P
ProVobis
Guest
I thought of the same thing. But then I realized that lone bishop could have been Bishop W.
Cardinal Ratzinger on Archbishop Lefebvre, Vatican II, and Tradition
- Status
S
SouthpawLink
Guest
Forgive me for my ignorance, but are you saying that many doctrines are defined (or simply understood) differently in the Eastern Catholic Churches? What then of the dogmatic definitions and formulas made by several ecumenical councils, particularly at Lateran IV, Lyons II, Florence, Trent and Vatican I? Is the understanding among the Eastern Catholics more mystical (as opposed to Latin scholasticism)?
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was dogmatically defined by Pope Pius XII on 1 November 1950 (Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus), and papal infallibility was defined by the First Vatican Council on 18 July 1870 (Session IV, chapter 4: Denzinger 1893).
A
Aramis
Guest
Several of the Roman Churches doctrines are NOT universal.
The Defined dogmas are accepted throughout the church. You might be surprised, tho, at how little is actually decreed in those declarations.
The East generally states that Mary’s soul was taken to heaven, and then separately, her body was, some days later; Roman doctrine is that she was taken up body and soul at the same time. The dogma is merely that both body and soul were taken up.
Purgatory, likewise, is defined vaguely… the Roman doctrine of place of purification by fire is not part of the dogma, nor is the Byzantine doctrine of theosis. Both fit the dogmatic definition, but are very different expressions.
Likewise, St. Judas Iscariot is on the Ethiopian Catholic calendar. St. Photius is on the Melkite, UGCC and Ruthenian Calendars… despite having been vocally anti-catholicin his ignorance of the west.
The Melkites, UGCC and Ruthenians use the same canon of the bible as the Orthodox… including 3 Maccabes and a couple more books. (These are not used in the liturgy; the canon of Nicea is the restriction list for use in liturgy.)
Byzantines almost never receive under the body alone; the blood alone is permitted for infants and those unable to chew, but only after comingling.
J
JReducation
Guest
How many infallible statements have the popes actually made? Most of what we believe and teach as Catholics has never been taught as infallible. Most of what popes have mandated has been followed, even though it has never been labled infallible. If you limit your fidelity only to that which is labled “infallible” you reduce the Catholic tradition to very few teachings and laws.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
O
Ockham
Guest
If everyone followed what popes taught and even mandated the Church would be quite different than what it is today.How many infallible statements have the popes actually made? Most of what we believe and teach as Catholics has never been taught as infallible. Most of what popes have mandated has been followed, even though it has never been labled infallible. If you limit your fidelity only to that which is labled “infallible” you reduce the Catholic tradition to very few teachings and laws.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
The bold is mine. Look at the 13th century. The situation was far worse than today. That’s what gave birth to the mendicant movement. The Franciscans and Dominicans were founded in response to these problems. The Carmelites were brought out of their hermitages and given mendicant status in order to go out and preach, so as to repair the damage. The Augustinians were obliged to leave their status as canons and become friars in order to join the mendicant movement and preach. The O’Praem and the Trinitarians were founded for the same reason. The situation was so bad that the Church could not trust the diocesan clergy to get the job done and repair the Church. She had to erect and recognize over 50 religious orders of men to do the job.
Some of the problems of the time:
- Heresies
- Bishops who were also currupt monarchs
- Sexual abuse of women and childen by clergy
- Corrupt alliances between the Lateran and the monarchs of the time
- Liturgical chaos (the absense of order in the liturgy)
- Heretical preaching by many groups licensed to preach
- Monasteries of women that failed to comply with the monastic enclosure
- Laity that attempted to take control of religious houses using economic force
- Desacration of the Blessed Sacrament
- The Church was under attack by Catholics and Muslims
- Clerics were living with concubines
- Popes were living with concubines or gay lovers
- There were no formation programs for the clergy
- Bishops were ordained only with the approval of the king.
- Popes gave powers to the kinds in exchange for military support
- Catholic institutions in the service of the poor and the vulnerable were not supported by the Church or the laity . . . they were on their own; therefore, they were few
- There was a two class system in most religious orders
- The death penalty was indiscriminately applied and sanctioned by bishops
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
O
Ockham
Guest
Did all of that start at a definite point in time?
Many things on that list occur today. What is being done about it?
Many things on that list occur today. What is being done about it?
J
JReducation
Guest
Aramis is correct. The Society was errected as Clerical Society of Apostolic Life of Diocesan Right. Let’s take this in tiny steps.
- Institutes of Diocesan Right answer to the Diocesan bishop where they are erected. He is their Ordinary. Normally, their major superior is subordinate to the bishop of the home diocese. When they leave their home diocese, they are bound to obey the bishop of the diocese that receives them.
