Bishop Fellay's (SSPX) response to reunification

[pnewton]

But I just wanted to outline the bolded parts above. It is that after mentioned opinion that I criticized as being of inconsistent nature with your approach toward those who call the Pope Anti-Christ.

I posted this before, but let me try again. This argument missed the facts by coating them with rhetoric. Here, the word “entertain” is used. What does this mean? Is this in reference to a performing a song and dance or inviting them to dinner? No. It is used because it can easily be used to mean two different things to the two different groups. If one says that the Church entertains Protestants, then in that sense, of course it also entertains the SSPX at least as much. Again:

1. Neither Protestant ministers nor SSPX can licitly serve as priest and administer Sacraments in the Catholic Church.
2. They both can engage in dialogue with the Catholic Church in order to consider.
3. Both can be incorporated in working relationships in practical matters.
4. Both are recognized as valid Christians.

This idea that the Church is treating the SSPX worse than Protestants is not arguable with out letting terms mean different things for the different groups.

 

[maurin]

Actually, there is no room to agree or disagree, If you do not believe that Rome has the legal and moral ability to change the Form of the Mass, that’s a fundamental strike against Matthew 16:18 if they went through with it.

Further, I would argue that the Form changing had very little, if not nothing, to do with the erosion of the Faith. If you actually look at the last 100 years in a historical and anthro perspective, you can see why.

Actually, there is plenty of room to disagree. If we could turn back time, if we could find a way, we could find St Athanasius, or St Catherine of Siena, I wonder what they would say?

Further, I would argue precisely that changing the Mass, with its stress on community meal, and a deemphasis on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, CITH standing had everything to do with the erosion of Faith, beginning in the erosion of Faith in the Real Presence.

We may continue to heartily disagree.

 

[Melchior_1]

Actually, there is plenty of room to disagree. If we could turn back time, if we could find a way, we could find St Athanasius, or St Catherine of Siena, I wonder what they would say?

Further, I would argue precisely that changing the Mass, with its stress on community meal, and a deemphasis on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, CITH standing had everything to do with the erosion of Faith, beginning in the erosion of Faith in the Real Presence.

We may continue to heartily disagree.

They certainly wouldn’t flagrantly disobey the Pope and claim to be of a higher authority in matters of Canon Law. Especially a true daughter of Holy Father Dominic.

This bothers me, what you’ve been writing. You wrote it twice now, blaming the Ordinary Form for the ills of society and within the Church. I see this often on these boards, and it always bothers me. It’s not even the use of improper terminology (there are two Forms within the same Rites, not two different Rites) that bothers me. No, it’s the use of Vatican II and The Mass of Paul VI as a scapegoat that bothers me, as it completely ignores several historical and anthropological moments and trends which have happened over the last 100 years. It ignores that, like several other times in Church history, a Council had to happen.

From, say, 1900 - 1960 alone we see, among other things:

• Two WORLD wars.
• Roaring 20’s.
• The Great Depression
• The Holocaust.
• A few other wars.
• The beginning of Sexual Revolution.

Before Vatican II and the Mass of Paul VI, we see the systematic devaluing of human life. We see people fight wars for selfish and vile reasons, we see an entire race almost exterminated. With that we also see the rise of Communist Russia, which has it’s own problems. We see the wholesale objectifying of people through the use of sex and simply disregarding human life as being disposable.

All of these things were affecting the Church. Thanks to Bishops strong-arming religious, even the concept of poverty within the Church was being subverted. Sex scandals and abuses were happening long before the Second Vatican Council and the Ordinary Form.

Further, if we look out at the Eastern Churches, the exact same things happened. If we look at the Orthodox, the exact same things happened. If we look at Protestants, same thing. Jews, same thing. What exactly does this tell you, specifically? Unless you want to say that they all have “lack of Communion with Rome” as a common denominator, because that’s you’re saying Rome has a lack of communion with Rome, which .

