I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Can you quote the Denzinger passages for how you know this? Or is this an opinion, much like Luther just “knew” that the the epistle of James was an “epistle of straw?”
- Status
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
LOL!!
It’s next to the Denzinger passage from the pope which condemns the Novus Ordo as a dangerous discipline and (John XXIII?), Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI as anti-popes, and Vatican II as a “robber council.” Do you see the irony here? You demand sources of others but claim certainty with regard to your opinion when such magisterial sources are absent.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
But that goes to the quality of the soil, not the seed.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
And all the popes since St. Peter could just *appear *to be popes.
Seems the first and foremost dogma of sedevacantism is something rather arbitrarily based upon one’s own opinion of reality versus appearance, doesn’t it? Such a belief seems like it has been founded firmly upon jello, no?
For instance, these neoJansensists source] claim Pope St. Pius V was a heretic:
Are their claims convincing to you? It is just as convincing to me as the sedevacantist claims about the so-called “heresies” of other popes. Their claims are firmly established in the gelatin of personal opinion.
I’ll give you an absurd example so that you can see where I’m coming from…Let’s pretend I claim to be a Roman Catholic, but I also claim that the last valid pope was St. Peter of the first century. It’s been a really loooooong interregnum, you see, and only the faithful realize it. All the rest of the so-called Roman Pontiffs were anti-popes because I “just know” that they all taught heresy and rejected apostolic tradition. I’m certain the next valid pope is to be elected real soon, (the one who agrees with me), and he will then clarify all this authoritatively when he definitively condemns all the false claimaints to the papacy since the last valid pope, St. Peter, and definitively reject all the so-called Ecumenical Councils as “robber councils,” excepting the only valid Ecumenical Council which occured in the 1st century council at Jerusalem. Furthermore, he will re-establish the long-held Latin tradition of allowing infants to partake of the Eucharst and re-establish the apostolic tradition of the Council of Jerusalem of abstaining from the meats of strangled animals and their blood. Mind you…I’m not a Protestant. Au contraire…I submit to all the teachings of the *valid *pope, and I will submit to the next valid pope, as soon as he is elected, as soon as this loooooong interregnum (which we must surely deserve) is over.
The above absurd example is my view of sedevacantism in a nutshell. Pick any pope you disagree with and personally charge him with heresy, so he is NOT the pope (in your opinion). That is a neat way of getting out of having to actually obey any pope excepting those you personally agree with. Sedevacantism is like “cafeteria Catholicism” really, except with a lot of footnotes to theology manuals.
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
If the Liturgical commission had kept to the nine proposals and not gone beyond them, then no, I seriously doubt Cardinal Ratzinger would have criticized that. However in the article (the first link you list) Fr. Fessio goes on to critique the Liturgy committee which drafted the the Novus Ordo for things such as the Third Canon which he says was not organic (something he also mentions in the article) but constructed. Further, from what I understand (I may be mistaken) of the “Reform of the Reform” movement of Adoremus is that they would like to redraft the liturgy and bring it closer to what they believe Sacrosanctum Concilium actually called for, and not what they got with the actual Novus Ordo as it was promulgated.
P
pnewton
Guest
Maybe that’s why I kept missing gorman’s point. I can’t follow to that conclusion. It would be just too bizarre.And all the popes since St. Peter could just *appear *to be popes.
Seems the first and foremost dogma of sedevacantism is something rather arbitrarily based upon one’s own opinion of reality versus appearance, doesn’t it?
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
If one strives to make an approved liturgy more holy then God bless them. The people I tend to read (and agree with) are Dietrich von Hildebrand, Dr. William Marra, Dom Alcuin Reid, Fr. Aidan Nichols and others. I do believe the type of criticism of the Novus Ordo and its promulgation undertaken by people such as Cardinal Ottaviani in the Ottaviani Intervention or by Dietrich von Hildebrand is perfectly legitimate (see my Dietrich von Hildebrand link in my signature line for an example).Your welcome.
How fortunate for you. I haven’t had that experience.
Msgr Marcel Lefebvre, for instance, wrote:
Clearly, MSgr Lefebvre’s Jansenist claim was condemned by the Catholic Church in the 18th century. Traditionalists ought to know better.
Yes. That’s why I believe the nature of the criticism is important, and a blanket statement of being able to freely criticize approved ecclesiastical disciplinary norms because they are not infallible is misleading. If one’s criticism is that of making a holy approved liturgy even better or more relevant to the contemporary needs of a given community, then this type of criticism is most welcome.