- Societies of Apostolic life are not religious. In other words, they are not consecrated men and women. They retain their secular state. The SSPX is a secular society.
- Societies of Apostolic Life are not orders. They are secular associations of the faithful. In this case, the SSPX is an association of secular priests. They are bound together by their constitutions or whatever name they give to their statutes. But they are not bound to a particular way of life as are those who belong to a religious order, secular order or to a religious congregation, because they are not an order or a congregation.
- Institutes of Consecrated Life (religious orders, secular orders, and religious congregatioins) and Societies of Apostolic Life have Ordinaries. The Ordinary of a religious order or a religious congregation is the major superior who must be canonically elected and approved by the Holy See, if the institute is of Pontifical Right. If the institute is of Diocesan Right, the election must be approved by the bishop of the home diocese, however, the superior is not an Ordinary. The diocesan bishop is the Ordinary. The superior has the power to govern, but not the authority to authorize ordinations or to grant faculties. Only an Ordinary can authorize ordinations and only an Ordinary can grant faculties. Because communities of Diocesan Right are subordinate to the bishop, he retains the full power of the Ordinary, not the major superior. Only the major superior of male communities of Pontifical Right are Ordinaries, but they are not bishops. They don’t even have to be priests. They simply have to be in solemn vows. If they are elected and their election is approved by the Holy See, they havae the same authority of a bishop, without being a bishop. Examples: Franciscans, Jesuits, Dominicans, Salesians, Marianists, Carmelites, Augustinians, Benedictines and others.
- Societies of Apostolic Life do not have Ordinaries. Even if a bishop joins such a society, he is not the Ordinary. Such societies may only have an Ordinary if and when the Holy See authorizes it and the Ordinary need not be a bishop.
- Bishops are ordained for the benefit of a Church, not for the benefit of a Society, Congregation or Religious Order. These do not constitute Churches. Even a bishop who is a religious (i.e. Dominican), remains a Dominican, but his ministry is to a diocese, not to his order. He must minister in his diocese as a Dominican, because his covenant with St. Dominic and his Dominican brothers is not annulled. Therefore, he is bound to perform his espiscopal duties with the Spirit of St. Dominic.
- Since communities do not have a need for bishops, they do not have a right to have bishops. Even prelatures such as the Opus Dei do not have a canonical right to a bishop. The Holy Father can appoint a bishop to them, but it is not necessary to the life of the prelature. The work and spirit of the prelature should be sturdy enough to continue without a bishop at the head.
- Even with a bishop at the head of the SSPX, it is up to the local bishop to decide whether they can enter and serve in his diocese. There is not authority that outranks a local bishop except the pope. Another bishop is not high ranking enough. A local bishop grants permission for a society, order, congregation, institute or monastery to be erected in his diocese. No other bishop can grant that permission. What the local bishop cannot do is to suppress them once they are erected. Even the bishop who gave the permission for them to enter, cannot demand that they leave. Only the pope can do this, IF THEY ARE OF PONTIFICAL RIGHT. If they are of Diocesan Right, the home bishop can pull them out of any diocese where they find themselves.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
A
Aramis
Guest
Yes, and the SSPX would have a single bishop, and still be in full visible union with valid ministry…
P
ProVobis
Guest
Probably no FSSP, though.
And maybe no Ecclesia Dei or any other publicity either. Very few remember the 1984 Quattuor Annos.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Cardinals and Monsignors, however holy or educated they may be, do not teach authoritatively for the Church as individuals.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Many times.
I think the most prominent example is the Arian controversy which was the source for convening the first Ecumenical Council (Niceaea) which, among other things,was the source for the Creed Christians pray and profess to.
Nicaea took place in 325 A.D., and condemned Arianism, and yet for most of the rest of the century debates and divisions and controversies took place regarding this teaching that had been defined by an ecumenical council.
Even after the subsequent Councils of Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451 I think) affirmed the Creedal doctrines, divisions existed within the Christian Church (and have endured to this day).
Anyway…you’re suspended so you may never read this. My point is…what we’re going through following Vatican II is imho really not that different or unique from oh so many controversies that the Church (Christ) has endured in history.
Hope you get back here following your apparent suspension so you can continue to grow and learn and share about the Catholic faith.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Excellent point. I fear far too many people don’t understand this. Thanks for sharing Br JRHow many infallible statements have the popes actually made? Most of what we believe and teach as Catholics has never been taught as infallible. Most of what popes have mandated has been followed, even though it has never been labled infallible. If you limit your fidelity only to that which is labled “infallible” you reduce the Catholic tradition to very few teachings and laws.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
I really don’t mean to sound cheeky. My answer has to be, ADAM.
