Balancing Papal authority and responsibility of faith

[Mort_Alz]

Hello CAF! I’d like to start by saying that I was received into the Church this past Easter (thanks be to God).

During my transitioning period (and still thereafter) my primary support was in a traditional Catholic family who I love dearly. Because of this, I was exposed to a lot of very traditional Catholic ideas (they even spoke very fondly of SSPX, though they themselves were not a part of that group). On a side note, I’ve recently heard that the archbishop who acts representing the Society has accepted the Holy Father’s conditions for full reconciliation. Praise God!

With all of these thoughts, however, some inevitable questions do arise in my mind. Number one, I am grateful for Vatican II itself. It was, indeed, an ecumenical council and I don’t see how splitting because of Vatican II would separate me from the Arians or any other group that split because of any previous council. Number two, some of the sentiments which traditional Catholics express seem to me to approach Sedavacantism. Some traditional Catholics even express a new found interest in Nostradamus, thinking that there could be a time when the Roman Pontiff could basically be hijacked and the only true church would be underground. However, my question is, if that is the case, then what separates those people from the current “Old Catholics” or Sedavacantists? What separates them from Protestants? Isn’t Peter the rock on which Jesus built His Holy Church? Unity kind of hinges on the Pope.

Just some honest questions. (I kind of lean traditional anyway, but it’s difficult for me to fully empathize since my coming into the Church was through a Novus Ordo parish).

 

[YoungTradCath]

Sedevacantism: it exists, sure, but it is quite small. I don’t know of anyone here who is a Sede.

Nostradamus: I must confess that I have never, ever heard of this theory.

I am sort of puzzled that traditional Catholics would be compared to the Old Catholics. The OCs reject Vatican I and Vatican II. Traditional Catholics reject neither.

 

[Mort_Alz]

But I’ve read some comments by some traditional Catholics that the Pope needs to admit that Vatican II was a mistake. Or that the Novus Ordo was an objectively flawed decision. How can any Catholic take those positions? Vatican II was an ecumenical council. Councils, historically, define and make clear what is Catholic. I will admit that sometimes heresy can run knee deep in the Catholic Church herself. It has done that on multiple occasions throughout history, but the True Faith always eventually triumphed. I do NOT believe that heresy can be introduced from a council, though, and there are some traditional Catholics that seem to hint at that when they talk about Vatican II. If that is, indeed, what happened, then there is not much to separate us (Catholics) from Protestants. We are left with theological ambiguity.

My personal position on the issue is that the Tridentine Mass needs to be way more available than it is now. It is indeed a venerable liturgy and I believe God gave it to us. I think that the Novus Ordo kind of has too much of an artificial flavor, but I do not believe it is objectively bad. Rather, it needs some organic work to make sure that the liturgy communicates to the faithful what’s really going on during the Mass. The liturgy itself needs to communicate that Christ is visiting us in His flesh. That He is taking us to Calvary. That all the angels and saints are worshiping with us. I believe all that can be done in the Novus Ordo, and I am open to changes (ad orientum for one suggestion).

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Here is one traditionalist’s thoughts:

“Union with the Pope is union with Peter”
You must love, venerate, pray and mortify yourself for the Pope, and do so with greater affection each day. For he is the foundation stone of the Church and, throughout the centuries, right to the end of time, he carries out among men that task of sanctifying and governing which Jesus entrusted to Peter. (The Forge, 134)

The supreme power of the Roman Pontiff and his infallibility, when he speaks ex cathedra, are not human inventions. They are based on the explicit foundational will of Christ. How foolish it is, then, to confront the government of the Pope with that of the bishops, or to reduce the validity of the pontifical Magisterium to the consent of the faithful! Nothing is more foreign to it than a balance of powers; human moulds of thought do not help us, no matter how attractive or functional they may be. No one in the Church enjoys absolute power by himself, as man. In the Church there is no leader other than Christ. And Christ constituted a vicar of his — the Roman Pontiff — for his wayfaring spouse on earth. (…)

We help to make that apostolic continuity more evident in the eyes of all men by demonstrating with exquisite fidelity our union with the Pope, which is union with Peter. Love for the Roman Pontiff must be in us a delightful passion, for in him we see Christ. If we deal with the Lord in prayer, we will go forward with a clear gaze that will permit us to perceive the action of the Holy Spirit, even in the face of events we do not understand or which produce sighs or sorrow. (In Love with the Church, 13)

That is from St Josemaria Escriva.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Thank you for the reply

I’m still trying to get over my Evangelical Protestant tendency to think that things are either/or when they are really both and.

Some of the language from frustrated traditionalists is all that bothers me.

