Fr. Cantalamessa? Help!....

[SnorterLuster]

Please, I’m not sure why, on a Catholic website and on Catholic forums, you’d think a link to a website run by an organisation taking its lead from someone who is a recognised schismatic - who *excommunicated himself * from the catholic Church - carries any weight, how an article from a website like that could explain anything about the Catholic faith. This is a website which puts “Vatican II teaching” in opposition to “Catholic teaching,” as if they are different, suggesting that Vatican II was not a genuine movement of the Spirit, was not ordained by Christ for his Church.

I’ve been following this thread with just mild interest, but I find the attitude that the source of something can disqualify it from the debate troubling. Balance, don’t you look for the truth wherever it might be? I’m a Republican, should I discount and ignore totally everthing the magazine Nation publishes? I’m a traditionalist, so woe to me if I ever read and article in America or NCR. Since you appear to be a supporter of the modern Church, will you only be comfortable if I quoted material from the Call to Action website?

I know for myself, I have often seen things on websites that I don’t particularly trust that caused me to say to myself “Whoa, I gotta check this out.” After checking it out, sometimes what they say is true and sometimes it is not, but if we are looking for the truth, isn’t that what we should be doing.

I learned as a young man to listen to everybody, no matter how humble, because everybody has something to teach me, if I will just listen.

 

[AngelicDoctor]

I would agree that some of the things that Pope John Paul II did with regard to inter-religious gestures were problematic and confusing … and therefore, pastorally ill-conceived (the famous kissing of the Koran confused many Christians, as did the inter-religious prayer at the Assissi meeting which seemed to some to veer towards syncretism). I think that he was probably a saint, but not necessarily perfect.

That being said, what is the harm of two groups of Christians (Catholics and Methodists/“Wesleyans”) getting together to discuss a theological issue and undertand what our commonalities and differences are? One of the greatest objectives of the ecumenical movement and dialogue has been to clarify terms and positions. It will, of course, not ERASE all differences (for that, prayer will be much more necessary). However, dialogue does at least lead to a growth in mutual respect, better understanding, and an end to exagerated polemics. If, as a Catholic, you rightly desire conversion to the Church and full communion of all Christians, why would you be against mutual respect, better understanding, and an end to polemics. Without these things, how would a Methodist or anyone else begin to consider converting to Catholicism?
Of course, there can be and have been abuses in ecumenism. However, Contranini’s class project seems admirable. He seems like a sound Christian who I would enjoy sharing a theological discussion with.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’ve been following this thread with just mild interest, but I find the attitude that the source of something can disqualify it from the debate troubling. Balance, don’t you look for the truth wherever it might be? I’m a Republican, should I discount and ignore totally everthing the magazine Nation publishes? I’m a traditionalist, so woe to me if I ever read and article in America or NCR. Since you appear to be a supporter of the modern Church, will you only be comfortable if I quoted material from the Call to Action website?

I know for myself, I have often seen things on websites that I don’t particularly trust that caused me to say to myself “Whoa, I gotta check this out.” After checking it out, sometimes what they say is true and sometimes it is not, but if we are looking for the truth, isn’t that what we should be doing.

I learned as a young man to listen to everybody, no matter how humble, because everybody has something to teach me, if I will just listen.

Because we don’t look to sites such as that to teach the Catholic faith? We look to the Church. And there’s just as much spin there as there are on sites such as “Call to Action,” etc. Look at TIA, where Marian Horvat’s bile is spread. She takes a fact, such as the infamous New Guinea Mass where the bare-breasted woman read the lesson from the ambo in the presence of the Holy Father, then blames HIM for it (it was totally the responsibility of the bishops’ conference).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Vatican II doesn’t have any canons, SemperFi. And I never said it wasn’t an ecumenical council, I said it wasn’t a dogmatic council. This article explains why Vatican II was not dogmatic, therefore not infallible. It contains quotes from Paul VI and John XXIII and even Benedict XVI (when he was a cardinal) stating the same.
sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q6_vaticanII.htm

Vatican II was an ecumenical council, which you do not seem to dispute. So by virtue of that, it is infallible when it speaks on matters of faith and morals.

Where it makes any dogmatic statements, it is infallible.

But regardless of that, it still has a binding force on it that all faithful Catholics must assent to.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’ve been following this thread with just mild interest, but I find the attitude that the source of something can disqualify it from the debate troubling. Balance, don’t you look for the truth wherever it might be? I’m a Republican, should I discount and ignore totally everthing the magazine Nation publishes? I’m a traditionalist, so woe to me if I ever read and article in America or NCR. Since you appear to be a supporter of the modern Church, will you only be comfortable if I quoted material from the Call to Action website?

