Card. Koch + DH, NÆ, & Jews → no SSPX regularization

[ProVobis]

Ah, that’s the catch; what you refer to as “the new ecumenism” is exactly that - “new”. People need to understand that Vatican II didn’t invent ecumenism, but what you refer to as the “new” version was conjured up by others. They attached the name of the Council to give themselves legitimacy. Meanwhile, those who oppose the “new ecumenism” use the Council as a scapegoat.

I would agree with that. In my London school back in the 50’s, we were drawing Christians and Catholics as “brothers.” But this kind of ecumenism had not been taught uniformly throughout the Church, I don’t believe.

 

[Melchior_1]

I would agree with that. In my London school back in the 50’s, we were drawing Christians and Catholics as “brothers.” But this kind of ecumenism had not been taught uniformly throughout the Church, I don’t believe.

Exactly, which is why it was prudent to have it discussed and written down at the Council so everyone was on the same page.

Turns out some people threw out the book though, either by coming up with relativistic ideas or doing the exact opposite and disowning the idea of true ecumenism entirely.

 

[Melchior_1]

It is a failure to properly implement and catechize.

I agree, however this isn’t just clergy; we the laity need to catechize as well (with charity, of course).

And we mustn’t go around whispering, “But Vatican II is valid/orthodox/etc.,” to each other in a sort of self-assuring after-the-fact “I’m not a schismatic” way every time we try to rectify something.

No whispering required; it is valid and orthodox. No one should be saying otherwise.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I agree, however this isn’t just clergy; we the laity need to catechize as well (with charity, of course).

No whispering required; it is valid and orthodox. No one should be saying otherwise.

But we laity must be backed up by our clergy. If we’re trying to tell some random Catholic something straight out of an encyclical or something and then Father ___ at the parish bashes the teaching from the pulpit or implicitly in liturgical practice, then Houston, we’ve got a problem!

And please, examine the whispering comment in the context of the whole of my post. What I’m saying is that we should be able to make frank and severe assessments and criticisms of the current state of the Catholic Church without having to put silly amateur disclaimers like “oh and Vatican II is totally valid” at the end.

We don’t have to walk around saying things and then saying “oh and Nicaea is totally valid” or “oh and Trent is totally valid” at the end. We SHOULDN’T have to put a disclaimer about Vatican II at the end. The validity of the Council and the knowledge of what the Council actually did/called for as opposed to what actually happened should be just common sense, in my view, part of Catholic common knowledge. We have to stop saving ourselves with that silly sort of disclaimer because we shouldn’t have to and it also undermines the argument that the Catholic Church is in crisis mode right now.

We have to pull our heads out of the “Nu Springtime” clouds and admit to ourselves that our Catholics know less and believe less now than they have in probably the last 1000 years. And we shouldn’t have to worry about being labeled with the “omgosh u r so judgmental how could you” when making these kinds of statements.

 

[TrueLight]

I suppose I should have clarified; from my own perspective, I find it easy to reconcile the teachings, based on my studies of mendicant traditions. Franciscans and Dominicans have long practiced what the Vatican II documents speak of when it comes to dealing with other faiths (see; the Middle East, St. Kolbe), so to me this is nothing new or exciting. Well, it’s exciting in the sense that now other people can see what we’ve been teaching and practicing for the last 700-ish years.

Saying that Vatican II “doesn’t help” ignores a few things. For one, the practical application of having the religious go back to the roots of their founders. This had to happen, and the fact that it happened automatically makes any Council this happened at a success. Also, I don’t think it’s coincidence that there was that document on the religious, and there then proceeds to be other documents which has the distinct appearance of having some of their practices in it.

I want to know what about today makes the “tone” so different regarding modernism. Last I heard the Church was still very vocal against it.

Melchior,

I love you but why must you ALWAYS bring up Religious?

 

[newyorkcatholic]

You mean like some of the liturgical reforms made by Pius X? He made a few of them.

St. Pius X’s reforms did not come from a growing movement of theologians who, despite papal warnings, continue to push ideas of ecumenism and modernism. His reforms, whatever you think of them, were based on different ideals entirely. The major players (not behind the scenes, but actual major players in the Consilium that made major changes to the liturgy) like Bugnini, Bouyer, Jungman, Braga, and so on, very expressly stated that the new ecumenism of removing things distinctly Catholic was part of their goal. They also wanted to (and mostly succeeded in removing) negative things like sin, death, judgment, hell, and so on.

Yet it was all ratified, and the Form of Mass is now the Ordinary. Our last two Popes signed off on the V2 documents, as did a certain French Archbishop. There is nothing in V2 which is contrary to Catholic teaching, Rome has said so.

People can say what they want, and make their commentaries. Including commentaries that misquote people.

I acknowledge V2 is not actually heretical. But it’s problematic. I could take Aquinas’ Summa and take out everything on hell, transubstantiation, judgment, heresy, and other things that are too distintively Catholic or too negative. Then I could re-write maybe 60% of the stuff on God’s Love and the Trinity, replacing it with simpler, or even extremely simple, drivel that isn’t wrong but leaves out majesty, leaves out beauty, but makes things very accesible to all, even with no education, no experience, and even for non-Catholics. I could add a few nice little things about sharing and caring.

