Bishop Banning Latin Mass

[wasserfall]

I mean this honestly: the new teachings seem like contradictions, they seem motivated by false ecumenism, but at the same time the Church is indefectible so their must be a way to reconcile it.

Or one of the teachings is simply wrong. Unless they have both been dogmatized it is possible, right?

 

[Julia_Mae]

The Bishop are constrained by the laws and doctrines of the Church, just as you and I are. He cannot simply do whatever he wants because he is the Bishop.

Yes, in many cases he can. Bishops have a great deal of latitude and authority. Including banning some form of Mass if he simply doesn’t want it celebrated. Now, you go find me some Canon Law that contradicts that.

That’s mighty strong lovely contradiction from the principle you stated above.

Not at all. It’s simply my feeling about it.

How about wel stick with the Holy Father and say that the EF is a beautiful expression of the Faith that cannot be looked as being dangerous and should be generously offered to the faithful.

I really need a quote with a link to where he says “it cannot not be looked at as dangerous.”

 

[ready]

Pope Benedict XVI has stated that priests no longer need their bishop’s permission to have the Traditional Latin Mass at their parish. I don’t understand why there is a problem here.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Or one of the teachings is simply wrong. Unless they have both been dogmatized it is possible, right?

Maybe the way the latter teachings have been generally understood is grossly wrong. The traditional teachings are very clearly expressed, and I’m pretty sure can’t be misinterpreted so easily. In the past nearly everyone agreed on what they said, just not on if they liked it.

Besides who knows what “two lungs” really means? It expressed the value of Eastern thought and worship, which makes perfect sense. People interpret that as if there is a “mutual schism” and basically make the Orthodox an equal partner with the Catholic Church in a common goal of union – but JP2 never actually said that.

I don’t know … maybe you are right.

 

[Moore11]

I think this is Pope Benedict’s goal – not in the sense that he wishes to attempt this during his pontificate. He knows he can’t, but rather he wishes to lay the groundwork such that at some future time (perhaps a couple hundred years), there will be one form of the Roman Rite.

Currently, the traditional mass cannot be suppressed practically. It was tried, and it didn’t work.

On the other hand, suppressing the new mass and requiring all priests to celebrate only the traditional mass is also a practical impossibility.

So for now, we have both.

I think we a treading treacherous waters. But for the record the last 50 years of Mass has had more trouble than one would have thought, I wouldn’t be too sure that in 100 years if there is one Mass it is anything like the NO. But for the record I think there never will be “one form” and that is due in part to the fallacy we have in the US, 1 that it is a popular vote, 2 that the USCCB is the ultimate authority with the Vatican as a sort of Supreme Court that only steps in if something is wrong. A Bishop has authority over his flock, and he is accountable to Rome. I think we wrongly view the USCCB and the influence of the USA.
Another analogy is that some view the USCCB as a state government and the Vatican as federal. Nope, Wrong.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Isn’t this a bannable offense?

Dissing the Bishop in the first post is a bannable offense. (Though I am not sure there is a such a word as “bannable.”) Though, I believe the stricture is against saying one is better than the other. Which I do not believe and have never said. But I think when children get too cranky and start whining over who gets more dessert, the best answer is to just remove it altogether.

 

[Moore11]

Dissing the Bishop in the first post is a bannable offense. (Though I am not sure there is a such a word as “bannable.”) Though, I believe the stricture is against saying one is better than the other. Which I do not believe and have never said. But I think when children get too cranky and start whining over who gets more dessert, the best answer is to just remove it altogether.

And there is your problem. The Mass isnt dessert. It is sheer nourishment. You cannot take it away. That is cruel. And historically speaking the NO is a liturgical infant. it is not the first born. It is just as valid as any other child but it needs help, it needs nurturing. And that is where the older sibling SHOULD be helpful. The answer isn’t to punish the older sibling by taking away his inheritance, but rather to help him not be the older brother from the prodigal son parable and help the others. Be patient, tolerant, helpful. You and I agree that sometimes this seems to be the exact opposite of the traditional mindset but then again sometimes the baby is throwing a tantrum.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

Dissing the Bishop in the first post is a bannable offense. (Though I am not sure there is a such a word as “bannable.”) Though, I believe the stricture is against saying one is better than the other. Which I do not believe and have never said. But I think when children get too cranky and start whining over who gets more dessert, the best answer is to just remove it altogether.

Whoa! So your solution to the discussion, say, on whether the traditional forms of the sacraments are better (or worse) than the new forms would be to remove the sacraments altogether?

 

[1AugustSon7]

Or one of the teachings is simply wrong. Unless they have both been dogmatized it is possible, right?