Anyway, with all of this happening a Council had to be called. Had to. With no council several of the above issues would have continued and become worse.

Pope Paul VI was not a stupid man, he sees what is happening. He also sees the gross amount of disobedience within society, and likely fully expects this to enter into the Church. So what does he do?

1. HV. The definitive pro-life document. He slammed the door shut and nailed it after.
2. He re-wrote Canon Law, likely knowing that there would need to be an emphasis on law due to disobedience.
3. We do have a new Form, a Form which retains the Sacrifice. Retains several elements. Like the old Form, it has advantages and disadvantages. It also did shake things up a bit, and force people to think about the who/why/how.
4. Regarding the “moral right”, LOTH was changed, with no issues. Further, there’s 20+ Rites already. Plus how many different uses?
5. Religious orders going back to their roots.

Look at what happened. Look at the last 100 years. Look BEFORE the Council. Stop living and praying we go back into a bubble, as society broke that bubble, which is why we NEEDED a Council, just like all those other times in the history of the Church.

 

[JReducation]

Actually, there is plenty of room to disagree. If we could turn back time, if we could find a way, we could find St Athanasius, or St Catherine of Siena, I wonder what they would say?

Further, I would argue precisely that changing the Mass, with its stress on community meal, and a deemphasis on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, CITH standing had everything to do with the erosion of Faith, beginning in the erosion of Faith in the Real Presence.

We may continue to heartily disagree.

They certainly wouldn’t flagrantly disobey the Pope and claim to be of a higher authority in matters of Canon Law. Especially a true daughter of Holy Father Dominic.

St. Athanasius and St. Catherine of Sienna are frequently misrepresented in these discussions. I believe that it’s inadvertently, because there are pieces that most people don’t know.

Athanasius never broke communion with the Primacy. His argument was against heretics identified as such by the Church and others who were on the fence.

St. Catherine never argued or corrected popes as it is said she did. The Dominicans have a wonderful series on her life and work. Catherine was a good friend with the bishops and the pope of her time. She wrote them very personal letters in which she expressed her concerns and makes suggestions to them. However, she concludes every letter by reminding the bishops and the pope that she remains their obedient daughter and that she will accept whatever they decide. They certainly listened to her, because they trusted her. After all, she was a personal friend.

In addition, no one every knew about these exchanges. Catherine never made them public and neither did the hierarchy. These were revealed years after she died when the letters and other anecdotes were exposed.

Finally, Catherine had a rule in her little community. The Lay Dominicans whom she led were to observe the same silence and discretion as our Holy Father Dominic. It is written that she flogged anyone who spoke badly about the Franciscans, bishops or the papacy, because in the constitutions of St. Dominic he commands his sons and daughters never to criticize and always reverence the Franciscans, bishops and popes.

As a faithful daughter to our Holy Father Dominic, it is out of character to engage in a public debate with the papacy. It was acceptable to share her concerns with prelates who were her friends and to make suggestions to them. She was not the only person who had such a close relationship with the popes.

St. Anthony of Padua and St. Francis of Assisi had the same relationship with Popes Honorius III and Gregory IX. The friendship was so close that Pope Gregory would come to Assisi to seek Francis’ advice on different matters. When both Francis and Anthony died, Pope Gregory said that he did not need an investigation into their lives. He believed what people were saying about miracles and he said about Francis, “He was my friend.” He proceeded to canonize him without an investigation or beatification, the same with Anthony.

Catherine’s relationship with the hierarchy and the papacy is extraordinary because she was a woman, not because she was the only person to have such a close friendship with Church prelates. Again, she never said anything in public nor allowed anyone to do so either, neither did Francis, Anthony or Dominic. They never said anything in public or prohibited any public display of disagreement with the hierarchy. In private, you could say whatever the bishop allowed you to say.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

Further, there’s 20+ Rites already. Plus how many different uses?

How is this a good thing? The Council of Trent tried to standardize the rites and the language. Did we “need” another council to undo Trent?

