Traditionalists not attending Novus Ordo

[MTD]

You believe a teaching and obey a ruling. A Catholic is obliged to both believe the Teaching Church and obey the Ruling Church.

Huh? I didn’t say obey a teaching…I said obey the Teaching Church who are the teaching authorities in the Church. We are the Taught Church.

Okay, it’s my duty to apologize; I was talking about a whole different thing, and it’s my fault since I didn’t verify exactly what you were talking about. You were talking about Ecclesia Docens vs. Ecclesia Docta; I was thinking of and confused it with potestas magisterii, potestas ministerii, and potestas regiminis. Even then, my understanding of the integration and interrelation of all these was woefully ignorant, and it’s still a mess in my mind right now.

Hence there exists in the Church, side by side with and completing the Rule of Faith, a Rule of Theological Thought or Religious Conviction, to which every Catholic must submit internally as well as externally. Any refusal to submit to this law implies a spiritual revolt against the authority of the Church and a rejection of her supernatural veracity; and is, if not a direct denial of Catholic Faith, at least a direct denial of Catholic Profession.

I can’t help but think of you. You hold the doubtful validity of the NO based on a theological opinion that the long form of the consecration is required for transubstantiation and thus do not accept the authority of the pope’s decision on this matter because his theological opinion is not the same as the one you hold; instead, since he differs, you hold he is not a valid pope (at least this is what I’ve gathered from our previous discussion on the formula of consecration).

For instance, when the Church forbids the teaching of certain points of doctrine, or commands the teaching of one opinion in preference to another, external submission is required, but there is also an obligation to accept the favoured view as morally certain.

The difference between the rules of theological knowledge and the disciplinary measures is important. The former demand universal and unconditional obedience, the latter only respect and reverence.

Have you ever thought about your position on this? Maybe you think I have a problem with respecting and reverencing disciplinary measures; might you have a problem with unconditional obedience to theological knowledge/conviction? (I realize I may not be understanding Scheeben.)

(1) the Rule of Faith in matters directly revealed, exacting the obedience of Faith; (2) the Rule of Faith in matters theologically connected with Revelation, exacting respect and external submission, and, indirectly, internal assent of a certain grade; (3) the Rule of Faith in matters of discipline, exacting submission and reverence.

And what is the purpose of your emphasizing no. 3? Isn’t this what I do? I recognize and accept the authority of the pope in disciplinary matters. I believe that whatever he has commanded or permitted is not contrary to the Divine Law; occasionally I disagree with the practical aspect of a discipline but never with the doctrinal aspect. I think you should give more thought to your own position, especially with regard to no. 2.

NB: I may have entirely missed the point of Scheeben. His style is difficult for me to follow.

Maria

 

[MTD]

MTD:

Exactly. That is why I distinguished between disobeying and disagreeing. I noted (correctly) that it is quite possible to disagree but not to disobey.
Maria

I see. So if you don’t like the Pope’s teaching against watching sports on Sundays, that would be disagreeing with him?

Good, because for a while there, I thought I was disobeying him.

Yes, you’re right; I did not express myself accurately. I meant disagreement with the practical judgment of a disciplinary action.

However, it would be kind of you to note the context of the argument in which I was saying that. I was directly referring to the argument in posts #124 and #125. So there was really no need for the sarcasm. A gentle correction would have been sufficient.

I’ve noticed there’s almost incredible animosity between sedevacantists or Traditionalists and non-Traditionalists. As soon as someone on the one side is inadvertently inexact on a point, the other side very often showers sarcasm or insults on him. Where’s the charity? Yes, I know; I’m not guilt-free on this point either. But from now on, let’s try to keep the debate on a charitable note, okay?

Maria

 

[MTD]

Are you the OP with a different name?

Oh, sorry. I’m not the OP. Your question came right in the middle of a debate and since it came immediately after one of my posts, I thought you were asking me. My apologies.

Maria

 

[MTD]

What about other members of the Teaching Authority…there are some who are unquestionably heretics…do they still have authority over Catholics?

I’m not really sure on this, probably because I haven’t run into it in my own life. I’d think that until he is officially declared a heretic, one should obey in all things not contrary to the teachings and disciplines of the Holy Father.

If we should just ignore them as you say then by what authority do we ignore them?

You say they still hold office and authority over Catholics…but if a layman can recognize that they are not “in line with the pope”, then exactly how does he do this? Is this not “private judgment”?

Yes, it is, as you say, a judgment call based on reason and prudence. However, I would think that it’s not unlike the obedience owed to parents by children and to religious superiors by religious: to obey in all things but sin.

While I agree that the laity has a limited right to evaluate their bishop’s faithfulness to the Holy Father since an individual bishop is fallible, I do not think any layperson has the right to judge the orthodoxy of a validly elected pope. Such destroys the whole reason for having a pope.

Has this answered your questions adequately?

Maria

 

[gorman64]

I’m not really sure on this, probably because I haven’t run into it in my own life. I’d think that until he is officially declared a heretic, one should obey in all things not contrary to the teachings and disciplines of the Holy Father.