 

[Marie_Anthony]

Congratulations, Mort! May God draw you ever closer to Himself!

I can’t speak to the opinions that you’ve mentioned, but I have discussed Vatican II with my mother–who remembers hearing about the Council being called–many times, and she starts out by saying that the Council was very necessary, as she put it, “to counter a widespread plague of modernism and creeping relativism.” Just about every Council ever called is called to counter some widespread heretical teaching. As I understand what my mom told me, she said that there were many voices, some even within the Church, saying that the Church needed to let go of “outdated” practices and teachings. From the little I have read of the documents, the point of always maintaining the teachings of Christ handed down to us by the Apostles and through the Popes and the Magisterium will always be the focus and always brought into application appropriate to the present day. However, my mom tells me that some priests and even bishops and cardinals interpreted everything that came from the Council as they wanted to, not holding on to the teachings of Christ handed down in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. It wasn’t the Council’s fault that people were bound and determined to justify what they wanted to do by using the Council’s documents to support their own opinions and agendas.

I agree. I do love the Tridentine Mass and believe it needs to be way more available. My mom remembers the first few years after Vatican II, when she and many Catholics with her hoped that the Latin of the Liturgy would be translated into the vernacular so that they could follow what was being said and done more easily. She said she never wanted to see the priest turn to face her or have the whole Mass in English, just to be able to follow along more easily. All that being said, I’ve attended the Novus Ordo Mass for most of my life and only in the last few years have I attended the Tridentine Mass. The main reason for that is I find that the Tridentine Mass enables me to keep my focus on the Sacrifice of Our Lord on Calvary, which is what every Mass is, as you said. In the Novus Ordo, I find it easier for the focus to be taken away from God and put on the congregation. A lot of it depends on the priest, in my (not so humble) opinion. If the priest focuses on what the Mass is, I think the congregation will at least begin to do so. But perhaps the Tridentine Mass makes that a little easier for the priest to do in the first place.

Nevertheless, I still hold that the Novus Ordo is a perfectly valid Mass. I think, as you said, that some work needs to be put into it to bring the focus back to God. One of the common complaints of people who won’t go to Mass on Sunday is that they “get nothing out of it”. Maybe it’s about time the priests and bishops started saying, “That’s because it never was about you. It’s all about God and what He did for us on Calvary.”****

 

[TheDoctor]

Thank you for the reply

I’m still trying to get over my Evangelical Protestant tendency to think that things are either/or when they are really both and.

Some of the language from frustrated traditionalists is all that bothers me.

Perhaps some of the confusion you are having lies with what you define as a “traditional Catholic”. Let’s split them apart:

“Traditional” is a loose term that can mean different things to different people but for most folks here in this forum it means we enjoy or are spiritually fed more by some of the more ancient rites, prayers and writings or perhaps that we see within them a clearer foundation to live and explain Catholic teaching. Within this, you can run from ultra-traditional to traditioal-liberal.

“Catholc” is easier. It means you accept without question the authority of the Pope and the Magisterium. Not that you necessarily agree or understand everything, but that you accept. With this in mind, it is easy to see how sedevacantists and “Old Catholics” and conspiracy theorists and those who reject Vatican II or the Catechism completely are “traditional”, but are not really “Catholic”.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Perhaps some of the confusion you are having lies with what you define as a “traditional Catholic”. Let’s split them apart:

“Traditional” is a loose term that can mean different things to different people but for most folks here in this forum it means we enjoy or are spiritually fed more by some of the more ancient rites, prayers and writings or perhaps that we see within them a clearer foundation to live and explain Catholic teaching. Within this, you can run from ultra-traditional to traditioal-liberal.

“Catholc” is easier. It means you accept without question the authority of the Pope and the Magisterium. Not that you necessarily agree or understand everything, but that you accept. With this in mind, it is easy to see how sedevacantists and “Old Catholics” and conspiracy theorists and those who reject Vatican II or the Catechism completely are “traditional”, but are not really “Catholic”.

Thank you for this

 

[Andre1000]

Vatican II was an ecumenical council. Councils, historically, define and make clear what is Catholic. I will admit that sometimes heresy can run knee deep in the Catholic Church herself. It has done that on multiple occasions throughout history, but the True Faith always eventually triumphed. I do NOT believe that heresy can be introduced from a council, though, and there are some traditional Catholics that seem to hint at that when they talk about Vatican II.

Not everything an ecumenical council says is infallible only when it defines a dogma. The Vatican II did not define any dogma, so you don’t have to believe it to be catholic.
For example:
The OCs rejects the dogmas at Vatican I and the Arians rejects the trinity dogma. On the other hand: The SSPX rejects some parts of the Vatican II but they do not reject any dogma.