German priests reject Vatican directive on translation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Walking_Home
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote=Joysong
Quote:
Giving credence to a revolt by saying that a wrong decision was made (God will hold the Pope accountable for the wrong decision)----then come back around and say “obedience” is due to the “Wrong decision”.

W. H., though my post was not directed to you, but to Pius X, I see that you have injected uncharitable comments throughout this thread toward me, and indeed in other threads toward any who do not belong to the traditional rite. It indicates an extreme polarity that is bent on splintering the Body of Christ, which we celebrate today.

How can you twist my words into assuming I uphold the revolt of the German priests, when I specifically stated that disobedience is never permissible? OTOH, you uphold the disobedience of traditionists who believe the Pope’s decision is a “wrong one” with V-II and the ordinary rite of the new missal; yet that permits all of you to rebel. Amazing, simply amazing how the mind works to justify one’s thinking!

I guess I’ll have to put you back on ignore, for I see no opportunity to discuss in a charitable openness.

Quote=Joysong
Finally, an example came to mind about St. Teresa of Avila who received authorization from Rome to found several convents of her order. The Lord directed her supernaturally to found one in a particular city, but her superior opposed it, even though he knew the direction was authentic and from God. He preferred that she found in Seville and opposed it. After consulting the Lord to whom she owed allegiance and for whom she was making these foundations, He told her, “You do well to obey, Daughter, but** I Myself will hold him responsible.**”

The Lord indicated that her obedience, even in the face of a wrong decision on the part of the superior, was His desire. And of course, her sisters suffered terribly on account of that wrong directive, but who’s to say their suffering did not accomplish God’s will in ways unknown to them at that time?
When one posts to a public thread—expect for the public to answer.

Now you say I am twisting your words—it what way. It was your own post that said obedience is due—even if it is the wrong decision. Since your post is in this thread—it applies to the German priests revolt against the decision of the Pope.

You went as far as putting the part ---- “I Myself will hold him responsible”—in bold—to drive your message home.

So don’t play “innocent” with me. I have been thru enough of your games—to know how you play them.
 
My point was that even though God HIMSELF was directing a SAINT, disobedience is never pleasing to God, EVEN IF the superior is wrong, as in the case of St. Teresa, he was. IF such were the case that there is error, it is GOD’s responsibility to correct and hold him/her responsible, not OURS. It does not excuse disobedience in any fashion. I thought the example covered all the bases for one’s logical excuses, and was an excellent one.
 
Don’t see below—where it says parish priests need to be consulted.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

A) General norms
    1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
  2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
  3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
 
Walking_Home said:
Don’t see below—where it says parish priests need to be consulted.
Click to expand...
I did not say they were currently consulted. I asked IF they were consulted, do you think this would have been avoided? That way, they could not reject it, as they would have had a part in it.
 
Joysong said:
My point was that even though God HIMSELF was directing a SAINT, disobedience is never pleasing to God, EVEN IF the superior is wrong, as in the case of St. Teresa, he was. IF such were the case that there is error, it is GOD’s responsibility to correct and hold him/her responsible, not OURS. It does not excuse disobedience in any fashion. I thought the example covered all the bases for one’s logical excuses, and was an excellent one.

To take it further than I intended is just plain mean-spirited and rash judgment.

This really is sad, W.H., that you hold this complete animosity and nastiness toward me, for I know of nothing to warrant it. Indeed, this is my last post to you.
Click to expand...
You make the posts—then when caught—play innocent. Again–I know how you play your games.
 
Hello, Pius X,
What if the matter gravely harms another person?
Click to expand...
I thought about that, too, and in the case of St. Teresa of Avila, her nuns went through terrible suffering beyond description — yet the Lord told her to obey, and for some higher reason, He will permit evil to come upon us. Maybe some day, when we reach the pearly gates, we can know all the ins and outs of His hidden wisdom. 😉
If parish priests were consulted, would this happen as often?
Click to expand...
We don’t know, but we realize that consultation and deliberation with many more minds on a matter is very fruitful and should be encouraged. I am at a loss to know whether or not these discussions took place, or if there is a possibility at this late date the Pope will speak with them. Sometimes an affront like this, similar to a strike in a corporation, etc., is just all that’s needed to begin negotiations and come to consensus.