 

[JReducation]

How is this a good thing? The Council of Trent tried to standardize the rites and the language. Did we “need” another council to undo Trent?

Actually, there are not 20= rites. There are 23 Catholic Churches. There are five Eastern Rites that the 22 Eastern Churches use and there are five Western Rites used in the Roman Catholic Church.

The most commonly used rite is the Latin Rite or Roman Rite, because it has the largest number of adherents. Even to the Roman Rite, there have always been forms of it. By forms, we mean variations. The Council of Trent ruled that the monks, mendicants and Jesuits were exempt religious, both individually and as communities. Therefore, they are not bound to the same liturgical rules as everyone else, except when the pope explicitly says so. They have their own missals with their own general instructions.

The Council of Trent pulled in all those rites that were very small, that were not authorized or that were not part of one of the exempt orders. It was not the intent of Trent to create one rite for the universal Church.

Trent never touched the Eastern Rites and left the exempt religious orders alone. It dealt only with the Latin Rite as it is celebrated by diocesan priests and non-exempt religious.

After Vatican II, the exempt religious developed their own versions of the Ordinary Form, while everyone else was to follow the form as it was promulgated by Paul VI. That’s where the problems began. People did not follow the form as Pope Paul VI promulgated it.

The number of rites and forms have not changed, other than we now have two forms of the Roman Rite. The rest have not been touched and there is no plan to tamper with them.

The first reason for not being able to have one rite is because we’re 23 independent Churches.

The second reason is that we have more than 10 exempt religious orders that have over 50,000 men. The pope would have to take away the exemption. That would create a ripple effect, because that exemption protects those orders from many dangers.

It would create chaos to try to arrive at a single rite or even a single way of celebrating the Latin Rite.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[casual_visitor]

As to your question, “Do they belong to the Mystical Body?” Yes they do. Do Protestants belong to the Mystical Body? Ut Unum Sint says that they too belong to the Mystical Body in some incomplete or imperfect way.

Is that true? I thought MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI states that only the VISIBLE Catholic Church is part of the Mystical Body of Christ. At least, that is what seems to say here

ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/PXIITREA.TXT

it says

Actually only those are to be included () as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body (), or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.’

 

[maurin]

They certainly wouldn’t flagrantly disobey the Pope and claim to be of a higher authority in matters of Canon Law. Especially a true daughter of Holy Father Dominic.

This bothers me, what you’ve been writing. You wrote it twice now, blaming the Ordinary Form for the ills of society and within the Church.

I stopped reading here for two reasons: you have misrepresented the Society, and you have misrepresented me.

The Society does not claim to be a higher authority. It has preserved the millenia-old Mass from extincttion, and the the same Faith that Mass teaches. All the Ecclesia Dei groups owe Holy Archbishop Lefebvre that debt of gratitude, in my opinion. And I have not blamed the ills of society nor the problems within the Church on the NO Mass. It is, in my opinion, only the manifestation of what I perceive to be a disease. Lex Orandi, lex credendi. It is the NO Mass, I wrote, which oversaw the erosion of belief in the Real Preaence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[Melchior_1]

I stopped reading here for two reasons: you have misrepresented the Society, and you have misrepresented me.

Where exactly did I misrepresent you or the Society? THREE times now you have said the Ordinary Form is the cause of diminished belief in the Real Presence, yet if you read the rest of my post you would have seen there were events that happened which would have caused this regardless.

The Society does not claim to be a higher authority.

Actions often speak louder than words. When the fellow who is the end-all and be-all of Canon Law says “it doesn’t apply” and you continue to act and say that it does, you certainly act like you’re a higher authority. When you make blanket and erroneous statements on your Society’s website, there is certain some acts which look like the thought of being a higher authority is there.

It has preserved the millenia-old Mass from extincttion, and the the same Faith that Mass teaches. All the Ecclesia Dei groups owe Holy Archbishop Lefebvre that debt of gratitude, in my opinion.