Apples and oranges here.

As JKirk says, we look to the Church to see what it teaches.

As a good analogy of looking to the SSPX and other schimatic/heretical groups to see what the Catholic Chruch teaches is looking at a work authored by the Chinease government or a fundamentalist Islamic group to see what we Americans are about.

 

[Crusade_Guy]

I learned as a young man to listen to everybody, no matter how humble, because everybody has something to teach me, if I will just listen.

It’s pretty ironic too because I thought the “spirit of Vatican II” Balance follows encourges Catholics to look for elements of truth and goodness of everything. Everything except traditionalist Catholic sources…

 

[Crusade_Guy]

Vatican II was an ecumenical council, which you do not seem to dispute. So by virtue of that, it is infallible when it speaks on matters of faith and morals.

Where it makes any dogmatic statements, it is infallible.

But regardless of that, it still has a binding force on it that all faithful Catholics must assent to.

ByzCath, Vatican II made no dogmatic pronouncements. Can you list a single one?

 

[Crusade_Guy]

How do you all reconcile what “Moralium Animos” that I posted says with the modern postconciliar Church’s ecumenism?

 

[maurin]

the “spirit of Vatican II” … encourges Catholics to look for elements of truth and goodness of everything. Everything except traditionalist Catholic sources…

Saying so doesn’t make it true. I found, well maybe not a wealth of Traditional Catholic Sources in the Novos Ordo Church I was born into and raised in, but enough so to make me investigate and ultimately choose, by Indult of the Holy Father, the Successor of Peter, the Traditional Latin Mass.

You are not a persecuted minority, Crusade Guy. It would befit your dignity as a Catholic to cease behaving as one persecuted. We–Traditionalist Catholics-- are a minority, maybe, but not a persecuted minority.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

How do you all reconcile what “Moralium Animos” that I posted says with the modern postconciliar Church’s ecumenism?

In the Church’s teaching, what comes after illuminates, explains, illucidates what went before. It doesn’t contradict it.

 

[SnorterLuster]

Because we don’t look to sites such as that to teach the Catholic faith? We look to the Church. And there’s just as much spin there as there are on sites such as “Call to Action,” etc. Look at TIA, where Marian Horvat’s bile is spread. She takes a fact, such as the infamous New Guinea Mass where the bare-breasted woman read the lesson from the ambo in the presence of the Holy Father, then blames HIM for it (it was totally the responsibility of the bishops’ conference).

I don’t know what TIA or Horvat is, but I gather you wouldn’t believe anything said on there. My only point is that you should not dismiss an article because of where it is printed. You just might learn something, or more than likely it will be just a waste of time. But you never know until you look at it.

For an example: I am a conservative person both in my personal life and my politics. My son went off to college and came back a pinko, atheist, vegan. Exact opposites in almost everything except OU football. Not long ago I sent him a link to a Washington Times article. I don’t even remember what it was about, but he emailed me back that the article was a bunch of bunk and wouldn’t have got published anywhere except someplace run by Moonies. A day or two later, the same story was reported in the Washington Post. I sent it to him and he emailed back that it was probably true since the Post had published it. Same story, same facts, different source. He dismissed the story on the basis of who said it, rather than on the facts presented.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ByzCath, Vatican II made no dogmatic pronouncements. Can you list a single one?

I never said that it made any dogmatic pronouncements. I said that where it made any dogmatic statements it is infallible.

But that does not change the fact that it was an ecumenical council and requires the assent of all faithful Catholics.

 

[AlexV]

“Assent” is a very vague and ambiguous word (much like much of Vatican II’s documents).

To say a Catholic must “assent” to Vatican II in order to be considered “faithful” is vague, ambiguous, unspecific…much like much of Vatican II’s subjunctive-heavy documents.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I don’t know what TIA or Horvat is, but I gather you wouldn’t believe anything said on there. My only point is that you should not dismiss an article because of where it is printed. You just might learn something, or more than likely it will be just a waste of time. But you never know until you look at it.