We know from writings that circulated at the time of Archbishop LeFebvre’s situation that there were many discussions with the Vatican, but in the end there was still a schism. So dialogue doesn’t always work.
 
Joysong said:
Hello, Pius X,

I thought about that, too, and in the case of St. Teresa of Avila, her nuns went through terrible suffering beyond description — yet the Lord told her to obey, and for some higher reason, He will permit evil to come upon us. Maybe some day, when we reach the pearly gates, we can know all the ins and outs of His hidden wisdom. 😉

We know from writings that circulated at the time of Archbishop LeFebvre’s situation that there were many discussions with the Vatican, but in the end there was still a schism. So dialogue doesn’t always work.
Click to expand...
If the Bishop orders you into silence about a crime, is this to be followed?

Yes, there will always be a few stubborn people who will never give an inch.
 
Joysong,
Blind obedience often remains blind and sometimes it is needful to question the directions of a superior.
Click to expand...
I agree that we are obliged, in accord with our competence, to give our opinion to our pastors on those things which pertain to the good of the Church. However, this is far different than disobedience to the lawful directive of one’s superior, which is a crime (cf. Lumen Gentium, no. 37, 1983 CIC, canon 212).

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, no. 37:“By reason of the knowledge, competence, or pre-eminence which they have, the laity are empowered—indeed sometimes obliged—to manifest their opinion on those things which pertain to the good of the Church. If the occasion should arise, this should be done through the institutions established by the Church for that purpose, and always with truth, courage, and prudence, and with reverence and charity toward those who, by reason of their office, represent the person of Christ. The laity should, as all Christians, promptly accept in Christian obedience decisions of their spiritual shepherds, since they are representatives of Christ as well as teachers and rulers in the Church.”
All pastors swear an oath before God to observe all ecclesiastical laws and foster the common discipline of the entire Church. A deliberate violation of that oath is a grave matter.

As a military officer, I understand that I am obliged to offer a “But Sir” or two when I believe my superior’s lawful decision is contrary to the good of the unit. However, after he has considered my (name removed by moderator)ut, if he still thinks it best to proceed with his decision, then I am to champion his decision as if it were my own. That’s not blind obedience, but an act of charity. To do otherwise would be contrary to fostering the common discipline of the entire unit.

Sacred Scripture affirms in Heb 13:17: “Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.”

It doesn’t say, “obey your prelates and submit to them UNLESS you vote to do the contrary.”

continued…
 
continued…

Let me try to answer from a theological viewpoint…

According to St. Thomas Aquinas there are three kinds of obedience:
  1. Sufficient - obeys in all lawful commands of one’s superior that are within the scope of their authority.
  2. Perfect - obeys in all lawful commands of one’s superior, even if they are not within the scope of their authority.
  3. Indiscreet - obeys in unlawful matters which are contrary to higher authority.
Sufficient obedience is necessary for salvation. Perfect obedience is even more virtuous, but not binding. Indiscreet obedience is sinful.

According to St. Thomas, there are only two reasons one can disobey the directives of their lawful superior: 1) the directive is contrary to higher authority, 2) the directive is outside the scope of their superior’s authority.

It seems to me that the regulation of vernacular translations of the Sacred Liturgy are well within the scope of the Roman Pontiff’s authority. Futhermore, the more precise “for many” as a translation for “pro multis” cannot be contrary to Divine law (and there is not higher authority on the matter). Thus, disobedience in this matter is morally illicit.

You might also consider the following from another Doctor of the Church, **St. Catherine of **Siena:"*Divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil." *(St. Catherine, Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza).
I’m not advocating blind obedience, but reasoned obedience, based upon the authority and divine help given to the Vicar of Christ, the Roman Pontiff. St. Catherine often said, “But Holy Father…” on many occasions to the Roman Pontiff. However, she never advocated disobedience to him.

I believe that within the theological construct described by St. Thomas Aquinas above, that *"If one loves the Pope…one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope. " *(Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695).
 