Humor me if you will, by giving me the allowance to do a bit of time travel.

Lets say that that His Grace didn’t act out of disobedience. When JP2 said “the law does not apply”, Lefebvre obeyed and carried out his business. For all we know he could have continued to work in the background, effecting change within the Church and exercising his charism(s) within the Church. Perhaps he even becomes friends with a gentleman named Joseph. Joseph soon finds himself in a position of authority, and invites Lefebvre to be within his “inner circle”, as it were. JP2 sees all of this, and respects a man who is obedient to Rome, and follows in the footsteps of Holy Fathers Dominic & Francis who made great changes within the Church without being outside of the Church. Perhaps Lefebvre then gets elevated to a higher position.

All very, very plausible. You don’t think that scenario would have been ideal?

And I have not blamed the ills of society nor the problems within the Church on the NO Mass. It is, in my opinion, only the manifestation of what I perceive to be a disease. Lex Orandi, lex credendi. It is the NO Mass, I wrote, which oversaw the erosion of belief in the Real Preaence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

Like I said, all the things I mentioned in my previous post could also lead to a lack of belief in the Real Presence, and most of them took place before Vatican II and the Missal of Paul VI.

 

[maurin]

Where exactly did I misrepresent you or the Society? THREE times now you have said the Ordinary Form is the cause of diminished belief in the Real Presence, yet if you read the rest of my post you would have seen there were events that happened which would have caused this regardless.

sorry, but again I had to stop reading because you are again misrepresenting what I have written. I must ask: which is it? Did I write that the NO Mass is responsible for all the ills of society and within the Church, or did I say, as you say above that the NO Mass is the cause of diminished belief in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament?

I said neither. What I said, and repeated, can be found in previous posts, and until you quote me properly, I see no fruit resulting in our conversation, and suspect it may be best to wish you well.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

And on that we will remain in utter disagreement! A Rite of Mass which has seen the erosion of Faith in the Real Presence of Our Lord diminish over 40 years, in my opinion, noone has the moral authority to promulgate. Lex orandi, lex credendi.
But my opinion, at the end of the day is as valuable-- or valueless lol, depending on who you talk to!!-- as yours, and so let’s agree to disagree.

sorry, but again I had to stop reading because you are again misrepresenting what I have written. I must ask: which is it? Did I write that the NO Mass is responsible for all the ills of society and within the Church, or did I say, as you say above that the NO Mass is the cause of diminished belief in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament?

I said neither. What I said, and repeated, can be found in previous posts, and until you quote me properly, I see no fruit resulting in our conversation, and suspect it may be best to wish you well.

Sorry, but yes you did.

You are entitled to your opinions, but I really believe the Melchior is on to something here! Maybe if you read all of his posts you might see that.

 

[Melchior_1]

sorry, but again I had to stop reading because you are again misrepresenting what I have written. I must ask: which is it? Did I write that the NO Mass is responsible for all the ills of society and within the Church, or did I say, as you say above that the NO Mass is the cause of diminished belief in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament?

I said neither.?

It is the NO Mass, I wrote, which oversaw the erosion of belief in the Real Preaence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

A Rite of Mass which has seen the erosion of Faith in the Real Presence of Our Lord diminish over 40 years

You are correct though, I did read too much into your statements when I said “caused the ills of society”, so my apologies on that one. It seems like the next logical step; if you’re already scapegoating the Ordinary Form for the lack of belief in the Real Presence, you may as well blame it for everything else too, right?

I’d like you to clarify the two quotes of yours I just provided - explain to me how they do not refer to the Ordinary Form as the cause of the problem(s) you speak of.

Again, look at 1900 - 1970. See what happened during that time frame before the Ordinary Form came about. The historical and sociological events I mentioned would be enough to drive any number of people away from the Church, and cause a lack of belief in the Sacraments as a whole.

