Bishop Banning Latin Mass

[triumphguy]

A very wise Franciscan once told me: do not presume that any person is going to hell, except for your very own self.

 

[TrueLight]

I’m not angry or anything, my friend. I just find it ironic that today in my city we had the National March for Life yet in this thread we have folks who think the unborn are going to Hell, simply because they aren’t able to be Baptized from within the womb.

No, I’m just saying it’s a touchy subject and if we don’t really want to see this thread derailed if it wasn’t derailed pages ago (I haven’t read the whole thread), that topic might better be off in it’s own thread.

 

[thewanderer]

1AugustSon7, sw85, Wasserful:

If I am understanding your disagreement with JReducation correctly, your problem with what he is saying is not that Muslims or Jews, or anyone else outside the church has a part of the Truth, but rather with explaining this fact by saying that they, in some way, belong to the Mystical Body of Christ. If this is where your disagreement lies, I would just like to point out that St. Thomas himself talks about non-Catholicss belonging to the Body of Christ … in a certain respect. I will post a link to the article in a minute. Even though St. Thomas does not specifically talk about the Muslims and the Jews as belonging to the mystical body in a greater way than other non-Catholics, the fact that he does talk about them as belonging to it in some way shows that this is not a new idea in the Church and that it is not heretical. What is left, then, is to try to understand exactly in what respect said non-Catholics are a part of the mystical Body.

Summa Theologiae, 3rd part, Q8, Article 1

dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/TP/TP008.html#TPQ8A3THEP1

 

[1AugustSon7]

1AugustSon7, sw85, Wasserful:

If I am understanding your disagreement with JReducation correctly, your problem with what he is saying is not that Muslims or Jews, or anyone else outside the church has a part of the Truth, but rather with explaining this fact by saying that they, in some way, belong to the Mystical Body of Christ. If this is where your disagreement lies, I would just like to point out that St. Thomas himself talks about non-Catholicss belonging to the Body of Christ … in a certain respect. I will post a link to the article in a minute. Even though St. Thomas does not specifically talk about the Muslims and the Jews as belonging to the mystical body in a greater way than other non-Catholics, the fact that he does talk about them as belonging to it in some way shows that this is not a new idea in the Church and that it is not heretical. What is left, then, is to try to understand exactly in what respect said non-Catholics are a part of the mystical Body.

Summa Theologiae, 3rd part, Q8, Article 1

dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/TP/TP008.html#TPQ8A3THEP1

Yes, Christ is the Head of all men by nature, owing to His superior (sinless) nature, as well as His perfect virtue, and the fact of His Victory over death (e.g., His Crucifixion) - what some call the Right of Conquest. In that sense Christ is the Head of all men. Christ, even as Man, is the rightful Lord, King and Head of all men; again, as by nature. Much of the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ arises from this fact.

Later, Saint Thomas describes how all men are - because of free-will - potentially members of Christ’s Mystical Body. Nonetheless, this potentiality ends at death if, for example, they foresake it:

** Reply to Objection 1:** Those who are unbaptized, though not actually in the Church, are in the Church potentially. And this potentiality is rooted in two things—first and principally, in the power of Christ, which is sufficient for the salvation of the whole human race; secondly, in free-will.

The predestinated, for example, though not yet living, belong to the Church in this way (i.e. potentially, because they cannot yet actually be members). Likewise are all living men not actually united to the Church owing to their free-will, which can choose such union or the irrestible power of God that can cause such a union if He so wills it.

But you seem rather to be thinking of this part:

Reply to Objection 2… Nevertheless, there are some, viz. mortal, sins from which they are free who are members of Christ by the actual union of charity; but such as are tainted with these sins are not members of Christ actually, but potentially; except, perhaps, imperfectly, by formless faith, which unites to God, relatively but not simply, viz. so that man partake of the life of grace. For, as is written (James 2:20): “Faith without works is dead.” Yet such as these receive from Christ a certain vital act, i.e. to believe, as if a lifeless limb were moved by a man to some extent.

We find that H.H. Pope Pius XII expounds on this very point and doctrine in his Encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi.

Saint Thomas, then, here appears to be speaking of those who remain members of Christ’s Mystical Body even though they have committed mortal sin, but yet still have Faith. These are styled dead members. Such are Catholics who fall into mortal sins: they are not severed from the Church, since they still have Faith; however, the life of grace is dead within them.

There are, however, certain mortal sins that sever Catholics completely from Christ’s Mystical Body (i.e. heresy, schism and apostasy); though, even such as these can be rejoined to the Body and also restored to the life of grace and, consequently, these are also potentially members of Christ’s Body; as well also those who commit other mortal sins. There is, of course, always mercy and forgiveness available to all who will have or seek it and, hence, the potential arising from human free-will, but chiefly from God’s love and mercy (the first principal cause mentioned by Saint Thomas in the first quote above, Reply to Obj. 1.).