But how does one know “the teachings and disciplines of the Holy Father”…does this not defeat the purpose of the Teaching Church?..would all Catholics subject to the “office holding undeposed heretic” agree on what was to be followed and what was to be ignored?

I would reply with St. Robert:

From St Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30.

“There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.”

“A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid; knowing that he who is such an one is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.” (Tit. 3: 10,11.)

 

[Mary_Henley]

[Mt 18:4](http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=18&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) - “Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

Maybe they just wanted to follow the mandate of Jesus. Faith is a simple thing. A simplistic faith can keep us from arguing ourselves all the way out of the door of the Church.

 

[MTD]

But how does one know “the teachings and disciplines of the Holy Father”…

Pretty simple with today’s global communication. The Lord promised to be with His Church until the end of time; if He allows a heresy so prevalent that the Taught Church must look past the bishops and directly to the Holy Father, He also makes it possible for the Taught Church to do just that.

does this not defeat the purpose of the Teaching Church?

No, because the Teaching Church is nothing without the pope; the episcopate has no infallibility whatsoever except insofar as it is united with the infallible head, the pope. Each of the apostles was personally infallible, but their successors, while inheriting their other powers, do not inherit that infallibility, with the exception of the successor of Peter. So no Peter equals no Teaching Church.

…would all Catholics subject to the “office holding undeposed heretic” agree on what was to be followed and what was to be ignored?

Most likely, no. But…“There must be also heresies.” (1 Cor. 11:19) What can I say?

“A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid; knowing that he who is such an one is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.” (Tit. 3: 10,11.)

I have a problem with this verse being applied to the current situation in the Church.

1. Paul is talking to a bishop. He is addressing how authorities are to deal with heretics. That is not the case with sedevacantism; indeed, it’s the other way around: the Taught Church is judging members of the Teaching Church as heretical.
2. Paul mentions admonitions. He does not say the heretic is to be avoided until the proper authorities have admonished the heretic. From this, it would seem that there needs to be an acknowledgment of the heresy of a bishop by the proper authorities before he is to be avoided by his flock.

Maria

 

[gorman64]

I have a problem with this verse being applied to the current situation in the Church.

What situation are we speaking of here?

 

[BobP123]

“Pretty simple with today’s global communication. The Lord promised to be with His Church until the end of time; if He allows a heresy so prevalent that the Taught Church must look past the bishops and directly to the Holy Father, He also makes it possible for the Taught Church to do just that.”

Forget the heresy part. What about the financial aspect? Certain dioceses have already declared bankruptcy. I too believe that the gates of Hell will not prevail. But exactly who is part of the Church that will prevail?

 

[pnewton]

What situation are we speaking of here?

I would have a problem with that verse being used to justify sedevacantism. Here is why. Specific application always begs the question. Should each individual interpret for himself when this line is crossed and spin off his own Catholic Church? That is the path of the Pope Michaels of the world. Far better just to allow individual interpretation of the Bible directly. Sola Scriptura will yield less division. That is why the Church needs to excommunicate by name. Sure some have already condemned themselves, but best leave that judgement to God.

BTW - I have seen that same verse used by Protestants to condemn all Catholics.

 

[BobP123]

“I’ve noticed there’s almost incredible animosity between sedevacantists or Traditionalists and non-Traditionalists. As soon as someone on the one side is inadvertently inexact on a point, the other side very often showers sarcasm or insults on him. Where’s the charity? Yes, I know; I’m not guilt-free on this point either. But from now on, let’s try to keep the debate on a charitable note, okay?”

And I would appreciate not being branded or associated with any sedevacantist or schismatic group in the same sentence. I will have to stand before God for my own actions. If I’m out of line, I am the one responsible for the retribution aspect. Please don’t blame other Christians for what I’ve done or what my position is. This has nothing to do with charity but justice.

And sarcasm can be an effective tool to get one’s point across. My mother was an expert at it and taught me well apparently.

But I can be your best friend too. Ask and you shall receive.

 

[gorman64]

I would have a problem with that verse being used to justify sedevacantism. Here is why. Specific application always begs the question. Should each individual interpret for himself when this line is crossed and spin off his own Catholic Church? That is the path of the Pope Michaels of the world. Far better just to allow individual interpretation of the Bible directly. Sola Scriptura will yield less division. That is why the Church needs to excommunicate by name. Sure some have already condemned themselves, but best leave that judgement to God.

What is the current situation?

BTW - I have seen that same verse used by Protestants to condemn all Catholics.

And I have seen Denzinger used by Catholics to condemn other Catholics…the way a protestant uses scripture.

That is why the Church needs to excommunicate by name.

This is interesting…why do you think they don’t do that?

 

[MTD]

What situation are we speaking of here?

Gorman, I think you know quite well what situation we’re talking about here. We’re talking about the situation that causes sedevacantists to claim there has been no pope for 50 years.

I too believe that the gates of Hell will not prevail. But exactly who is part of the Church that will prevail?

It’s simple: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:18) Whoever is founded on the rock of Peter will prevail.