 

[JReducation]

Is that true? I thought MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI states that only the VISIBLE Catholic Church is part of the Mystical Body of Christ. At least, that is what seems to say here

ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/PXIITREA.TXT

it says

Actually, Ut Unum Sint is not saying anything different. It’s just coming at it from a different angle.

Observe the wording here very carefully.

Actually only those are to be included () as members of the Church who have been baptized Protestants are usually baptized]and profess the true faith [they follow the faith as best they know it] , and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body (), Today’s Protestant has not separated himself from the Church. He was born into the Protestant community; therefore, this is his faith.]or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.’ This would apply to a Catholic who becomes a Protestant. He is automatically excommunicated.

When Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict look at today’s Protestants, they see a very different people from those of 500 years ago. During his visit to Martin Luther’s home, Pope Benedict described today’s Protestant as a “new phenomena that we [Catholics] have yet to understand.” Both popes are saying the same thing. Those who have been born Protestant are not guilty of any canonical crime; therefore, they cannot be separated from the Christian Church. The question is how to explain the condition of today’s Protestant to today’s Catholic. Pope Benedict is saying, we don’t really understand it ourselves. We are in communion in some things and not in others. The Pope is right. It is an interesting situation that requires great deliberation and caution before we open our mouths and say something that does not apply.

My policy is not to make comments about the Protestants other than to explain where we’re in communion and where we are not. I refrain from all labels and I do not engage with those Protestants who want to engage in name calling. I find name calling distasteful and beneath our dignity as persons.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[casual_visitor]

Actually, Ut Unum Sint is not saying anything different. It’s just coming at it from a different angle.

Observe the wording here very carefully.

Actually only those are to be included () as members of the Church who have been baptized Protestants are usually baptized]and profess the true faith [they follow the faith as best they know it] , and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body (), Today’s Protestant has not separated himself from the Church. He was born into the Protestant community; therefore, this is his faith.]or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.’ This would apply to a Catholic who becomes a Protestant. He is automatically excommunicated.

When Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict look at today’s Protestants, they see a very different people from those of 500 years ago. During his visit to Martin Luther’s home, Pope Benedict described today’s Protestant as a “new phenomena that we [Catholics] have yet to understand.” Both popes are saying the same thing. Those who have been born Protestant are not guilty of any canonical crime; therefore, they cannot be separated from the Christian Church. The question is how to explain the condition of today’s Protestant to today’s Catholic. Pope Benedict is saying, we don’t really understand it ourselves. We are in communion in some things and not in others. The Pope is right. It is an interesting situation that requires great deliberation and caution before we open our mouths and say something that does not apply.

My policy is not to make comments about the Protestants other than to explain where we’re in communion and where we are not. I refrain from all labels and I do not engage with those Protestants who want to engage in name calling. I find name calling distasteful and beneath our dignity as persons.

I am not sure I understand.

So you are redefining ‘true faith’ to imply whichever faith you were born into? Otherwise, what is the difference between a Protestant who believes he/she is saved by faith alone and stringently holds to Sola Scriptura vs. a Protestant of Luther’s time?

Also, what would be the need for the Apostles to even evangelize? Wouldn’t it have been better to allow Jews to remain Jews because they do hold the ‘true faith’ too? After all, these are people who had been Jews far longer than Protestants had been Protestant at the time of Christ. Why did they bother to even convert them during that time?

What reason do we have to consider them to be different and their faith less ‘True’?

I am against labels as well, but what else do you call a person who believes Salvation is by Faith alone and Sola Scriptura? Also, by definition, aren’t the five solas contrary to the true faith?

Actually, doesn’t MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI require that there be one VISIBLE church? The definition you presented of "having the TRUE FAITH’’ seems to require the postulation of an invisible church, does it not? Since non-Catholics are in no way part of the visible Church, how do you explain this relationship? I cannot see how to reconcile the notion that Protestants today are part of the mystical body of Christ with what is said here in MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI:-

It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

 

[casual_visitor]

MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI also says the following,

Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond.