Yet, If what I’ve said above is true, then doesn’t the disagreement between traditionalists and other Catholics often amount to a rather petty dispute? Doesn’t it amount to a “my prayer is holier than your prayer” debate? If so, is it even worth my time? Striving to make the various rites of the holy liturgy even better is a pious endeavor. But more often than not, that’s not the essence of the traditionalist view. Many actively lobby against one approved form of the holy liturgy, impiously claiming that it is either “harmful” or more cautiously stating that their liturgy is more holy.
However, I choose to pray in the local parish family God has given me, even if by doing so I have to suffer to worship with a few crazy progressivism uncles in that family I dont’ find it compelling to join the “church shopping” tendancy that has become vogue among some Catholics lately.
Lastly, I fail to see the attractiveness of pitting one approved and holy Catholic liturgy against another approved and holy liturgy. I’d rather we endeavor to make each of them better, but avoid a “my liturgy is better” contest.
The people I read do not say that the New Mass is heretical (or invalid) and therefore directly harmful. However, I would liken their critique to a critique of present day homilies (and perhaps some catechesis). Most of the homilies I listen to do not say anything heretical and are therefore not directly harmful or poisonous to the faithful. However, they quite often teach nothing about the Catholic faith and are quite forgettable. In fact, I shudder to think of how much a Catholic would actually know about his faith if he relied solely on what passes for catechesis and homilies (as well as what is taught by Catholic schools) these days. One would hope he would learn from groups such as Catholic Answers so that he would understand his faith better.
Similarly, I regard the liturgy as perhaps even more important than catechesis (which includes homilies, of course). The liturgy is where the Catholic soul is formed and he is taught to worship God. Traditionalists maintain that the Traditional Latin Mass is better than the Novus Ordo because it more readily lifts the heart and soul up to God and because the doctrinal content is stronger than in the Novus Ordo.
However, one of the first things that needs to be acknowledged is the importance of the liturgy in the life of the Church. I believe it was Cardinal Ratzinger who once reiterated the maxim that as the liturgy goes, so goes the Church.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
But it was promulgated AS it was promulgated by a pope. Can’t a pope go beyond a council on this, a disciplinary question? I realize that the abuses were not promulgated, the “hive off and do your own thing” that we see so much of.
B
bear06
Guest
And again, my original quote was:
It was not “He didn’t critique the Mass”.
So, I’d say we’re in agreement.
G
gorman64
Guest
No, not hardly. When this crisis is over we will all know the answer to these questions.
How do you explain the conciliar church?
The Catholic sources tell us the Church cannot do what the conciliar church has done. You know this…or you should…you keep quoting sources for disciplinary infallibility. Only you tell us She can do these things…and you are as much a nobody as I am.
Let me ask you this, Dave; do you believe one can be a heretic and still be a member of the Church?
Are there any “members” of the current teaching apostolate that are heretics and have lost their authority …anywhere…even the worst offenders in the lowest places…can you admit that this has happened?
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
Yes, I’d agree that he did not critique the Mass as called for, he critiqued the result.
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
Yes, a Pope can certainly promulgate a Mass that goes beyond what the Council called for, he has that authority.
Further, there are those that argue that the New Mass, with the way Sacrosanctum Concilium was worded, did not go beyond what was allowed in Sacrosanctum Concilium.
P
pnewton
Guest
What crisis? We still have a valid pope. There is no question of this except among a handful of extremist. Perhaps it because the topic of the thread as the differenc between conservatives and traditionalist. I just do not see this as being a crisis.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Hmmmm…can I use this rebuttal against sedevacantism?
After studying Church history, I don’t know that any crisis will be over until Christ comes again. Apokatastasis is still being argued on this forum!?! Wasn’t that condemned in AD 400? It seems heresies continued to be re-asserted often during the history of the Church. Church crises seem to never die, but just fade away. How many dissenters with the First Vatican Council do you see on a regular basis? How strong is their “lobby” today? These so-called “Old Catholics” are certainly still out there, but they don’t seem to have much influence on Catholicism. Sedevacantism, I imagine, will not do much better. It will likely be nothing but another weird footnote in future Ecclesial history texts.
Exaclty, and when the next valid pope (who agrees with me) is elected, he will condemn all the prior councils excepting the first council of Jerusalem written in the Book of Acts. Oh, wait…that was only a “pastoral” council so it was not binding.
