True and false obedience

[excubitor]

This is a gross mischaracterization of the basic problem: but I’m sympathetic–it is the only possible way to make Traditionalists into Protestants, and it’s important to do so if the goal is to support obedience absolutism.

what does that mean?

I don’t know why, but God insists that we struggle. Where is the bright line between righteous indignation and sinful anger? Between appreciating the God-given beauty of a woman–as we see in paintings in the Vatican–and sinning in your heart? I could cite countless examples where God ordains a Catholic middle ground involving both reason and struggle.

Regarding this issue, God insists that we struggle: he provides no bright line. We can be neither Protestant; nor mindlessly obedient to Father–if only because priests often disagree on even the most basic teachings of the Church.

Where have I advocated mindless obedience?
Where have I indicated that obedience does not require discretion, wisdom and struggle?
I even supported Aquinas’ concept of indiscreet obedience.
You need to read all of my posts on the subject, not just one.

Generally, the problem is MUCH simpler than you portray. Examples:

do you mean much more complex?

1. Some of our adolescent sons were homosexually molested/seduced by priests (and even a few bishops). Why did this take so long to come out? (With such devastating results due to the delay!) Because the faithful obeyed Father and were obedient and attentive to their ordained teachers in the church–just as you recommend!

I have recommended no such thing. how dare you. The parents of those children were not obedient, they were either naive and neglectful of their children or were completely deceived by their priest. Which priest commands a parent “leave the child with me so that I can molest them?” No such command is ever given so how can there be disobedience?
If any parent refused to obey the priest “leave the boy with me so I can train him” command because they suspected that the priest would molest their son, that is not disobedience that is prudence. No bishop on earth would regard that as disobedience.

1. Regarding most of the post Vatican II issues under dispute: there is no disagreement about the facts! Both advocates and opponents agree that there has been a change, and that this change would have been utterly unacceptable during virtually the whole history of the Church. See, you don’t have to be an expert at all!

This is how the banal logic of hyper traditionalists works. Because it is alright to disobey a priest who you suspect is going to molest your seven year old son, that therefore it is alright to disobey the Pope when he makes commands about Vatican 2 or the New Mass.

They are not even correllated. Not even the molesting priest believes that it is legitimate to command a parent to allow their son to be molested. whereas the Pope has every right to command the church in matters of faith and morals, the liturgy and the administration of the church. Particularly when he has the support of the college of bishops.

Besides you have no evidence that the initiatives of Vatican 2 would not have been acceptable in previous history of the church. please provide evidence that advocates of Vatican 2 believe that. Please provide examples of which initiatives of vatican 2 would have been rejected by church of history.

Isn’t it interesting that Father Marciel (Legionnaires of Christ) stressed obedience so obsessively? We now know why.

Why isn’t the life of faith simple, mindless, totally clear, and easy? I don’t know: ask God.

Father Marciel was accused by 9 people of molestation in the 1970’s. Subsequently one of these allegations was withdrawn by 1 person who claimed that the whole story was a fabrication designed to damage the legion. The Vatican stood down Father Marciel during the investigations as is standard practice. Fr. M was never found guilty of the charges.

Are you sure you are catholic? It’s usually the secular press that takes every opportunity to kick up dirt on the priesthood. Catholics love, esteem, support and build up the priesthood. They pray for them and obey them with honour, willingness and enthusiasm.

I encourage everybody to join in prayer against the enemies of the church who take every opportunity to attack our priests and clergy.
Here is a set of prayers we can pray for the sake of our priests and clergy who are under constant attack in these last days paxetbonum.net/pfp3.html#58
Let us pray this prayer to St. Joseph

Great St. Joseph, you were chosen by God to be the reputed father of Jesus,
the chaste husband of Mary ever-Virgin,
and head of the Holy Family;
you were elected by the Vicar of Christ
to be the heavenly Patron and Protector of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
With the greatest confidence, therefore, I ask your powerful aid in this day
for the entire Church on earth.

Protect in a special manner with your true fatherly love
our Holy Father, the Pope, and all the Bishops and priests
who are united to the See of St. Peter;
defend all those who labor for souls in the midst of the trials and difficulties of this life;
and win for all nations unity of faith under one Shepherd.
Amen.

.

 

[SBroxson]

Excubitor, I started to respond to your post, but there was so much wrong with it that I didn’t know where to even begin. It was straw-man piled upon incomprehension piled upon straw-man.

It is not worth a response, except to say this. I was responding to your single post, without familiarity with your other posts: so, I find credible–on the face of it–your claim that I have misrepresented your position in some ways. Assuming that I have then, I apologize.