I am honestly not sure how to reconcile a notion that Protestants are part of the mystical body of Christ in anyway from that?

 

[curlycool89]

And on that we will remain in utter disagreement! A Rite of Mass which has seen the erosion of Faith in the Real Presence of Our Lord diminish over 40 years, in my opinion, noone has the moral authority to promulgate. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

But my opinion, at the end of the day is as valuable-- or valueless lol, depending on who you talk to!!-- as yours, and so let’s agree to disagree.

[citation needed] (as they say on Wikipedia).

You seem to think that the OF of the Mass is the only cause, and yet I gave you a half-dozen other events in the surrounding culture that are just as likely to be responsible. If I may say so, you seem to be wearing blinders and assuming that Catholics are not influenced by the greater culture, and that is being very naive. That’s not to say that Catholics should be influenced by the culture (there are many, many parts that are not just bad but wholly incompatible with the Faith, but that’s a side topic), but the fact is that they are.

Yes, you are allowed to hold an opinion. But if your opinion is based on bad information and false assumptions, that does in fact make it of less worth then opinions based on accepted assumptions and better information. Just because you have an opinion does not automatically make it equal to all other opinions.

They certainly wouldn’t flagrantly disobey the Pope and claim to be of a higher authority in matters of Canon Law. Especially a true daughter of Holy Father Dominic.

This bothers me, what you’ve been writing. You wrote it twice now, blaming the Ordinary Form for the ills of society and within the Church. I see this often on these boards, and it always bothers me. It’s not even the use of improper terminology (there are two Forms within the same Rites, not two different Rites) that bothers me. No, it’s the use of Vatican II and The Mass of Paul VI as a scapegoat that bothers me, as it completely ignores several historical and anthropological moments and trends which have happened over the last 100 years. It ignores that, like several other times in Church history, a Council had to happen.

From, say, 1900 - 1960 alone we see, among other things:

• Two WORLD wars.
• Roaring 20’s.
• The Great Depression
• The Holocaust.
• A few other wars.
• The beginning of Sexual Revolution.

Look at what happened. Look at the last 100 years. Look BEFORE the Council. Stop living and praying we go back into a bubble, as society broke that bubble, which is why we NEEDED a Council, just like all those other times in the history of the Church.

Exactly. If people look at the wider context of society they this is what they would see. It’s funny, because as Catholics we always emphasize reading the Bible within the context, as opposed to what Protestants often do: cherry picking verses and ignoring the larger context. You could almost say that looking at parts of history outside of their context is like a Protestant version of history (or if you want to get scholarly, historical revisionism).

sorry, but again I had to stop reading because you are again misrepresenting what I have written. I must ask: which is it? Did I write that the NO Mass is responsible for all the ills of society and within the Church, or did I say, as you say above that the NO Mass is the cause of diminished belief in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament?

I said neither. What I said, and repeated, can be found in previous posts, and until you quote me properly, I see no fruit resulting in our conversation, and suspect it may be best to wish you well.

Wait a second, let’s play back that first quote again.

And on that we will remain in utter disagreement! A Rite of Mass which has seen the erosion of Faith in the Real Presence of Our Lord diminish over 40 years, in my opinion, noone has the moral authority to promulgate. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

But my opinion, at the end of the day is as valuable-- or valueless lol, depending on who you talk to!!-- as yours, and so let’s agree to disagree.

Yes, you did in fact claim that the OF eroded (which is substantially the same as “diminished”) faith in the Real Presence.

 

[JReducation]

QUOTE=casual_visitor;8967054]I am not sure I understand.

So you are redefining ‘true faith’ to imply whichever faith you were born into? Otherwise, what is the difference between a Protestant who believes he/she is saved by faith alone and stringently holds to Sola Scriptura vs. a Protestant of Luther’s time?

Also, what would be the need for the Apostles to even evangelize? Wouldn’t it have been better to allow Jews to remain Jews because they do hold the ‘true faith’ too? After all, these are people who had been Jews far longer than Protestants had been Protestant at the time of Christ. Why did they bother to even convert them during that time?