That would an “OF” equivalent to the Summa. By my description, there would be no heresy in it. But it would no longer fight heresy as the Summa does, and it would not meet the real needs of the faithful.

The architects of the new Mass also frequently talked about the needs of “contemporary man” to justify removing things from the TLM about corporal mortification, hell, sin, dangers of heresy, enemies of the Church and so on. Well first of all the psychological approach is a problem because the Mass isn’t about psychology but secondly, the psychology is wrong. It is precisely because “contemporary man” isn’t interested in or thinking about those subjects that he needs to be confronted with them.

In the Mass, yes. But also the Vatican 2 documents make it easy to justify such changes.

Given what was happening in the world, we actually needed another Trent-like council, that recodified and strengthened and clarified and implemented the vision of Trent, and Vatican I which was interrupted. We didn’t get that :-(.

 

[Melchior_1]

Melchior,

I love you but why must you ALWAYS bring up Religious?

Probably because it has an impact in my life and the lives of several within the Church. Or maybe because the Franciscans, through Christ Jesus in the Eucharist, literally saved me from dying fourteen years ago. Or maybe it was because I personally knew a founder of a Society of Apostolic Life, and he was there for me when I needed it. Or maybe because my current parish that I’ve been at for nine years is now run by a Society of Apostolic Life.

Maybe it’s because I feel it’s relevant to the conversation at hand, that people aren’t looking at the universal Church. People have zero issue with bringing up Clown Masses, Puppet Masses, “New Ecumenism”, “Spirit of Vatican II”, St. Athanasius, people stealing the Eucharist without consuming, whether the 1988 excommunications were valid, arguments over if the Pope can decide what’s Canon Law, the Mass being “promulgated for perpetuity”, and all sorts of things. They apply these things across the board. But people won’t look at the different slices that the Church has.

Perhaps it’s because I model my life in a specific fashion. Just like how traditionalists compare everything regarding spirituality within the framework of Catholic traditionalism, I compare things to the framework of the mendicants.

Maybe it’s a bit of all of the above. Who knows? But hey, message received.

 

[Rich_C]

Melchior,

I love you but why must you ALWAYS bring up Religious?

Haven’t you noticed that >50% of the characters typed on the traditional forum are from a few religious, usually talking about the religious life? I always imagine a medieval monastery with hooded monks all in a row at computer stations. It’s a charism for the 21st century!

Seriously, though I appreciate their contributions a lot and as a mere layman I try to humbly ponder their words rather than argue, even if sometimes I share Truelight’s exasperation here.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Probably because it has an impact in my life and the lives of several within the Church. Or maybe because the Franciscans, through Christ Jesus in the Eucharist, literally saved me from dying fourteen years ago. Or maybe it was because I personally knew a founder of a Society of Apostolic Life, and he was there for me when I needed it. Or maybe because my current parish that I’ve been at for nine years is now run by a Society of Apostolic Life.

Maybe it’s because I feel it’s relevant to the conversation at hand, that people aren’t looking at the universal Church. People have zero issue with bringing up Clown Masses, Puppet Masses, “New Ecumenism”, “Spirit of Vatican II”, St. Athanasius, people stealing the Eucharist without consuming, whether the 1988 excommunications were valid, arguments over if the Pope can decide what’s Canon Law, the Mass being “promulgated for perpetuity”, and all sorts of things. They apply these things across the board. But people won’t look at the different slices that the Church has.

Perhaps it’s because I model my life in a specific fashion. Just like how traditionalists compare everything regarding spirituality within the framework of Catholic traditionalism, I compare things to the framework of the mendicants.

Maybe it’s a bit of all of the above. Who knows? But hey, message received.

Can you please bride the gap between that and traditionalism? I think that would be a very good thing to have.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I acknowledge V2 is not actually heretical. But it’s problematic. I could take Aquinas’ Summa and take out everything on hell, transubstantiation, judgment, heresy, and other things that are too distintively Catholic or too negative. Then I could re-write maybe 60% of the stuff on God’s Love and the Trinity, replacing it with simpler, or even extremely simple, drivel that isn’t wrong but leaves out majesty, leaves out beauty, but makes things very accesible to all, even with no education, no experience, and even for non-Catholics. I could add a few nice little things about sharing and caring.

That would an “OF” equivalent to the Summa. By my description, there would be no heresy in it. But it would no longer fight heresy as the Summa does, and it would not meet the real needs of the faithful.

The architects of the new Mass also frequently talked about the needs of “contemporary man” to justify removing things from the TLM about corporal mortification, hell, sin, dangers of heresy, enemies of the Church and so on. Well first of all the psychological approach is a problem because the Mass isn’t about psychology but secondly, the psychology is wrong. It is precisely because “contemporary man” isn’t interested in or thinking about those subjects that he needs to be confronted with them.

In the Mass, yes. But also the Vatican 2 documents make it easy to justify such changes.

