Attention, liberals!
Liberals consider him only the Bishop of Rome, and themselves infallible but not him. He is only the Pope, the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ.
But we must remind the liberals every so often that Pope Benedict XVI has written this in Summorum Pontificum:
"What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”
Got that, liberals? "Cannot be...considered harmful."
But we must remind the liberals every so often that Pope Benedict XVI has written this in Summorum Pontificum:
"What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”
Got that, liberals? "Cannot be...considered harmful."
posted by Quintero at 10:46 PM
14 Comments:
True, the Pope is the Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church and when he makes it plain that he is speaking ex cathedra on a matter of faith or morals, the Petrine Office is gifted with infallibility. But Summorum Pontificium, as authoritative as it might be, is not infallible teaching, any more than the Papal Bull "Quo Primum" promulgating the Mass of Pope St. Pius V, O.P., or the Apostolic Constitution promulgating the Mass of Pope Paul VI in 1969 were. These decrees concerning the discipline of the sacraments and liturgical rites are not irreformable, but reformable, as Summorum Pontificium itself demonstrates.
How about a headline that says, "Attention, Traditionalists!" in which you remind all Catholics that the highest exercise of teaching authority in the Catholic Church is an Ecumenical Council whose decrees are promulgated by the Supreme Pontiff? I think our excommunicated brethren in the Society of St. Pius X, and their ilk, need to be reminded that all of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, including those on religious liberty, ecumenism and inter-religious affairs, are a much higher level of Church teaching than Summorum Pontificium.
Maybe they will stop refusing to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff or subject to his authority, and will return to the Catholic Church.
Dear Anonymous,
By "traditionalists" I mean all orthodox Catholics everywhere -- the wide spectrum of Catholics whom liberals call "conservative."
No one that I know of has even hinted that Summorum Pontificum is infallible. That's a red herring.
The greatest respect that any Catholic can give to an ecumenical council is to portray HONESTLY and EXACTLY what it said and did.
The liberals who for the past 42 years have misrepresented Vatican II and prated about the "spirit" of Vatican II show tremendous disrespect for that council.
You are right to show concern for the authority of the Holy Father. That is why you should show respect for Summorum Pontificum.
A Pope speaking ex cathedra is exercising the highest degree of teaching authority. But let's not quibble. You cannot call for obedience to the Pope at the same time you snipe at his Motu Proprio's level of authority.
And in fact, Vatican II did not do away with Latin in the liturgy, so to respect Vatican II you should appreciate the Latin Mass, the Mass of the Council, and you should applaud its resurgence.
A Pope speaking ex cathedra is the highest form of Church teaching only because it equals the teaching authority of an Ecumenical Council acting in concert with the Roman Pontiff. (The infallibilty of the latter predates the definition of the infallibility of the former by many centuries. When the First Vatican Council defined papal infallibility in the XIX Century, it taught that the Successor to St. Peter can achieve the same level of authoritative teaching without having to convoke a General Council. Both are exercises in Extraordinary Magisterium)
The "liberals" or "progressives", for all of their faults, have not caused schism and they accept and promote the fullness of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. And, yes, some of them have deformed the spirit of Vatican II but, thank God, the Holy See has responded, many times through the intervention of the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger when he headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
But now it is time for the "trads" to step up to the plate and affirm the authoritative nature of all the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar decress handed on by the Magisterium of the Church. Unfortunately, some "trads" have shown themselves just as capable of adhering to and promoting "cafeteria Catholicism" as the most rabid Call to Action type!
Anonymous,
Get your facts straight! Vatican Council II was a Pastoral Council with no authority to change anything, and that is what Pope Benedict has actually confirmed in "Summorum Pontificium"!
Your use of such words as "ilk" portrays your contempt for those who hold true to Tradition. Now I know you are going to say I have used this word, but the difference is that when I used it, I meant contempt and readily and happily admit to that.
When I was last in Rome, at the Congregation for the Faith, I met with then Cardinal Ratzinger's American Secretary, actually I was supposed to meet with Cardinal Ratzinger, but at the last minute he was called away! The Secretary told me that there was absolutely nothing in common between Vatican II and the so called Spirit of Vatican II.