Hi Dave,
As a military officer, I understand that I am obliged to offer a “But Sir” or two when I believe my superior’s lawful decision is contrary to the good of the unit. However, after he has considered my (name removed by moderator)ut, if he still thinks it best to proceed with his decision, then I am to champion his decision as if it were my own. That’s not blind obedience, but an act of charity. To do otherwise would be contrary to fostering the common discipline of the entire unit.
Click to expand...
I think you have helped both Pius X and myself. I am so grateful for your entering this thread, and I have saved the content of your posts as a safeguard against future temptations. It’s so affirming that my earlier uneasiness, prayerful reflections, and final conclusions regarding obedience are much in line with your posts.

St. Catherine of Siena is one of my favorite saints, and it is good to remember her words and example. Thanks again!

Carole
 
VociMike said:
…Furthermore, it is only when the bishops gather together in a general council that they can speak in a body for the Church. Holding “votes” in their individual countries doesn’t cut it.
Click to expand...
I would add that even the votes of an ecumenical council is subject to ratification by the Roman Pontiff. This is affirmed by the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, in which the 28 canons which were agreed upon in council were sent to the Roman Pontiff, requesting his ratification of them. Pope Leo approved all the canons excepting one, canon 28. After the pope’s veto of canon 28, the Patriarch of Constantinople affirmed in an apologetic letter to Pope Leo that canon 28 had no force unless he approved it, showing clear governing authority over and against the majority vote of an ecumenical council.

According to Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in a letter to Pope Leo (Ep. CXXXII):
As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts [of Chalcedon] was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.
God bless,

Dave
 
Joysong said:
IF such were the case that there is error, it is GOD’s responsibility to correct and hold him/her responsible, not OURS.
Click to expand...
Yes, but how do you know God doesn’t work through logicians, canonists, laity, scientists, doctors, et al, to teach his own disciples? I have the utmost respect toward my bishop but he is not infallible and thus very prone to error. I have even more respect when he seeks the counsel of His superiors when he has doubts.

Where would be all be if Paul never corrected Peter?

You can give all the examples of great saints you want that saw visions of our Lord, but I can counter with many others who stood out as firm defenders of their faith, all the way to martyrdom.

BTW, calling one a disobedient doesn’t make him one.
 
**This thread has been edited and your cooperation is asked in reviewing your comments prior to posting to remove any personal remarks, staying intead with the topic which is:
German priests reject Vatican directive on translation
Click to expand...
This is NOT a debate about the SSPX, or any other poster.

If the thread continues to wander, it will be closed. Thank you for your help.
**
 
BopP123:
I have the utmost respect toward my bishop but he is not infallible and thus very prone to error. I have even more respect when he seeks the counsel of His superiors when he has doubts.

Where would be all be if Paul never corrected Peter?
Click to expand...
I have seen the Paul vs. Peter incident posted on many traditionist websites, almost as a justification for rebellion. A very important point to consider … Peter’s action was not in any way connected with the essential Deposit of Faith. He was not in a position to be charged as being in heresy. It was simply his personal lack of sensitivity and imprudence that was at the root of the disagreement.

I am not certain when their meeting took place, but clearly, had Peter not agreed with him, would that give Paul the right to continue on his own path in disobedience? The debate was worked out within the Church itself, not in opposition to Her.

The first Council of Jerusalem is proof that the apostles did come to collective consensus, working together, not apart from each other, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Read the specific declaration, “For the Holy Spirit and WE have decided …” [Acts 15:28]

Going back to Dave’s posts, it is always good to question and dialogue, but if the superior decides against the matter, we assent and obey as if the superior’s decision is our own. As you stated above, it is good that your bishop seeks the counsel of his superiors and they work it out together.
 
frommi said:
Ummmm…the last man elected pope is a Bishop from the land of Luther…so I’m not sure what you’re point is here.
Click to expand...
Bavaria is not the land of Luther. In fact Bavaria was completely and totally unaffected by the Reformation. It has always been and remains very Catholic.
 
Bishops …although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, Bishops should be revered by the faithful as divinely appointed successors of the Apostles …For the Bishops have been anointed with the chrism of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Let’s see, Bishops are divinely apppointed successors of the Apostles, and have a charism of the Holy Spirit, yet they receive their ordinary power of jurisdiction “directly from the… Supreme Pontiff.” Sounds like a muddle to me. Joe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top