For an example: I am a conservative person both in my personal life and my politics. My son went off to college and came back a pinko, atheist, vegan. Exact opposites in almost everything except OU football. Not long ago I sent him a link to a Washington Times article. I don’t even remember what it was about, but he emailed me back that the article was a bunch of bunk and wouldn’t have got published anywhere except someplace run by Moonies. A day or two later, the same story was reported in the Washington Post. I sent it to him and he emailed back that it was probably true since the Post had published it. Same story, same facts, different source. He dismissed the story on the basis of who said it, rather than on the facts presented.

But that’s just it, this particular site (TIA) povides lies and half truths as though they were established fact. They don’t seperate out editorial opinion from objective fact. That’s why they have to be DISREGARDED, not merely taken with a grain of salt (heck, I read them for fun!).

There’s another site, as an example, Traditio. The “priest” in charge of it spews all sorts of bile against the Church and expects it to be taken as Gospel. Yet, if you ask him for his ordination credentials, he refuses to answer you and you get booted off. That makes what he says extremely suspect, BECAUSE HE’S THE ONE SAYING IT. Same with Fr. Grunner. Who are you going to trust that Russia has been consecrated, him or John Paul II and Sr. Lucia? The only way around the fact that Sr. Lucia said the consecration had been accepted in Heaven is to buy into the conspiracy theories given out by several radical traditionalist sites, ie, that the real Sr. Lucia died years ago and this was a Vatican II or a “Novus Ordo” imposter. Other sites claim that the Vatican replaced Paul VI with a look-alike, as well. The whole idea that Cardinal Siri was the legitimately elected pope and John XXIII just kind of ran a coup past him? More conspiracy. If they run that kind of stuff, then yes, if they said it was a bright, sunny day, I’d pack an umbrella. You can believe the Church or you can believe the X-files.

 

[Crusade_Guy]

There’s a place for you in the Church Crusade Guy, you don’t have to fight her and put yourself on the outer. We need people of conviction in the Church - you seem to be someone like that. Line your conviction up with the mind of the Church and the heart of Christ. There may be a long and painful road in front of you - but that’s simply a part of the narrow road that Christ promised for those who follow him. Stay close to him, return again and again to prayer, and he will stay close to you, will show you his love for you which is beyond comprehension.

God bless you.

You’re right Balance, Vatican II was not a genuine movement of the Spirit. And thanks for the advice, but you’re really preaching to the choir…have you ever considered that the reason me and other traditionalists adhere to tradition so tenaciously is because we still actually DO believe the road to salvation is narrow? And, yeah, I’m trying to stay close to Christ, which is why I want the Mass that actually allows me to pray and focus on God and have reverence for Him rather than a bunch of noise and focusing on the people around me, the Mass where the priest actually looks like he is offering a sacrifice to God on an actual altar and facing God rather than “presiding” over a communal meal at a table, facing the people

 

[Balance]

but I find the attitude that the source of something can disqualify it from the debate troubling. Balance, don’t you look for the truth wherever it might be?

I sure do. The question is, where is that truth most likely to be found? On an SSPX website? If I had a question, would I look for the answer on a website that is open in its dissent from Catholic teaching, or on a website that is faithful?

I’m a Republican, should I discount and ignore totally everthing the magazine Nation publishes? I’m a traditionalist,

I’ve asked this before - what’s a “traditionalist”? What does that actually mean?

so woe to me if I ever read and article in America or NCR.

I’m not familiar with those publications but I’m following your argument, such as it is.

Since you appear to be a supporter of the modern Church,

and again, very
What, exactly, is a “supporter of the modern Church”?
I’m a Catholic. I follow Christ as a member of the Church he founded, his Body and his Bride, his Catholic Church - tha same Church that has exisited for two millennia. I love Christ, and I love the Church. Does that make me a “supporter of the modern Church?”
Still (rhetorically confused anyway )
Does it mean “someone who recognises his intellectual and spiritual deficiencies, and in that humility knows he can trust the Church when it says that Vatican II was a work of the Holy Spirit, and doesn’t have to look at any and all websites to find some kind of “truth” but knows that truth can be found quite easily in the Scripture and Tradition of the Church, and trusts that Christ is with his Church in the 21st Century, and always will be, despite what Snorter and Crusade Guy, with much breast-beating, loudly proclaim?”
If that’s what a “supporter of the modern Church” is, then, yep, i’m a supporter of the modern Church. Pass me the scarf and banner and teach me the team song.

will you only be comfortable if I quoted material from the Call to Action website?

Again, I’m not familiar with them or their website.