No.

The Church does not and cannot positively teach error to Her children in either Her Solemn or Ordinary Magisterium. Both are infallible (cf. Vatican I).

And the unity spoken of by H.H. Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI is the unity of Faith, which is largely doctrinal but also includes “notes” like unified government.

As for the two lungs theory, in my opinion that is not too problematic because the Church is a Body and so making a bodily analogy is quite fitting. In the event of a reunion the two lungs might even be a beautiful reference to the Church Militant. However, what could be problematic is if that was understood without the Body also necessarily having a single, visible head (the Pope or the Holy See), to which the whole body was ultimately subordinated and subject to, thus making it one.

 

[wasserfall]

No.

The Church does not and cannot positively teach error to Her children in either Her Solemn or Ordinary Magisterium. Both are infallible (cf. Vatican I).

Are you sure that these seemingly contradictory doctrines were both taught by either Solemn or Ordinary Magisterium?

 

[JReducation]

This seems to contradict the idea that the Body of Christ has two lungs and is fractured. And that various groups are in “partial Communion,” as if the body of Christ has prosthetics and what not. Just saying, it’s very confusing.

I am with you, and with Leo XIII and Pius XI. The Body of Christ is one. It’s a mark of the Church. The Orthodox are outside. The Protestants are outside. The Orthodox are closer, but they are not in the Church.

That part is clear. How the later teachings fit in with this, I am not mentally flexible enough to figure out, so I stick with what I know. I mean this honestly: the new teachings seem like contradictions, they seem motivated by false ecumenism, but at the same time the Church is indefectible so their must be a way to reconcile it.

The point that you make in your last sentence is important. The Church cannot err, even in the ordinary Magisterium. The Church is always going to say things that we don’t understand or can’t reconcile with something else and that’s OK. We don’t need to understand everything or reconcile everything. We have to allow room for trust.

In this case, I look at man like Bl. John Paul II and there is nothing about the man that says that I cannot trust his statement on the different degrees of communion and the fact that the Protestants, Orthodox, Jews and Muslims are part of the Mystical Body in some way that is incomprehensible to me, but is very clear to him.

If this had been a man who was a rascal, I would have concerns. But this was a man who was honest, much more intelligent than most of us; therefore much more capable than most of us to interpret what Leo XIII and Pius XI had said, who loved the Church with a passion and who was surrounded by some of the best theologians in modern history. His head theologian became his successor.

Pope Benedict XVI has stated that priests no longer need their bishop’s permission to have the Traditional Latin Mass at their parish. I don’t understand why there is a problem here.

Ready, the Holy Father said that diocesan priests do not need permission to celebrate the EF mass. He said nothing about parishes. In fact, in his other documents he points to the fact that the authority of the bishops remains unchanged.

If the authority of the bishop’s remains unchanged. then the bishop continues to be the legal owner of the parish and has the last word on what mass is celebrated in his parish. The priest can celebrate the EF. The bishop can’t stop that. But the bishop can say, “No on my property you don’t.” The individual priest does not own the parish, the bishop does.

The issue is that some people don’t want to accept that the bishop owns the parish and that for better or worse, he can find some reason for saying that it cannot be done in his parish. We just have to hope that his reason is always legitimate. I believe that in most cases it’s very legitimate. Sometimes, even fear can be a legitimate reason for putting the breaks on something. We’re all allowed to be afraid.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[wasserfall]

In this case, I look at man like Bl. John Paul II and there is nothing about the man that says that I cannot trust his statement on the different degrees of communion and the fact that the Protestants, Orthodox, Jews and Muslims are part of the Mystical Body in some way…

Brother JR, Can you please provide some citation showing that Pope John Paul II considered Jews and Muslims to be part of the Mystical Body of Christ?

It sounds like a heresy to me.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Are you sure that these seemingly contradictory doctrines were both taught by either Solemn or Ordinary Magisterium?

Certainly at least one has been taught by both even repeatedly.

Anyways, my primary point is simply that Christ’s prayer for the unity of the Church is, for a Catholic, efficacious; that is, it is not something the Church hasn’t yet achieved or doesn’t possess or only possessed for a limited time; as, for ex., before the Great Schism of the 11th century A.D.

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR, Can you please provide some citation showing that Pope John Paul II considered Jews and Muslims to be part of the Mystical Body of Christ?

It sounds like a heresy to me.