We’re making progress.
- We have had very holy popes over the last 100 years or so.
- We have very holy priests, brothers, sisters and deacons.
- The miscreants are really lose canons, not the norm as they were in the 13th century.
- We have formation programs for deacons, priests, and lay people. Before that, only monks, brothers and friars were educated in the faith.
- Catholics can be proud of running the largest and best programs and services for the poor around the world.
- Our popes and bishops do not share their power with political leaders.
- The laity, no matter how much money it may have, no longer has control over religious life or religious houses.
- Women religious are no longer governed by male religious or clerics.
- Bishops no longer govern religious men. Instead, we govern ourselves.
- With the exception of those religious orders that were fonded with two classes of members, all the other religious orders of men have returned to one class of members with the same rights, dignity, duties, and ministries, whether they are ordained or not.
- We deal with our liturgical problems from a central point. We no longer have as many “forms” as we do dioceses.
- We are dealing with the sexual abuses. They are never going away as long as man has original sin. We are admitting that they exist and are trying to do something change this.
- Our secular clergy is much bettter educated.
- Diocese are better organized, with much more oversight.
- Vatican II gave a lot more control to the popes over the bishops than every before.
- We are proud of our Oriental Churches, rather than hide them as we did in the past. This was a result of Vatican II, which acknowledge how essential they are to the Catholic faith.
- Today, we attend to the needs of people of all faiths, not just Catholics.
- National boundaries no longer exist within the Catholic Church. The juridical divisions are by dioceses for secular priests and laity, by abbeys for monastic communities, and by provinces for religious and secular orders. These boundaries encompass people of many ethnic and national groups.
- Canon Law is much more organized and the rights of the laity is actually recognized by Canon Law. This was not the case until 1983.
- We are trying to set aside the anger and hurt caused by the Reformation to heal the divisions between Christians. This was not the case until 1965.
- We no longer look kindly on the liberal use of capital punishment, even if it is applied to an enemy of the Church.
- We don’t just write doctrine about marriage and family, we now have programs, services and ministries to families, married couples and their children.
- Religious orders are finally leaving parishes and going back to living religious life.
- Religious orders are returning to the charism and vision of their founders, instead of serving as parish priests, which was not the vision of the founders of most orders.
- Under the leadership of John Paul II more than 100 new religious communities were brought into existence, at least 25 in the USA alone.
- Lay people are again actively involved in the work of evangelization.
- People of both genders are treated with respect by the Church. In some dioceses women are now Chancellors. They are very competent. This did not exist until after 1983.
- Despite the issues surrounding same-sex marriages, the Church holds on to her moral teaching on same-sex activity while demanding that Catholics treat homosexuals and lesbians with respect, justice and dissociate from all forms of hate toward these brothers and sisters. We no longer burn them alive and we invite them to be faithful Catholics and acknowledge that their lives are often very difficult and painful.
- Diocesan clergy and religious work side by side. This was not the case prior to 1965. Religious who were priests had to accommodate to the demands of the laity and the bishops, if they wanted to work in diocesan parishes. It often meant that they had to sacrifice their duties to the religious life so as not to upset the parishioners or the local bishop.
- Today, the bishops and the diocesan clergy welcome the religious. The ordained religious feel free to refrain from celebrating a mass or hearing confessions to attend to community obligations, without the fear of being slammed by the laity or the bishop. Everyone understands that their primary obligation is to their religious community, then the parish. This was not the case before 1965. When the parishioners to get upset, the bishops come to the defense of the religious rather than slam them.
- Heresies are not as common as they were from the early days of the Church to the time of the Reformation. Priests are not leaving the Catholic Church to found their own churches. There are always going to be people who speak nonsense. To believe that we will never have that is like believing that the Tooth Fairy will leave a quarter under your pillow each time you lose a tooth. Ain’t gonna’ happen.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
If I’m not mistaken, the Pel above is not a Msgr in the traditional sense. I believe that he was a bishop at the time. If it’s the same man that I’m thinking about, he’s a Dominican Friar. Consecrated men cannot be Msgrs, but they can be bishops.
Anyway, his statement, spoken like a true Dominican, says it all. The lay faithful are discouraged from attending mass at the SSPX chapels. Many lay faithful have assumed what can be described as a schismatic attitude. This is not the same as being in schism, because we’re talking about an attitude or way of thinking, not an actual juridical action. It’s a way of thinking where the individual says to himself and to others, “I know better than the hierarchy what is good for me.”