 

[Layman]

1. Regarding most of the post Vatican II issues under dispute: there is no disagreement about the facts! Both advocates and opponents agree that there has been a change, and that this change would have been utterly unacceptable during virtually the whole history of the Church. See, you don’t have to be an expert at all!

The only issue is whether the Church was wrong during nearly its entire history–and whether that we moderns are right? The way to determine that is the way that Jesus gave us: by the fruits. And yes, we have to use our God-given minds for that–without becoming Protestant.

My emphasis above. Sounds about right to me.

 

[SBroxson]

Ultimo Ratio,

(NOTE: my comments are limited discussing ORTHODOX Catholics–there are non-orthodox Catholics attending all types of masses…or none at all. And I’m not talking about Tradition or Truth [capital T’s].)

I used to think that the division among orthodox Catholics (traditionalists and non-traditionalists) was that we have been forced to choose between authority and tradition–something that should never happen…but occasionally it does. We made our choices, but were not comfortable with them because we both value both.

Then I thought that the basic division was between those who believed that the current problems in the Church were PRIMARILY between external causes (non-traditionalists) verses internal causes (traditionalists). This is a serious matter, because it involves the operation of the Holy Spirit and Satan. Oddly, pointing out the teachings of the Church on these matters does not seem to help very often: typically, the non-traditionalist will effectively claim that the Holy Spirit controls every single thing that happens in the Church, but if you push on that point you get back nothing but confusion.

As I have discussed these matters with others recently, I’ve come to the conclusion that the basic issue is truth. We know it is the Truth that will set you free and we can know the Truth, but is truth also critical and can we know it?

More specifically, what if the truth APPEARS to be opposed to loyalty? (I don’t think it ever truly does, but…) What if it opposes the wishful thinking that we’ve seen so much of? And, does Christ’s test of “fruits” provide us a way of knowing the truth?

Returning to loyalty, are we being loyal when we misrepresent (or seek to minimize) the facts? (For example, regarding the scandal or other episcopal serious misconduct.)

And is there any room at all for disagreement among loyal and faithful Catholics regarding ANYTHING?

Here the MANY differences between the Byzantine (Eastern) Catholics and Latin Catholics is instructive: both are totally approved by the Church.

So, may we disagree over the prudentialness or even accuracy of a Papal statement (non-ex cathedra) or action…or even, per chance, a valid Council? We are often told “no”, and yet that does not appear to be the position of either John Paul II or Pope Benedict.

I’m reminded of my talk with a convert concerning Protestants regarding sola fide. He said that to many of them, sola fide IS THE GOSPEL. So, when you are walking them through Romans, they probably will not follow the train of logic. But if they do, you see fear in their eyes: because they think that you are asking them to stop being Christian…because to them, that is what Christianity is.

Likewise, if you point out to non-traditionalists statements by Pope Benedict, Cardinal Pell, George Weigle, Fr. Neuhaus, or others indicating that both Popes and Councils have made SERIOUS prudential errors: they really won’t listen. They can’t really, because they think that you are asking them to stop being Catholic–although you are asking no such thing.

 

[pnewton]

Returning to loyalty, are we being loyal when we misrepresent (or seek to minimize) the facts? (For example, regarding the scandal or other episcopal serious misconduct.)

No, but when we exaggerate the facts (another form of misrepresentation) that may come from bad motivation, including disloyalty.

 

[COLOS]

(NOTE: my comments are limited discussing ORTHODOX Catholics–there are non-orthodox Catholics attending all types of masses…or none at all. And I’m not talking about Tradition or Truth [capital T’s].)

I used to think that the division among orthodox Catholics (traditionalists and non-traditionalists) was that we have been forced to choose between authority and tradition–something that should never happen…but occasionally it does. We made our choices, but were not comfortable with them because we both value both.

Then I thought that the basic division was between those who believed that the current problems in the Church were PRIMARILY between external causes (non-traditionalists) verses internal causes (traditionalists). This is a serious matter, because it involves the operation of the Holy Spirit and Satan. Oddly, pointing out the teachings of the Church on these matters does not seem to help very often: typically, the non-traditionalist will effectively claim that the Holy Spirit controls every single thing that happens in the Church, but if you push on that point you get back nothing but confusion.

As I have discussed these matters with others recently, I’ve come to the conclusion that the basic issue is truth. We know it is the Truth that will set you free and we can know the Truth, but is truth also critical and can we know it?

More specifically, what if the truth APPEARS to be opposed to loyalty? (I don’t think it ever truly does, but…) What if it opposes the wishful thinking that we’ve seen so much of? And, does Christ’s test of “fruits” provide us a way of knowing the truth?

Returning to loyalty, are we being loyal when we misrepresent (or seek to minimize) the facts? (For example, regarding the scandal or other episcopal serious misconduct.)