I’m just worried that the looooong interregnum will last even longer, which will make me question the veracity of my hypothesis. Heck, I might even die before the next valid pope (the one who agrees with me) is elected. How many more “anti-” popes will uphold Vatican II before I wonder whether my nearly infallible understanding of Catholic Tradition is as nearly infallible as I thought?You mean the one extant after the Council of Jersualem in the first century, right? I think they are “modernist” because they continue to reject the decree to avoid the meat of strangled animals and their blood.
I know! That’s why I continue to only eat kosher meats.
“1917 Code of Canon Law, together with traditional papal conclave legislation, leaves no room for the view that the commission of heresy or apostasy prevents a man from validly attaining or retaining the papal office.” (Fr. Brian Harrison, “White Smoke, Valid Pope,” *This Rock, *March 2001)
I recommend you read the above article.
Only a successor pope can legitimately condemn a prior pope. That’s why the end of the loooooong interregnum since St. Peter of the first century is much anticipated.
The provisions of canon law require due process. Until that lawful process takes place, one is faced with the “accusation of heresy” versus the actual condition of formal heresy. The accusation of heresy does not necessarily remove someone from ecclesial office. After due process, if one is adjudicated by lawful authority to be a heretic, then if they remain obstinant in clinging to heresy then they may indeed be declared to have lost their authority consequent to their formal heresy, in accordance with the decision of the lawful superior who has such judicial authority.
P
pnewton
Guest
From your article.
The relevant law laid down by Pius Xll reads as follows:
“None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the supreme pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor” (VAS 34). Active in this context means that such a cardinal may vote in the election, while passive means he himself can be elected.
G
gorman64
Guest
Dave:
Did you just make this up on your own or do you have a source for it? Who’s idea is this?
The ipso facto excommunication of a heretic falls under Divine Law, not Ecclesiastical Law.
Check your Catholic Encyclopedia.
St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, himself says:
"THE FOUNDATION OF THIS ARGUMENT IS THAT THE MANIFEST HERETIC IS NOT IN ANY WAY A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH, THAT IS, NEITHER SPIRITUALLY NOR CORPORALLY, WHICH SIGNIFIES THAT HE IS NOT SUCH BY INTERNAL UNION NOR BY EXTERNAL UNION. FOR EVEN BAD CATHOLICS * ARE UNITED AND ARE MEMBERS, SPIRITUALLY BY FAITH, CORPORALLY BY CONFESSION OF FAITH AND BY PARTICIPATION IN THE VISIBLE SACRAMENTS; THE OCCULT HERETICS ARE UNITED AND ARE MEMBERS ALTHOUGH ONLY BY EXTERNAL UNION; ON THE CONTRARY, THE GOOD CATECHUMENS BELONG TO THE CHURCH ONLY BY AN INTERNAL UNION, NOT BY THE EXTERNAL; BUT MANIFEST HERETICS DO NOT PERTAIN IN ANY MANNER , AS WE HAVE ALREADY PROVED."*
P
pnewton
Guest
catholicism.about.com/od/glossary/g/glexcomm05.htm
It is the Church that excommunicates, not God.
newadvent.org/summa/5021.htm#1
It makes no sense to say that the penalty is “divine law” apart from canonical law. That would throw it all in the air where each individual could decide for himself if he is, or is not, ex-communicated. Hardly a biblical concept.
**
**
It is the Church that excommunicates, not God.
newadvent.org/summa/5021.htm#1
) about the man who refuses to hear the Church: “Let him be to thee as the heathen or publican.” But heathens are outside the Church. Therefore they also who refuse to hear the Church, should be banished from the Church by excommunication. **…**The judgment of the Church should be conformed to the judgment of God.
It makes no sense to say that the penalty is “divine law” apart from canonical law. That would throw it all in the air where each individual could decide for himself if he is, or is not, ex-communicated. Hardly a biblical concept.
**
G
gorman64
Guest
According to Canon Law, the heretic who manifests his heresy exteriorly is IPSO FACTO excommunicated and excluded from the Church.
This occurs without any declaratory sentence.
This occurs without any declaratory sentence.
C
Cranch
Guest
This is probably a rules violation, but for the benefit of those coming late to the thread which has meandered a little, here again is the link which gave the thread its title. Feel free to comment:
Conservative and Traditional Catholicism Compared
Conservative and Traditional Catholicism Compared
C
Cranch
Guest
Here is another article on the thread topic:
Conservative vs. Traditional Catholicism –
Distinctions with Philosophical Differences
Conservative vs. Traditional Catholicism –
Distinctions with Philosophical Differences
- Status