It may also be of help to consider the Objection that Saint Thomas was replying to:

Objection 2: Further, the Apostle writes to the Ephesians (5:25,27): “Christ delivered Himself up for” the Church “that He might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing.” But there are many of the faithful in whom is found the spot or the wrinkle of sin. Therefore Christ is not the Head of all the faithful.

 

[severus68]

A very wise Franciscan once told me: do not presume that any person is going to hell, except for your very own self.

Yes, He is so very right.

 

[thewanderer]

Yes, Christ is the Head of all men by nature, owing to His superior (sinless) nature, as well as His perfect virtue, and the fact of His Victory over death (e.g., His Crucifixion) - what some call the Right of Conquest. In that sense Christ is the Head of all men. Christ, even as Man, is the rightful Lord, King and Head of all men; again, as by nature. Much of the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ arises from this fact.

Later, Saint Thomas describes how all men are - because of free-will - potentially members of Christ’s Mystical Body. Nonetheless, this potentiality ends at death if, for example, they foresake it:
Reply to Objection 1: Those who are unbaptized, though not actually in the Church, are in the Church potentially. And this potentiality is rooted in two things—first and principally, in the power of Christ, which is sufficient for the salvation of the whole human race; secondly, in free-will.
The predestinated, for example, though not yet living, belong to the Church in this way (i.e. potentially, because they cannot yet actually be members). Likewise are all living men not actually united to the Church owing to their free-will, which can choose such union or the irrestible power of God that can cause such a union if He so wills it.

But you seem rather to be thinking of this part:
Reply to Objection 2… Nevertheless, there are some, viz. mortal, sins from which they are free who are members of Christ by the actual union of charity; but such as are tainted with these sins are not members of Christ actually, but potentially; except, perhaps, imperfectly, by formless faith, which unites to God, relatively but not simply, viz. so that man partake of the life of grace. For, as is written (James 2:20): “Faith without works is dead.” Yet such as these receive from Christ a certain vital act, i.e. to believe, as if a lifeless limb were moved by a man to some extent.
We find that H.H. Pope Pius XII expounds on this very point and doctrine in his Encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi.

Saint Thomas, then, here appears to be speaking of those who remain members of Christ’s Mystical Body even though they have committed mortal sin, but yet still have Faith. These are styled dead members. Such are Catholics who fall into mortal sins: they are not severed from the Church, since they still have Faith; however, the life of grace is dead within them.

There are, however, certain mortal sins that sever Catholics completely from Christ’s Mystical Body (i.e. heresy, schism and apostasy); though, even such as these can be rejoined to the Body and also restored to the life of grace and, consequently, these are also potentially members of Christ’s Body; as well also those who commit other mortal sins. There is, of course, always mercy and forgiveness available to all who will have or seek it and, hence, the potential arising from human free-will, but chiefly from God’s love and mercy (the first principal cause mentioned by Saint Thomas in the first quote).

It may also help to consider the Objection that Saint Thomas was replying to:

Objection 2: Further, the Apostle writes to the Ephesians (5:25,27): “Christ delivered Himself up for” the Church “that He might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing.” But there are many of the faithful in whom is found the spot or the wrinkle of sin. Therefore Christ is not the Head of all the faithful.

It seems as though you misunderstood what I meant… although, from rereading my post that is definitely my own fault.

I was not refering to the 2nd objection at all, in fact, I was actually referring to the 1st objection. I thought I had said that… but on looking it over again I realized my mistake.

Now, you are probably wondering how I can cite the very text you are using to try and show me I am wrong to prove my point. After all, the text very clearly states that such people are only potentially a part of the church, not actually a part of the Church. However, thats actually my whole point. The objector, with whom St. Thomas disagrees, claims that such people are *in no way *a part of the church. St. Thomas corrects them by showing that they are actually potentially a part of the Church, at least while still alive. This is the crux of the matter. It is very easy to downplay potentiality. After all, it isn’t actual. But in the thinking of Aristotle and St, Thomas the difference between non-being and potency is quite breathtaking actually. The pre-socratics spent a long time trying to understand being and non-being, and how change was possible at all. Aristotle is very careful to make the distinction between non-being and potency. This is how he is able to solve the aparant contradiction faced by his predecessors. The whole point is that potency is, albeit only in some qualified way, obviously it is not actual, because that would be a contradiction, but it is not non-existent entirely, therefore it must exist *in some way. *This applies to St. Thomas’ distinction in the 1st objection because St. Thomas is specifically denying that all those who are not actually in the Church, are in no way in the Church. In other words, they are in the Church, in some qualified way.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

– Council of Florence

So you ignored all the Catechism quotes that contradict you? Does this mean you believe the CCC is invalid?