I know for myself, I have often seen things on websites that I don’t particularly trust that caused me to say to myself “Whoa, I gotta check this out.” After checking it out, sometimes what they say is true and sometimes it is not, but if we are looking for the truth, isn’t that what we should be doing.

I learned as a young man to listen to everybody, no matter how humble, because everybody has something to teach me, if I will just listen.

If I was looking for a book, a love story, I wouldn’t go looking for it in a brothel. A brothel might sell such a book, but wouldn’t it be simpler and easier to go to a bookstore? Wouldn’t be I be a whole lot less likely to be confused or distracted at the bookstore than at the brothel?
The prostitues might have something truthful to teach me about love (!), but it’s gonna take me a *whole lot *of effort and discernment to sort through all the untruths and distortions and conspiracy theories that they’re going to also tell me. Why would I put myself in that situation when it’s be so much easier to go to “The Catholic Love Story Bookshop” just round the corner? The prostitutes’ whole take on love is going to be distorted by what they believe love and sex to be, whereas “The CLS Bookshop” is selling the same good books it always has.

If I’m looking for truth, I wouldn’t go to that SSPX site. I’d go to one that is in line with authentic Catholic teaching. Simpler, easier, and I’m much less likely to be confused or lead astray, and its going to take me much less time to discern the good from the bad.

It’s an ugly site too.

 

[Crusade_Guy]

That being said, what is the harm of two groups of Christians (Catholics and Methodists/“Wesleyans”) getting together to discuss a theological issue and undertand what our commonalities and differences are? One of the greatest objectives of the ecumenical movement and dialogue has been to clarify terms and positions. It will, of course, not ERASE all differences (for that, prayer will be much more necessary). However, dialogue does at least lead to a growth in mutual respect, better understanding, and an end to exagerated polemics. If, as a Catholic, you rightly desire conversion to the Church and full communion of all Christians, why would you be against mutual respect, better understanding, and an end to polemics. Without these things, how would a Methodist or anyone else begin to consider converting to Catholicism?
Of course, there can be and have been abuses in ecumenism. However, Contranini’s class project seems admirable. He seems like a sound Christian who I would enjoy sharing a theological discussion with.

Plenty of Methodists and other Protestants converted to Catholicism BEFORE ecumenism; more so than now, as a matter off face. Seriously, how is dumbing down our faith and focusing on the lowest common denominator going to encourage anyone to convert to Catholicism? We’re only giving them the impression that they don’t need to convert, after all we have sooo much in common already…

 

[Crusade_Guy]

Vatican II was an ecumenical council, which you do not seem to dispute. So by virtue of that, it is infallible when it speaks on matters of faith and morals.

Where it makes any dogmatic statements, it is infallible.

But regardless of that, it still has a binding force on it that all faithful Catholics must assent to.

What dogmatic statements? Could you please show me where Vatican II made a single dogmatic pronouncement??

 

[Balance]

It’s pretty ironic too because I thought the “spirit of Vatican II” Balance follows encourges Catholics to look for elements of truth and goodness of everything. Everything except traditionalist Catholic sources…

Uh huh. Like I said, I don’t remember actually using that phrase - “the spirit of vatican II” - in my life, and I wouldn’t say I’m a follower of “the spirit of Vatican II”. I don’t know what such a claim would mean.
It’s enough for me to say I’m a Catholic trying to follow Christ as closely as I can. I don’t need to apply any labels to myself apart from “Catholic.”

You make the claim I follow the spirit of vatican II. What are you actually accusing me of? Or is that just a tidy little phrase with no real substance or purpose beyond putting a label on someone and suggesting they believe something they don’t actually?
Again, can you see how much of what you write is, simply, slanderous?

And what are “traditionalist Catholic sources”? Are they something different from “Catholic sources?” Catholic sources like Pope Pius XI’s encyclical “Moralium Animos”?

If I wanted to become a “Traditional Catholic”, what would I need to do? What would I need to affirm, and what would I need to renounce?

 

[Crusade_Guy]

If I’m looking for truth, I wouldn’t go to that SSPX site. I’d go to one that is in line with authentic Catholic teaching. Simpler, easier, and I’m much less likely to be confused or lead astray, and its going to take me much less time to discern the good from the bad.

It’s an ugly site too.

You’re not very “balanced”, Balance.
How do you know the SSPX ISN’T authentic Catholic teaching if you won’t even investigate what they’re trying to say? The reason the Society of St. Pius X exists is to preserve authentic Catholic teaching in the face of the greatest crisis the Church has ever endured.