It is very confusing because there are obviously two "anonymous" contributors to this post. One is respectful of Traditionalist and the other is not so, you are the other!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman, Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc., www.crcoa.com
Dear Mr. Fisher,
I am the author of both anonymous posts and I have a very healthy respect for tradition...it s people who cause schism in the name of tradition that irk me.
I have my facts absolutely correct...the Church makes no distinction among Ecumenical Councils--they are all equal in teaching authority. Blessed Pope John XXIII called Vatican II a "pastoral council" for it had no pressing theological controversy with which to contend. Rather, he wanted the bishops of the world to deal with "aggiornamento," loosely translated as bringing the Church "up to date."
Ecumenical Councils are usually convoked by the Roman Pontiff (the earliest councils were called by the Emperors of Rome) and once they begin their deliberations they take on a life of their own, much like a Chapter does in Religious Orders.
The Fathers of Vatican II showed that they meant to act independently of the powers-that-were in the Roman Curia when they discarded the schema prepared by the Theological Commission dominated by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and other Curial ultra-traditionalists. Pope John allowed this organic development to occur.
The Church teaches that no decree of an Ecumenical Council is authoritative or binding unless and until it is promulgated by the Bishop of Rome. Pope Paul VI promulgated all of the dogmatic constitutions and decrees that came from the Fathers of Vatican Council II. Hence, the teaching and directives of Vatican II are equal in dignity, authenticity and authority to the decrees that came from Vatican I, Trent, Constantinople, or any other General Council of the Church.
Nowhere does the Church require a Council to define dogma or issue anathemas in order to be considered authentic. Pope Benedict XVI affirms the authority of Vatican II in Summorum Pontificum and merely says that the Mass of Pope St. Pius V, O.P., was not juridically abrogated.
So, I reiterate: it's time for the traditionalists to step up to the plate and affirm their allegiance to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar documents handed on by the Magisterium of the Church. There is no room for cafeteria Catholicism among those who really love and promote the traditional Faith.
(I have a particular interest in ecumenical and inter-religious affairs and I believe that what really holds the Society of St. Pius X in schism is the anti-semitism of its founder. They will not return to the Catholic Church as long as we hold that Jews are our elder brothers in Faith, as Pope John Paul II so eloquently taught. As far as the members of the SSPX and their ilk are concerned, Jews must be considered "perfidious.")
Dear Anonymous 12:32 p.m. and 11:43 p.m.,
Thank you for the information. Some points remain, though.
Sure would have been nice of the U.S. Catholic hierarchy and clergy for the past 35-40 YEARS to TELL us that Vatican II and the Holy See never banned the TLM.
Far too many of our bishops and clergy gave the impression that the TLM was nixed and was bad.
To this day I remember a pastor telling a 90's parish gathering that "The first thing the Council did was to turn the altar around and have Mass in the vernacular."
"The first thing the Council did!"
It is a shock to hear a pastor speak with forked tongue. Or very ignorant tongue, maybe.
What the SSPX might or might not think about anything is totally irrelevant to any discussion of pastors making the TLM available to their parishioners.
Most U.S. Catholics, probably by far, who want the TLM are not in the SSPX. It would be very wrong of anyone to smear the bulk of TLM Catholics as schismatic -- or as anything other than what they are, plain Catholics who love the Mass that all Catholics have loved for centuries and centuries.
Dear Quintero,
The first document to come from Vatican II was indeed Sacrosanctum Concilium which called for reform and simplification of the Roman Missal and allowed for introduction of the vernacular in order to facilitate devout and active participation by all the faithful in the celebration of Mass.
I was an altar boy then in New York and I remember how the various Mass parts were gradually changed from Latin to English and temporary altars were erected so that the celebrants could face the assembly. This was 1964 and the Missal in use was still the 1962 edition of the Mass of Pope St. Pius V, O.P., promulgated by Pope Blessed John XXIII.
It was rather stunning, in 1965, to come to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles under Cardinal James Francis McIntyre who had not authorized such changes here yet...like stepping back in time!
It was fairly easy to think that the Mass of Pope St. Pius V, O.P., had been supressed by simply reading the Apostolic Constitution by which Pope Paul VI promulgated the new Roman Missal in 1969:
"What we have prescribed in this constitution shall begin to be in force from the First Sunday of Advent this year, November 30. We decree that these laws and prescriptions be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstnding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation."