We must be very careful when we make these statements to ouirselves or to others. Because what we are saying is that we are equal in authority concerning judgments on matters pertaining to our spiritual lives. That’s a slippery slope. Even the greatest mystics never claimed to have the same authority to make judgments about their spiritual lives as the hierarchy. First, it is very difficult to be objective about one’s soul. Second, one must have competence to make such judgments.
One who comes to mind is the one that most SSPXers invoke. Is there such a term?
Catherine of Siena often wrote to bishops and even to the Holy Father about the things that concerned her. But her messages always ended with the same statement. “Your obedient daughter.”
She often had to take back what she wrote, even when she was right. There were several instances when the Dominican Prior raked her over the coals for something that she said to a bishop or the pope and she recanted. She knew that she was right. But she also knew that she had to obey blindly. To obey blindly meant to trust that Jesus would make things right in his time, in his way and not on her schedule or in her way. That part of her spirituality is often disregarded by those who want to use her as an model. Nor do they mention how harsh she was with her subjects when they complained about the clergy and the pope. She made those folks eat dirt.
The same thing was true with Francis, Teresa of Avila, Vincent de Paul, Ignatius of Loyola and several other reformers. They often had to back-peddle. History would later prove them right. But they accepted correction and redirection. They in turn made others submit to the Church without cutting them any slack, even when those others were right. The principle is the same and has not changed. God’s will be done on God’s time and in God’s way, not our own.
Those who disregard the “discouraging” that the Church is dishing out are not taking their lessons from the great saints of history. When the Church discouraged, the saints took it seriously. Padre Pio is often misquoted on these fora. He once preached a very short homily to our novices. “Obey your superiors. They are better than you are. If you were better, you’d be the superior.”
On another occasion, the Guardian of the friary asked him to celebrate the mass facing the people. He didn’t have to. The rules given by Paul VI did not apply to Padre Pio. But the Guardian insisted. Padre Pio walked away shouting “Obedience, obedience, obedience.” He did it. The Guardian later said to him. “I just wanted to see if you were truly a son of St. Francis.” He never made him do it again. I do believe that Padre Pio did it more often. I have no idea whether he liked it, because we are not allowed to make public statements about what we like or don’t like, unless it is on something that is permitted by the Guardian. To express a liking or disliking for something that should not be expressed would be a scandal to the laity and an act against holy poverty. A Franciscan owns nothing except his sins. His will is owned by Christ who speaks through Francis and his successors. Francis and his successors take their marching orders from the pope through whom Christ speaks to them. There is none of this, “in my opinion this is better for my spiritual life.”
LOL, I’d get bopped on the head for saying that.
OUCH!Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
A
Aramis
Guest
Brother JR:
Monsignor is the normal mode of address for a french bishop as well as a chaplain of the papal household; in English, however, it’s normal only for chaplains of the papal household and certain Slavic Archpriests (Ruthenian and UGCC during the height of latinizations; a few still use it).
Monsignor is the normal mode of address for a french bishop as well as a chaplain of the papal household; in English, however, it’s normal only for chaplains of the papal household and certain Slavic Archpriests (Ruthenian and UGCC during the height of latinizations; a few still use it).
M
malphono
Guest
I’m not 100% sure about this, but I seem to think Camille Perl is a Monsignor in the “traditional sense.” From what I’ve seen, he doesn’t seem to sign his correspondence with “OP” which would seem to rule out his being a Dominican. His name also does not appear in Catholic Hierarchy. And a very brief item about him (in German) makes no mention of either religious profession or episcopal ordination. Taking it all together, my guess is that he’s a Papal Chaplain.
M
malphono
Guest
FWIW, in English and French, the title “monsignor” is also used by Chor-Episkopoi and Periodutes in the Syriac Churches. In the past I’ve also known several Melkite Archimandrites and all have used it, although I’m not sure if that custom continues. I’ve no personal familiarity with the custom among the Chaldeans, Armenians, Copts, etc.
P
Pregustator
Guest
Brother JR, I quote only the final paragraph of your marvelously thorough and informative post.
It should be stated, however, that even the SSPX didn’t think it necessary for a bishop to actually head the Society; the bishops were there (so they used to say) not to govern but to provide priests. Currently, the superior general of the SSPX is Bishop Bernard Fellay, but Fellay’s predecessor (who was also Lefebvre’s immediate successor), Father Franz Schmidberger, was not a bishop, only a priest.
Interestingly, we were told at that time, at the SSPX seminary, that it was on purpose that none of the four bishops was elected to succeed Lefebvre, because having a bishop as superior general would smack of a pretention to jurisdiction. For that reason, they said, the SSPX will never elect one of the bishops to serve as general superior.
When Schmidberger’s term ended, the SSPX elected Bishop Fellay to succeed him. Gotta love it.
- Status