What reason do we have to consider them to be different and their faith less ‘True’?

I am against labels as well, but what else do you call a person who believes Salvation is by Faith alone and Sola Scriptura? Also, by definition, aren’t the five solas contrary to the true faith?

Actually, doesn’t MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI require that there be one VISIBLE church? The definition you presented of "having the TRUE FAITH’’ seems to require the postulation of an invisible church, does it not? Since non-Catholics are in no way part of the visible Church, how do you explain this relationship? I cannot see how to reconcile the notion that Protestants today are part of the mystical body of Christ with what is said here in MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI:-

MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI also says the following,

I am honestly not sure how to reconcile a notion that Protestants are part of the mystical body of Christ in anyway from that?

I’m not redifining anything. What the popes are saying is several things.

1. Mystici Corpus Christi is describing a very different situation from that which we have today.
2. Secondly, the popes are not bound by it. It was a statement made by the Ordinary Magisterium. This leaves future popes free to look at it from a different perspective. That’s what they’re doing. They are not bound to to be as rigid as we would like them to be.
3. They are saying that while Mystici Corpus Christi speaks about a great truth, as doctrine develops that truth become clearer to us. In this case, it is clear to us that we do have some degree of communion with Protestants.

a. Common root

b. Common Christology

c. Common scriptures

d. Common profession of faith

e. One baptism

f. Common life of prayer

g. Common Trinitarian theology

h. Common belief in the one true God

i. Many common moral laws

The popes are saying is that if we were to deny these things, then we would be denying part of what makes us Catholics. This was not addressed by Mystici Corpus. They don’t feel that they are saying anything different, but that they are seeing something that the pope and bishops of the time did not see or did not apply, because of the conflicts between heretics and the Church.

1. All of these things that are in number 3 and more, are part of the Catholic faith. Therefore, those who believe it and do the best they can with what they have are living according to their faith, even though they do not possess the fullness of the faith, they are not totally devoid of it either. They have much of it. The have the most important part of all, the belief in the Trinity, Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection and Redemption. The ideal would be that they come to the fullness of truth. Why ride a bike when you can ride Cadillac? This does not mean that the bike is totally useless. The Protestant faith cannot be totally useless as long as it contains so many Catholic truths. It is lacking, but not empty. That’s what they are saying.
2. Therefore, Pope Benedict has stated that we Catholics have to take another look at Protestantism in a different light, because Protestantism of today is not the same Protestantism of Mystici Corpus Christi. To use his own words, “It’s a new phenomenon that the Church never expected.”

 

[JReducation]

The goal of Pope Benedict is that both sides will back down and stop posturing, take a good look at each other and put aside the lies and falsehoods that we have been taught about each other. The Catholics are not the Whore of Babylon and Protestants are not heretic, unless it’s a former Catholic. The second step is to accept that we have communion on some significant points and finally, enter into an honest dialogue about our differences. Catholics have to understand why it is the Protestants misunderstand many things about us, in order to clarify for them. Protestants, need to understand where their gaps are in order to arrive at the fullness of the faith. They’re already partially there.

The Church believes that Christ uses those elements of Catholicism found in Protestantism to save those who are faithful. This does not mean that the Protestant should become a conformist. Everyone has the moral duty to strive to know all of the truth, not just part of it. Nor should Catholics become like sand paper looking for every opportunity to rub Catholicism into the faces of Protestants. That strategy makes three converts and 7 enemies.

Just last week, the Holy Father signed a very important agreement with the World Council of Protestant Churches precisely on this issue. He agree that we Catholics would try our best to back off the rhetoric and work harder to help Protestants understand us. They agree that they would get their people to drop the rhetoric and try to help Catholics understand them. The hope is that if both sides understand each other, you can begin to find answers to what separates us.