Given what was happening in the world, we actually needed another Trent-like council, that recodified and strengthened and clarified and implemented the vision of Trent, and Vatican I which was interrupted. We didn’t get that :-(.

What a golden post.

 

[Rich_C]

Back to the OP. I hope these messages coming from outside the Church won’t derail effort to regularize the Society. It would be a shame to sacrifice real unity with people that share all of our beliefs just to maintain a rocky relationship with various groups that share relatively few of our beliefs.

Besides, I have more than a few Jewish friends and in charity I never assume that the often caustic ADL represents their views. It’s a sort of political organ whose job is to oppose people, not befriend them. We can be friends with and good neighbors to Jews without reference to the ADL and other self-proclaim representatives who are not necessarily part of the dialogue.

In the end, Peter will speak, so I trust the Holy Spirit to work it out.

 

[Melchior_1]

I wasn’t going to post anymore, but I’ll do so one last time:

Can you please bride the gap between that and traditionalism? I think that would be a very good thing to have.

The “gap” is smaller than you may think. I don’t talk about the “traditionalist” practices and beliefs I partake in (or rather, the practices I do that traditionalists usually admire/enjoy), largely because I never really feel the need to advertise them. The result is that due to perception is greater than reality, by only viewing what’s on the surface people think there’s a chasm in the way.

God bless you all.

 

[TrueLight]

I wasn’t going to post anymore, but I’ll do so one last time:

God bless you all.

Melchior,

Please don’t take my comment personally. Forgive me if I hurt or annoyed you. :hug1:

I am not saying anything I haven’t said before. I always say that not everything has to do with Religious whether it be parish life or Catholic living. More than one of us has said this. That doesn’t mean I don’t’ appreciate Religious. I’m just saying not every issue should be answered with, “The Dominicans have been doing it for years or the Franciscans or Carmelites”, etc.

That’s the way I see it. Some would disagree with me.

 

[Rich_C]

I wasn’t going to post anymore, but I’ll do so one last time:

Oh, Melchior, I would never have joked about you if I thought it would seem like an attack, and I’m sure I speak for Truelight, too. I am trying to lighten up the forums this week, nothing more.

 

[Melchior_1]

I’m not upset or anything, you both have said things that you’ve said before. And I’m not leaving CAF, but I’ll probably stop posting here in this section.

I mean, if it’s a recurring theme that one who identifies in a certain way with a portion of Catholicism (which has extensive ties to “traditional Catholicism”) cannot utilize that perspective in their posts, then there’s really not much of a reason to be posting here.

I suppose if I was a “real religious” rather than being a layman, maybe it would be better. But I’m married, so becoming a “real” member won’t be happening anytime soon, and third order formation takes six years.

 

[TrueLight]

I suppose if I was a “real religious” rather than being a layman, maybe it would be better. But I’m married, so becoming a “real” member won’t be happening anytime soon, and third order formation takes six years.

No. I’ve said that to Br. Jr. too.

Please cool off and come back. Your contribution is necessary and useful.

 

[Rich_C]

I’m not upset or anything, you both have said things that you’ve said before. And I’m not leaving CAF, but I’ll probably stop posting here in this section.

I mean, if it’s a recurring theme that one who identifies in a certain way with a portion of Catholicism (which has extensive ties to “traditional Catholicism”) cannot utilize that perspective in their posts, then there’s really not much of a reason to be posting here.

I suppose if I was a “real religious” rather than being a layman, maybe it would be better. But I’m married, so becoming a “real” member won’t be happening anytime soon, and third order formation takes six years.

I came here to share and learn about the traditional Roman rite, and the fact that in most of those threads two or three religious posters turn it into a discussion of their charisms hasn’t drive me away, but if a handful of laity groaning good naturedly about it drives you away, I’m sorry for it; the loss is ours.

 

[tradcathusa]

If these faithful bishops understand how to reconcile the documents of Vatican II with preconciliar magisterial teaching, then it would be very kind of them to explain it to us.

I’m sure even the SSPX would like to hear the explanation.

Wasserfall, as usual you exhibit an ability to expose the elephant in the room. I like you and the SSPX are awaiting this explanation. But I hope they come back in the Church then work from within to correct the craziness in the Church. Once they are back they will spread like wildfire , not because the FSSP isn’t good (which they are) but because they are all over the world. They have lots of seminaries, colleges, schools etc. What I like is they have a spanish speaking seminary that the other traditional orders don’t have.

 

[Geremia]

As for attacking the teachings of an Ecumenical Council, last time I checked even noninfallible teachings, which could (in very rare instances) contain error, still command submission of intellect and will. If an individual Catholic cannot understand how a document of an Ecumenical Council is consistent with all of Tradition, he should humbly submit how own imperfect and flawed judgment to that of the thousands of faithful bishops in good standing who can understand it.

So, the current magisterium takes precedence over previous ones? There are Vatican II council fathers who didn’t see how* Dignitatis Humanæ* reconciled with previous magisterial documents.

 

[Geremia]

Bp. Fellay speaks of religious liberty in a CNS interview today.