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

God wins.

It also seems highly unlikely that the “good thief” had been baptized, yet, Jesus took him to Paradise.

 

[Julia_Mae]

There are many Catechisms, ma’am; and I could quote more than one that teaches such things as limbo explicity; though, admittedly, it has other names.

But we aren’t under the teaching of a lot of Catechisms, and this Catechism is the one our Church officially provides us.

But let us here now consider the words of Our Lord in answer to Nicodemus’ questions concerning Our Lord’s doctrine on Baptism:

[3] Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Those are not our Lord’s words. From the NAB, a translation made by the Church for the use of Americans in Liturgy:

Jesus answered and said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born* from above.”

Here is the footnote:

• [3:3] Born: see note on Jn 1:13. From above: the Greek adverb anōthen means both “from above” and “again.” Jesus means “from above” (see Jn 3:31) but Nicodemus misunderstands it as “again.” This misunderstanding serves as a springboard for further instruction.

You (and a lot of Protestants) interpret that as:

Notice that the man who is not born again cannot see the kingdom of God. This means exclusion from the Beatific Vision.

No, it doesn’t. It means that the Kingdom of God is among us, as Jesus has said, and unless you are enlightened by the Holy Spirit, you will not understand what that is, you will not see it. Let he who has ears to hear understand.

Then Nicodemus enquires further, and Our Lord responds (and this is quoted by the holy Council of Trent):

[5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot **enter **into the kingdom of God.

Also not what Jesus said:

5
Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.d
6
What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit.e
7
Do not be amazed that I told you, ‘You must be born from above.’
8
The wind* blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”f

Doesn’t say “again.”

Here we find

You find that. I find that Jesus is telling us that the way to the Kingdom is through life in earth (being born of water: “what is flesh is flesh”) and being enlivened here, “born,” of the Holy Spirit, “what is born of Spirit is spirit.”

I’m not going to counter every one of your atheist arguments, because I already said what I had to say about it and nothing you’ve said changes anything I believe, but I will answer this question:

Further, how can it be supposed that an atheist “seeks… and does the will of God”? An atheist does not even seek to do God’s will, for he does not even believe there is a God Whose Will should be done.

This p happens because the God atheists don’t believe in, doesn’t exist. It isn’t a word, g-o-d they reject, it is the person they have been presented with. The one who would condemn babies to eternal hopelessness. (I also do not believe in that god.)

When an atheist seeks to act in love and charity, that person is doing what they can to follow the will of God. The true God. That they do not know this, doesn’t alter the fact they are doing it. In fact, considering their distance from the help of Church and the Sacraments, they are doing it rather heroically, IMO.

Therefore, even the text you cite does not support your proposition that even atheists will see God and enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

And yet, I am sure that it does. So, we disagree.

 

[clem456]

A very wise Franciscan once told me: do not presume that any person is going to hell, except for your very own self.

The wisest thing I have read in the whole thread.
None of us know who is going to hell or heaven and for what reasons. Our Lord gives us good instructions for sure, but Our Lord made it clear on several occasions that we might be surprised at who’s going where and for what reasons.

I am relatively new on this forum and am discovering a world I never knew existed, in a negative way. If I were a non-cahtolic reading this stuff, I would not want to be converting. I really need to avoid this forum.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

The traditionalists problem with Hell these days is that it is hardly ever mentioned. Coupled with the Jesus-is-Love theme, Catholics think they have next-to-no chance of going there. That’s no good for personal piety.

 

[sw85]

I’m not angry or anything, my friend. I just find it ironic that today in my city we had the National March for Life yet in this thread we have folks who think the unborn are going to Hell, simply because they aren’t able to be Baptized from within the womb.

I don’t see how those two positions are irreconcilable. If I thought society was not only killing people but damning them in the process, I’d be more upset about it, not less. By contrast if I thought this genocide was simply sending souls to Heaven by the millions, well, one could see how that would make it less of a priority. We don’t know either way, hence to err on the side of caution, assume the worse possible outcome, and act accordingly.

1AugustSon7, sw85, Wasserful:

Err, I’m not disagreeing with brother JR on anything. I’m simply clarifying for newyorkcatholic that it is not in principle impossible to reconcile Vatican II to traditional Church teachings, even if every outward appearance suggests otherwise.

 

[Stylites]

The wisest thing I have read in the whole thread.
None of us know who is going to hell or heaven and for what reasons. Our Lord gives us good instructions for sure, but Our Lord made it clear on several occasions that we might be surprised at who’s going where and for what reasons.

I am relatively new on this forum and am discovering a world I never knew existed, in a negative way. If I were a non-cahtolic reading this stuff, I would not want to be converting. I really need to avoid this forum.