Until Summorum Pontificum, the common understanding of this had been that Quo Primum had been superceded and that celebrating Mass according to the previous editions of the Roman Missal was now suppressed. Indeed, if it were not so, why the need for Papal Indults to re-authorize its usage, since an Indult by definition says that something forbidden will now be tolerated?
I do not believe there was any ill-will in this understanding just as I do not believe there will be any ill-will in implementing the directives contained in Summorum Ponticum.
Finally, the only reason I made mention of SSPX is because many "trads" seem quite sympathetic towards that schismatic movement, as well as because Summorum Pontificum seems to be an olive branch extended to SSPX (SSPX made free access to the Mass of St. Pius V one of their conditions for continued dialogue with the Holy See). Further, Mr. Fisher took exception to my reference to members of SSPX and their ilk.
That original refernce to members of SSPX and their ilk was, and remains, the crux of my posts: it's time for all "traditionalists" to affirm unequivocally their acceptance of and adherence to the decrees of Vatican II and the post-conciliar documents handed on to us by the Magisterium of the Church, Summorum Pontificum being the latest of these post-conciliar documents.
Anonymous,
I repeat that the Holy Father, Pope Benedict said that the Mass of St. Pius V was never legally abolished!
Any priest who wishes to learn the Mass of SAINT PIUS V at the Insitute of Christ the King, and who needs financial assistance to do so, is encourgaged to contact us at: 714-491-2284 or crcoa@dslextreme.com.
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman, Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc., www.crcoa.com
Dear Mr. Fisher,
If you will read my post a second time, more carefully, you will see that I said that the common understanding until Summorum Pontificum was that Pope Paul VI had suppressed the use of the Mass of Pope St. Pius V, O.P. Pope Benedict XVI clarifies this point when he tells us that the "Tridentine" Missal had not been juridically abrogated. Now, we are all "on the same page."
Dear Anonymous 3:58 p.m. and 4:55 p.m.,
Sacrosanctum Concilium never said to abolish Latin, nor did it say all of the Mass should be in the vernacular.
The post-Vatican II liturgical directives were much more "that way."
Don't you think it stretches credulity to believe that the hierarchy and clergy of the Church, including liturgy experts, and other Catholics such as journalists, whose business it is to know, could have such an erroneous "common understanding" as to think and say the Mass of the Ages was banned? And that they were this wrong for 40 years?
The only alternative to their having ill will is that they were ignorant and incompetent, no?
As for sympathy toward a particular movement, many Catholic liberals are in or sympathetic to Call to Action, VOTF, Catholics for a Free Choice, Dignity, etc., so by your reasoning hadn't we better clamp down on them and demand retractions from them?
Dear Quintero,
The big difference between the Society of St. Pius X and the (goofy) "progressive" groups you cited is simple: SSPX went ino schism while the others did not--at least not formally. (One could make a pretty good case for materially, I'll grant you.)
The fact that the common understanding of what Pope Paul VI intended and accomplished with his Apostolic Constitution promulgating the 1970 Roman Missal went uncorrected by the Holy See for 37 years is hardly the fault of the people who followed his instructions in good faith. Pope John Paul II seemed to confirm the common understanding by issuing Papal Indults for, in law, an indult says, "That which is forbidden will be tolerated." (Another good example is the indult allowing reception of Holy Communion in the hand.)
And you're right--nothing other than responding to people's pastoral needs, real or merely perceived, demanded that the Mass of Pope Paul VI be celebrated in the vernacular. Latin is the typical language of the Roman Missal of 1970 and any priest, anywhere can celebrate it according to the typical edition found in the Sacramentary.
An addendum to my previous post:
Dignity and Catholics for a Free Choice should be considered separately from Call to Action and Voice of the Faithful, just as the Society of St. Pius X should not be lumped together with the Society of St. Pius V. They are all goofy, in my estimation, but some are more egregiously goofy than others.
Dear Anonymous 12:48 p.m.,
Would that the U.S. bishops would have implemented the Tridentine Latin Mass as thoroughly as they did Communion in the hand.
The one indult they liked, the other they did not.
By the way, Communion in the hand is a bad idea, to say the least.
Dear Anonymous 1:25 p.m.,
You can bet that the members of all those groups share the same ideology almost across the board.
Post a Comment
<< Home