If you go to his writings on ecumenism or to the CCC he touches on this. He does this in a rather interesting way too. He approaches is from the angle of we are all sons of Abraham and we all share belief in the one true God. Therefore, there is a point of communion. There cannot be a point of communion, if we’re not all part of the same body, even though our communion within that body is imperfect. I believe that he also brings this up in Crossing the Threshold of Hope.

It’s not heresy. The Church has never infallibly taught that Jews and Muslims are not in communion with the body. The Church has taught that they are outside of the Church. That much is absolutely true. What John Paul explains is a little more abstract. He always said that the Church was both a physical body that we can see. Then there is an extension of the Church. I interpret it like fragments of the body. That’s my way of understanding what he’s saying, because it’s very deep in philosophy and I’m not a philosopher. I have to reduce it to language that I can understand. These fragments of the Church can be found in faiths outside of Christianity (Islam and Judaism).

He does not write it one document. It would probably be easier, if he had. What he did was throw out a bit here and a bit there and another bit over there and you have to go after him and pick up these pieces to form the whole puzzle. Unfortunately, that’s the way that many geniuses work. Not all of them are writers.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[1AugustSon7]

The Church is always going to say things that we don’t understand or can’t reconcile with something else and that’s OK.

I hope you mean depending on the learning of the hearer?

The Church believes in certain Mysteries that are paradoxical (merely apparent contradictions); for ex., the Incarnation or the Most Holy Trinity; however, nothing we believe in is or can actually be a contradiction. Contradictions are impossible.

In this case, I look at man like Bl. John Paul II and there is nothing about the man that says that I cannot trust his statement on the different degrees of communion and the fact that the Protestants, Orthodox, Jews and Muslims are part of the Mystical Body in some way that is incomprehensible to me, but is very clear to him.

When did he ever say that even professedly non-Christians can also simultaneously be Christians? That’s a contradiction; it’s impossible.

You can’t be anti-Christian or anti-Trinitarian or anti-Incarnation and also be a Christian, who must believe these things by a necessity of means: that’s just outright unbelief, and belief is necessary.

By your reckoning, there’s nothing preventing even Antichrist from being a member of the Mystical Body of Christ ‘in some way’. Further, of course it is ‘incomprehensible to [you]’; it’s impossible.

If this had been a man who was a rascal, I would have concerns. But this was a man who was honest, much more intelligent than most of us; therefore much more capable than most of us to interpret what Leo XIII and Pius XI had said,

No I’m pretty sure most people can understand what Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI wrote in their respective encyclicals, Satis Cognitum and Mortalium Animos.

 

[wasserfall]

He approaches is from the angle of we are all sons of Abraham and we all share belief in the one true God.

Well I’m a little bit confused about that too, since Muslims explictly reject the Blessed Trinity and don’t believe in a God who would become incarnate.

It’s not heresy. The Church has never infallibly taught that Jews and Muslims are not in communion with the body. The Church has taught that they are outside of the Church. That much is absolutely true.

The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ is the Church. How can Jews and Muslims be part of the Mystical Body of Christ when they are not part of the Church?

These fragments of the Church can be found in faiths outside of Christianity (Islam and Judaism).

Judaism and Islam are systems of belief that happen to incorporate some beliefs that are true. That does not mean that they are part of the Church and that does not mean that they are means of salvation.

 

[JReducation]

I hope you mean depending on the learning of the hearer?

The Church believes in certain Mysteries that are paradoxical (merely apparent contradictions); for ex., the Incarnation or the Most Holy Trinity; however, nothing we believe in is or can actually be a contradiction. Contradictions are impossible.

When did he ever say that even professedly non-Christians can also simultaneously be Christians? That’s a contradiction; it’s impossible.

You can’t be anti-Christian or anti-Trinitarian or anti-Incarnation and also be a Christian, who must believe these things by a necessity of means: that’s just outright unbelief, and belief is necessary.

By your reckoning, there’s nothing preventing even Antichrist from being a member of the Mystical Body of Christ ‘in some way’. Further, of course it is ‘incomprehensible to [you]’; it’s impossible.

No I’m pretty sure most people can understand what Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI wrote in their respective encyclicals, Satis Cognitum and Mortalium Animos.

First of all, neither Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict subscribe to the idea that Jews and Muslims are anti-Christ and anti-Trinity. They make an important distinction between being anti-something and not being in possession of the fullness of truth.

Second, neither is saying that a non-Christian can also be a Christian.

Third, what they are saying is that a non-Christian can be in communion with the Church to some degree, because the Church extends beyond her physical boundaries as it is her desire to bring all men in. Therefore, the Jews and Muslims are not out there in the dark. That’s why both popes have said over and over again that Islam and Judaism enjoy a special respect and affection from Catholics, because we do have at least an imperfect communion.

