal the opinion of His Holiness John XXIII, inaugurator of Vatican II:
The wisdom of the ancient world, enshrined in Greek and Roman literature, and the truly memorable teaching of ancient peoples, served, surely, to herald the dawn of the Gospel which Gods Son, "the judge and teacher of grace and truth, the light and guide of the human race," proclaimed on earth.
Such was the view of the Church Fathers and Doctors. In these outstanding literary monuments of antiquity, they recognized man's spiritual preparation for the supernatural riches which Jesus Christ communicated to mankind "to give history its fulfilment."
Thus the inauguration of Christianity did not mean the obliteration of man's past achievements. Nothing was lost that was in any way true, just, noble and beautiful.
Venerable languages
The Church has ever held the literary evidences of this wisdom in the highest esteem. She values especially the Greek and Latin languages in which wisdom itself is cloaked, as it were, in a vesture of gold. She has likewise welcomed the use of other venerable languages, which flourished in the East. For these too have had no little influence on the progress of humanity and civilization. By their use in sacred liturgies and in versions of Holy Scripture, they have remained in force in certain regions even to the present day, bearing constant witness to the living voice of antiquity.
A primary place
But amid this variety of languages a primary place must surely be given to that language which had its origins in Latium, and later proved so admirable a means for the spreading of Christianity throughout the West.
And since in God's special Providence this language united so many nations together under the authority of the Roman Empire -- and that for so many centuries -- it also became the rightful language of the Apostolic See. Preserved for posterity, it proved to be a bond of unity for the Christian peoples of Europe.
The nature of Latin
Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.
Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin formal structure. Its "concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity" makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.
Preservation of Latin by the Holy See
For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority "as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws."
Apostolic Constitution Veteram Sapientia (February 22nd, 1962).
It should be noted that an Apostolic Constitution is the highest level of decree a Pope makes, and that venerable, as in "Venerable Languages," and reverence, as in "language does not equal reverence," are closely related words in religious usage. I would also add that our current Holy Father agrees with his predecessor.
Warmly,
John K.
|
|
|
Ioannes silens
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Five | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Buddhist, UU, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29th, 2007 10:53 am |
|
Tina in Ashburn wrote: The Council of Vatican II was supposed to have been a reform. Instead, chaos ensued. Now Pope Benedict is calling for a "reform of the reform".
Isn't the Confraternity of St Peter similar to SSPX without the "irregular" risks?
Tina,
The Holy Father's desire to "reform the reform" extends back to the seventies, when he began his transformation from the liberal peritus who helped shape the documents of Vatican to the head of the CDF.
And yes, the Confraternity is the same as the FSSP. It was formed by priests from the SSPX after the break in 1988. And there are other traditional societies in full communion with Rome.
John
|
|
|
Ioannes silens
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Five | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Buddhist, UU, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29th, 2007 12:17 pm |
| | |