And is there any room at all for disagreement among loyal and faithful Catholics regarding ANYTHING?

Here the MANY differences between the Byzantine (Eastern) Catholics and Latin Catholics is instructive: both are totally approved by the Church.

So, may we disagree over the prudentialness or even accuracy of a Papal statement (non-ex cathedra) or action…or even, per chance, a valid Council? We are often told “no”, and yet that does not appear to be the position of either John Paul II or Pope Benedict.

I’m reminded of my talk with a convert concerning Protestants regarding sola fide. He said that to many of them, sola fide IS THE GOSPEL. So, when you are walking them through Romans, they probably will not follow the train of logic. But if they do, you see fear in their eyes: because they think that you are asking them to stop being Christian…because to them, that is what Christianity is.

Likewise, if you point out to non-traditionalists statements by Pope Benedict, Cardinal Pell, George Weigle, Fr. Neuhaus, or others indicating that both Popes and Councils have made SERIOUS prudential errors: they really won’t listen. They can’t really, because they think that you are asking them to stop being Catholic–although you are asking no such thing.

Now that’s an interesting train of thought. I appreciate your last couple of posts, SBroxson. I’ve just stumbled onto this difficulty within the last three or four months. It’s certainly challenging, and I no longer believe that I’m equal to the task of sorting it out, lol. You’ve made some helpful points in those last two posts, thanks.

 

[SBroxson]

No, but when we exaggerate the facts (another form of misrepresentation) that may come from bad motivation, including disloyalty.

Regarding the scandal, or even the scandal of bad catechesis and lack of discipline, is it even within the realm of possibility to exaggerate the facts? Our bishops have often not acted with the immediacy and decisiveness that one would expect of somebody who believes that eternal souls are at stake.

Well, I suppose it is possible: for example the efforts to link the Pope to the scandal which apparently were transparently false and malicious. But it is not easy to exaggerate! (Still, things are getting better in many respects!)

This is how I handle somebody attacking the Church over the scandal who is anti-Catholic. I acknowledge the evil: often in very strong terms indeed. But then I:

1. Ask them on what basis THEY have to condemn the Church? Do they believe that there is objective right and wrong? Or that homosexuality is wrong? Or that relations with an adolescent are wrong? (Planned Parenthood doesn’t report such things.) Or that vows must be kept (which would include marriage vows)?

I ask them if they have any basis as all to condemn these evil actions other than they don’t LIKE them. (Like I don’t like okra.) Often, people will rely upon the teachings of Christianity, while attacking Christianity.

1. I point out to them WHERE the problems generally were in the Church (mostly among the “liberals” with the exceptions of Law and Marciel): and that by definition, everybody who was doing anything wrong was rejecting Church teachings.
2. I point out that only devout Catholics understand the depth of the evil: certainly not people who don’t even believe in evil.

 

[JosephdeMaistre]

Understanding the difference between the various forms of obedience is important, however, theological determinations of heresy and truth are the obligation of the Magisterium, and not the lay man.

If at some point the Magisterium makes that determination, I will go with it. But lay people are not capable of it, and those who claim to be capable of it are no better that the Protestant Reformers.

 

[SBroxson]

COLOS, thank you! I’m glad to have helped in some way. This is just one of the quotes:

“The Public Square,” Richard John Neuhaus, First Things (January 2003):

“We might well ask whether today Maritain would think, or whether we should think, that the Second Vatican Council failed. It is no secret that some have long since reached that conclusion. A Council may, of course, fail—not in its validity but in its efficacy. Of the twenty-one ecumenical councils recognized by the Church, historians generally view the thirteenth-century councils of Lateran IV and Lyons I and II, along with the fifteenth-century councils of Constance and Basel, and the sixteenth-century Lateran V, as more or less failures in their reforming intentions. At least in the second Christian millennium, a successful council seems to be more the exception than the rule. Our thinking on these matters has been skewed by the remarkable success of the Council of Trent and its implementation by heroic figures such as Charles Borromeo and the Society of Jesus in its earlier fidelity to the charism of Ignatius. There was not so much a Counter-Reformation, as it is commonly called, as an authentic Catholic Reformation, beginning already in the fifteenth century, and finding its council in Trent and its champions in those who boldly advanced the reforming vision of Trent.”

Another dramatic example is that (then) Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a preface in the French edition of The Reform of the Roman Litergy praising the author, Monsignor Klaus Gamber and his work. So, what did this book have to say? Among other things, that Pope Paul VI was without authority to implement the Novus Ordo–a “fabricated liturgy” according to Cardinal Ratzinger in the Preface!

And yet, we are STILL told that if we have the slightest disagreement with a Pope or a Council, we simply reject the Magisterium and have Protestant thinking.