It may not be a communion like what we have with the Orthodox, which is a communion in sacris; but the fact that we are all sons of Abraham and believers in the one true God is not an insignificant starting point. That’s where they’re trying to draw the attention of the Catholic.

You have to remember, it’s not the popes who are resisting a closer relationship with Jews and Muslims. It’s us who are getting in the way. Catholics, Jews and Muslims on the street. We undermine everything that our leaders try to do toward unity. We can’t see to get out of battles that are hundreds of years old and that no one is going to win. These men are trying to help Catholics, at least, approach this from a different perspective and we’re resisting. These men are neither heretics nor idiots.

They know what was written before and they know what lines they can cross and which they cannot. We tend to forget this about them. Until we begin to trust them, we will keep going back to the same way of doing things, even if it does not work.

Paul VI was asked what he would say to the Greek Orthodox when it met him for the first time in 1,000 years or so. He said, “Nothing. I will say nothing. Up to now, we have said too much and none of it has worked.” When they Patriarch entered the room, Pope Paul opened his arms and said one word, “Fratello”. That triggered the lifting of the mutual excommunications and anathemas.

We need to follow their lead. If Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict say that Jews and Muslims are somehow connected to the Body in some mysterious way and they say that we just have to look for it, there is no harm in searching from those parts of the body they also possess. As Pope Paul says, it’s time that we stop all the talking about each other. It has not worked and will not work. Someone has to take the first step toward the other.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[1AugustSon7]

If you go to his writings on ecumenism or to the CCC he touches on this. He does this in a rather interesting way too. He approaches is from the angle of we are all sons of Abraham

The sons promised to Abraham were two-fold: the sons that should be like the sand on the seashore and the sons that would be like the stars of heaven. The Church Fathers make it plain that the former refer to the sons or nations of his flesh and the latter by those who are his sons in the same spirit (i.e., the faithful and especially the Christians). Hence Our Lord reckons a difference with the Pharisees to their being sons of Abraham according to the flesh and those who are sons of Abraham according to his spirit.

and we all share belief in the one true God.

Christians believe in the Most Holy Trinity and Jesus Christ is the Second Person of that Most Holy Trinity. If you deny the Son, you also deny the Father.

Therefore, there is a point of communion.

That’s an agreement on a fact (God is one). It does not establish a spiritual communion. I believe the Sun rises and sets each day: does not place me in communion with the Satanist in Australia who believes the same thing?

There cannot be a point of communion, if we’re not all part of the same body, even though our communion within that body is imperfect.

No. This is certainly becoming heretical. Christ’s Body is not some monster stitched together from all sorts of weird, varying and strange parts. Christ is not a mutant. What you describe is a monster.

It’s not heresy. The Church has never infallibly taught that Jews and Muslims are not in communion with the body.

Of course it doesn’t, because it teaches that you have to believe in Christ to be incorporated into His Body. If you do not believe in Christ then you do not believe in God.

The Church has also never infallibly taught that you have to be human to be a member of His Body or that only humans can be baptised; indeed, the Church has never said you can’t baptise a tree, but does that mean we can imagine that sometime in the future someone might inform us that we are to begin baptising trees?

The Church has also never infallibly taught that Satan can’t be a member of the Mystical Body.

Need we go on?

The Church has taught that they are outside of the Church. That much is absolutely true.

The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. You cannot seperate the two: they are one and the same thing. To divorce the Church in any way from the Mystical Body of Christ would be like seperating Christ’s human and divine natures.

The Apostles made that plain from the beginning. Saint Paul calls the Church Christ’s Body and those who were baptised His members.

What John Paul explains is a little more abstract. He always said that the Church was both a physical body that we can see. Then there is an extension of the Church.

No, there is only One Church.

I interpret it like fragments of the body.

So Christ’s Body has been hacked into multiple pieces, and scattered about the place? Impossible. One also means Unity in the Creed.

That’s my way of understanding what he’s saying, because it’s very deep in philosophy and I’m not a philosopher. I have to reduce it to language that I can understand. These fragments of the Church can be found in faiths outside of Christianity (Islam and Judaism).

The Church cannot exist “in fragments”. Learn from the Eucharist. The Church is whole and complete wherever She exists.

 

[Julia_Mae]

And there is your problem. .

You are far off topic and ad hom to boot. I have no “problem.” Please back off the personal remarks.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Whoa! So your solution to the discussion, say, on whether the traditional forms of the sacraments are better (or worse) than the new forms would be to remove the sacraments altogether?

We aren’t having a discussion about whether traditional forms are better or worse.