Certainly, there are Pharisees standing on the forum’s street corners proclaiming their righteousness, and their indignation for the lowly and unlearned Samaritans and the unclean, and how earnestly they strain out gnats. But there’s a lot more than these few about.

 

[clem456]

Suggested reading for this discussion:
"Sources of Renewal, The Implementation of the Second Vatican Council " by Karol Woytla,

 

[Stylites]

Therefore, even the text you cite does not support your proposition that even atheists will see God and enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Indeed, atheists see God and enter into the Kingdom ahead of those who know and dismiss Romans 2:14.

 

[TimothyH]

I’m not angry or anything, my friend. I just find it ironic that today in my city we had the National March for Life yet in this thread we have folks who think the unborn are going to Hell, simply because they aren’t able to be Baptized from within the womb.

It was unclear to me whether the first two paragraphs in your post #326 are quotes from someone else, your paraphrasing of what someone else said, or your own beliefs.

The only reason I even suspect that the first two paragraphs re. “everyone who isn’t baptized is going to hell” might not be your own beliefs when I first saw post #326 is because the langage used - people absolutely going to hell - is out of character for what I have come to expect from a level headed person like you.

I see now that they were probably quotes or paraphrases, but it was unclear at first. I thought you were really mad and declaring that unborn babies are going to hell. I was like, “What? Melchoir_???”

Maybe use the quote function next time so we don’t have a heart attack. We love you too much to see you become hard hearted like that, and we might get blisters from praying the rosary for you.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

The traditionalists problem with Hell these days is that it is hardly ever mentioned. Coupled with the Jesus-is-Love theme, Catholics think they have next-to-no chance of going there. That’s no good for personal piety.

Yet Paul himself had great hope, confidence even, that if he persevered in faith until the end, that if he ran the race with endurance, that he would see the Lord in the end.

There is a tension here. Focusing entirely on heaven to the exlusion of hell is follishness. Focusing entirely on hell and ignoring heaven leads to dispair and loss of hope.

We are supposed to be people of great hope. Christ rose from the dead and so heaven is attainable. It is not wrong to have great hope of entering heaven, as long as we hold our sins always before us know that if it wasn’t for the great gift of the Holy Spirit working in our lives now here on earth, we would surely go to hell after we die.

-Tim-

 

[Ohana]

You also have to train altar servers, acolytes, subdeacons, sacristans, and all the other players, and these have to be available on a regular basis.

-Tim-

I don’t get this part. We certainly had a Latin Mass when I was young = through high school really. We had one old priest and grade and high school boys as servers. Someone who lived near the church acted as a sort of sacristan, but I think Father did it mostly on his own. This cast of characters seems excessive.

 

[TimothyH]

I don’t get this part. We certainly had a Latin Mass when I was young = through high school really. We had one old priest and grade and high school boys as servers. Someone who lived near the church acted as a sort of sacristan, but I think Father did it mostly on his own. This cast of characters seems excessive.

Others have pointed out to me how it is probably easier than I thought. I stood corrected, to a lesser or greater extent, and educated.

With back to back to back Masses though, Father is probably going to need help. People need to step up. That was my point.

-Tim-

 

[Melchior_1]

It was unclear to me whether the first two paragraphs in your post #326 are quotes from someone else, your paraphrasing of what someone else said, or your own beliefs.

The only reason I even suspect that the first two paragraphs re. “everyone who isn’t baptized is going to hell” might not be your own beliefs when I first saw post #326 is because the langage used - people absolutely going to hell - is out of character for what I have come to expect from a level headed person like you.

I see now that they were probably quotes or paraphrases, but it was unclear at first. I thought you were really mad and declaring that unborn babies are going to hell. I was like, “What? Melchoir_???”

Maybe use the quote function next time so we don’t have a heart attack. We love you too much to see you become hard hearted like that, and we might get blisters from praying the rosary for you.

-Tim-

It was mostly paraphrasing some of the comments others have made in this thread, and these boards. Looking through that lens, I can easily see how some traditionalists do not like the St. Faustina and her devotion, as it interferes with the concept that God is merciful towards people such as the aborted children in the world, the modern day Holy Innocents.

What you said was true; “focusing entirely on heaven to the exclusion of hell is foolishness. Focusing entirely on hell and ignoring heaven leads to despair and loss of hope”.

 

[TimothyH]

It was mostly paraphrasing some of the comments others have made in this thread, and these boards. Looking through that lens, I can easily see how some traditionalists do not like the St. Faustina and her devotion, as it interferes with the concept that God is merciful towards people such as the aborted children in the world, the modern day Holy Innocents.

What you said was true; “focusing entirely on heaven to the exclusion of hell is foolishness. Focusing entirely on hell and ignoring heaven leads to despair and loss of hope”.

I thought you went off the deep end.

I think TL might have thought that too.

-Tim-