And I would appreciate not being branded or associated with any sedevacantist or schismatic group in the same sentence.

You’re right; I’m sorry. I didn’t think about that, but I’ll be more careful in the future.

And sarcasm can be an effective tool to get one’s point across.

Yes, of course; but not at the expense of charity.

Maria

 

[gorman64]

Most likely, no. But…“There must be also heresies.” (1 Cor. 11:19) What can I say?

Maria:

Yes there are heresies and must be heresies…but they are never really within the Church. This would be contrary to divine law.

Gorman

 

[gorman64]

Gorman, I think you know quite well what situation we’re talking about here. We’re talking about the situation that causes sedevacantists to claim there has been no pope for 50 years.

Maria:

I really only ever hear traditionalists actually attempting to define this “situation” in some real practical terms…naming names. I always notice that conservative Catholics will complain amongst themselves until there is a traditionalist involved in the equation…then everything becomes “abuses” and those called “heretics” become victims of “poor catechisis”.

Gorman

P.S.
This is obviously a generalization not directed at you personally.

 

[MTD]

Most likely, no. But…“There must be also heresies.” (1 Cor. 11:19) What can I say?

Perhaps you could explain yourself; I’m having trouble relating your statement to what I said. I don’t think I said or implied that heresies are within the Church; a heretic is by nature outside the Church.

My point is that the Taught Church is not in a position to judge whether a member of the Teaching Church is a heretic and thus without jurisdiction over his flock because that would defy the very reason for the structure of a Teaching Church vs. a Taught Church. The most the Taught Church can do is what children do with their parents: obey in all things but sin.

I really only ever hear traditionalists actually attempting to define this “situation” in some real practical terms…naming names. I always notice that conservative Catholics will complain amongst themselves until there is a traditionalist involved in the equation…then everything becomes “abuses” and those called “heretics” become victims of “poor catechisis”.

Okay, since you insist…the situation in the Church I was referring to is the possibility or fact of some bishops being heretics though not officially recognized as such by their authorities.

And by the way, I can name names of one or more bishops who seem to be/have been heretics, but I do not consider myself in a position to 1) judge (as I am a member of the Taught Church), and 2) detract.

Maria

 

[Leeta]

What about the approved vernacular translation of the Holy Scriptures used at the NO Masses?

Yes, the Church has absolute authority to decide which scripture will be read at Mass, but where is the love for truth and accuracy on the part of the Church? It seems to have become of secondary importance. I thought the Church was to safeguard Holy Scripture and preserve it.

I’m paticularly disturbed by this since I used to Protestant and have a high regard for the Bible.

On Palm Sunday, for example, the approved translation which must be read at the NO Mass, states that when Jesus died there was an eclipse of the sun, instead of sticking with the text of the gospel which says that ‘a great darkness covered the whole earth’ This is an inaccurate interpretation, not a translation of scripture, and thus will sow error among the faithful.
So I’m treking over to the Old Mass for sure on Palm Sunday. I have my young children to think about.

 

[MTD]

Leeta,

You have every right to attend a Traditional Latin Mass and to be concerned about the current translation of Holy Scripture used in the vernacular Novus Ordo Mass.

However, what we’re discussing here is not the Traditional Latin Mass vs. the Novus Ordo Mass, but sedevacantism. Sedevacantism is a theory that there have been no valid popes since Pope Pius XII; in other words, that the Catholic Church has had no pope for 50 years!

Maria

 

[TNT]

KJV:
Matt 27:45:
Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.
Mark 15:33:
And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.​

Not to worry, on those verses.
After all an Eclipse would be a NATURAL event, a coincidence, but a sudden Darkness for 3 hrs without an Eclipse would be Supernatural.

 

[pnewton]

What is the current situation?

That is twice you have asked that question, and I didn’t even mention the current situation. But if you do not know what it is, I will explain it.

The Church is alive and well. It is in the midst of facing problems, as it always has been, from proponents of modernism, from wolves that have invaded the flock (something the Bible tells us we will always have) and from the challenges of technology advancing exponentially. She attempts to cope with these challenges as prudently as possible. Some things work, some don’t. We learn and move forward. (Here is a newsflash for some. Every denomination in America is facing the same challenges. Modernism attacks all people of faith.)

Within this Church there is room for the rich and poor, American and African, traditionalist and non-traditionalist. Yet, there remains the smallest splinter of a sect who, like all sects, choose their own path of interpretion. For Protestants, it is the David Koresh’s and Jim Jones’s who interpret the Bible for themselves and find in it a path that lead to their destruction. For Catholics, it is the Pope Michael’s, who interpret the immensly more massive volume of Church documents out of their historical context to come up with the strange notion that their is no pope, perhaps the most anti-Catholic of all possibilities. The papacy is the one doctrine that is most distinctly Catholic.

Sedevacantism unfortunately gives traditional Catholicism a bad reputation because outwardly they apear similar. Actually, they are vastly separated. One is within the Catholic Church. One is outside the Catholic Church. And that is a significant difference.