I’ll just offer one example that I ran into the other day. I heard a Catholic speaking about the Blessed Mother using wording that made it sound as if she were part of the Trinity. I know that Catholics do not believe this. To the Protestant, that’s what it sounds like. It comes off like idolatry. I clarified for the Catholic that there was a better way to explain Mary’s relationship with the Trinity. He was saying that she was an essential part of the Trinity. What he meant to say was that she is the Daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son and Spouse of the Holy Spirit. That’s a far cry from being an essential part of the Trinity.

Catholics makes these comments without thinking how they sound. Protestants are just as guilty with “Saved by faith.” The accord between the Catholic and the Lutherans is very clear that we are saved by faith, but that true faith finds its expression in good works. The Lutherans do not deny this, but their laity does not know how to explain it correctly. To a Catholic it sounds wrong.

These are the things that were not under consideration when Mystici Corpus Christi was written. The popes are not contradicting it. They are using their authority to say that there is more to it. St. Boniface established once and for all that a pope cannot create new dogma, but he can change laws and develop what other popes, ecumenical councils and even canon law have said in the past. This is what Pope Benedict is doing when he says that we have a new pehonomenon. He’s using his authority to say that we have to rethink about how we deal with Protestantism today. Faith does not change, but what we believe our Protestants is not dogma, it’s theological opinion. As the Protestants change, the opinions have to be revisited.

It’s very confusing and that’s why we have to trust in the wisdom of the Holy Father. He’s not a dumb man and knows exactly what he means.

You may enjoy reading Ut Unum Sint. I call it the sequal to Mystici Corporis Christi.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jonbhorton]

Wait a second, let’s play back that first quote again.

Originally Posted by maurin
And on that we will remain in utter disagreement! A Rite of Mass which has seen the erosion of Faith in the Real Presence of Our Lord diminish over 40 years

This disturbs me because of smacks of lack of willingness to at least be intellectually honest in your discussion. Maurin very plainly wrote what Maurin very plainly wrote, plainly.* It’s in plain English*. Maurin recognizes you are not willing or able to acknowledge the actual argument being presented, and is instead being thrust into a corner not of their making, and seeks more than once to disengage. You then pursue for attack outside of any intellectual honesty in the course of the exchange. That’s a very leftist course of action (Douglas Murray outlines this common tactic here: youtube.com/watch?v=2gtiwbfDTmM **warning, there is a bit of strong language; if’n ya ain’t a big kid, or otherwise object to all but Shakespearean pleasantries, don’t click.)

2 things on this:

#1- Maurin did not claim the OF eroded the Faith in the Real Presence. Maurin said it has “seen the erosion”, which is not actually at all substantially the same as diminished as one implies an observatory role, and the other, per your description, is the causal factor in the belief being diminished.

#2- Well, this might not sit well with some, but, if the shoe fits, wear it. 40+ years of the OF (and what craziness people tried/try to inject in it), and the fruits seem to be, at least in the West, diminished Catholicism (were it not for immigrants, the numbers would be less for the Catholic demographic), a shortage of priests, a shortage of religious vocations, climbing divorce rates matching the secular/non-Catholic Christian world, etc.

Is it the culture? Is it the Mass? Is it the largely uncatechized people warming pews… maybe? Is it all of the above and more than we’ll ever know?

What it’s not, is acceptable. What it is, is sad. What it must be, is corrected.

That correction, if it is not coming from the pulpit, needs to come from your mouth, fingers, and any other manner of communication you can muster.

It cannot come until people are willing to actually engage what amounts to family in an intellectually honest manner. Acknowledge the argument and go from there, or don’t bother.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

What he meant to say was that she is the Daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son and Spouse of the Holy Spirit. That’s a far cry from being an essential part of the Trinity.

I’m quite sure Mary’s essential in that role and all it entails. Not by her own nature, but by God’s will a grace. Our Lady truly is essential to the Most Holy Trinity. Your friend here is not wrong. But he should have clarified that this is so because God so wills it to be so.