Somewhere between becoming an expert on the limits of authority, and just pointing out the obvious, there must be some happy medium?

(I’m working on a paper on this subject [as time permits], and would be happy to send it to you when completed: but I don’t suppose there’s any way of exchanging emails without posting them here for every spammer in the world to get.)

 

[excubitor]

COLOS, thank you! I’m glad to have helped in some way. This is just one of the quotes:

“The Public Square,” Richard John Neuhaus, First Things (January 2003):

“We might well ask whether today Maritain would think, or whether we should think, that the Second Vatican Council failed. It is no secret that some have long since reached that conclusion. A Council may, of course, fail—not in its validity but in its efficacy. Of the twenty-one ecumenical councils recognized by the Church, historians generally view the thirteenth-century councils of Lateran IV and Lyons I and II, along with the fifteenth-century councils of Constance and Basel, and the sixteenth-century Lateran V, as more or less failures in their reforming intentions. At least in the second Christian millennium, a successful council seems to be more the exception than the rule. Our thinking on these matters has been skewed by the remarkable success of the Council of Trent and its implementation by heroic figures such as Charles Borromeo and the Society of Jesus in its earlier fidelity to the charism of Ignatius. There was not so much a Counter-Reformation, as it is commonly called, as an authentic Catholic Reformation, beginning already in the fifteenth century, and finding its council in Trent and its champions in those who boldly advanced the reforming vision of Trent.”

You are merely trying to undermine the authority of the Vatican 2 council and are using a skewed account of history to do so. Neuhaus also said “that it cannot be known if hell is populated by anyone” and in so doing undermined the Catholic doctrine of hell. Several Popes have affirmed and upheld the Vatican 2 Council as an effective and true council of the church. Not one Pope has admitted that there is any error in the Council documents. There may be inadvisable, ambiguous, comments which are helpful to modernists, but that is an altogether different level of deficiency as compared to absolute error of heresy.

Another dramatic example is that (then) Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a preface in the French edition of The Reform of the Roman Litergy praising the author, Monsignor Klaus Gamber and his work. So, what did this book have to say? Among other things, that Pope Paul VI was without authority to implement the Novus Ordo–a “fabricated liturgy” according to Cardinal Ratzinger in the Preface!

Just because we praise and admire a book does not mean that we endorse every word and comment within the book. If you think that Cardinal Ratzinger was denying the authority of Pope Paul VI to change the liturgy then you are misrepresenting him very badly. His famous words in the preface to this book were directed to abuses of the liturgy and not to the liturgy itself. Why else would have said in Summorum Pontificum"“There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.” vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

Please retract your claim that the current Pope has ever denied the authority of Pope Paul VI to change the liturgy.

And yet, we are STILL told that if we have the slightest disagreement with a Pope or a Council, we simply reject the Magisterium and have Protestant thinking.
Somewhere between becoming an expert on the limits of authority, and just pointing out the obvious, there must be some happy medium?

I am an ardent supporter of Vatican 2 and have noticed many thoroughly orthodox statements in the documents, which by the way, I have read in their entirety and studied. I also attend an EF mass of the FSSP. But even I would not go so far as to slavishly say that nobody is allowed to have even the slightest disagreement with the Council. I have lots of disagreements, but obedience is where we put aside our own petty disagreements and submit them to the higher authority. That does not mean that we may not express our disagreements, it just means that after having expressed them, we must then subject them to the higher authority. I have NEVER seen anybody say that we must never disagree with the Pope or the Council or the magisterium. Not once. Invariably this is a false argument which seeks to justify those who DISOBEY the Council, Pope and magisterium. Disobedience IS NOT a happy medium. It is right there out on the extreme.

 

[Abu]

There seems to be some confusion here over Vatican I and Vatican II and the necessity of assent.

revert_jen
we are required to give the assent of faith to all teachings of the Magisterium, not only the infallible ones.

A clarification here is necessary:
Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus, Chap 4, #9, an infallible dogma) is the basis for understanding infallibility.
So The Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus *Humanae Vitae *(Encyclical against contraception) and *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *(Apostolic Epistle on male only priesthood) contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt.

The CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Pope John Paul’s Motu Proprio (= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 (ATF), which requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (Canon #750.1); and a category 2 truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2). In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility including the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine. The category 3 truths are non-definitive (non-infallible) and require intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith.

Thus assent is required and classified under three headings:

1. Divine and Catholic faith
2. Ecclesial faith
3. Religious assent of will and intellect

BTW, Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and Trent.

 

[SBroxson]

Let’s examine why there is so much emotion, using an issue that is less of a hot button.

George Weigle, The Courage to be Catholic, pp 4-5:

 "To grasp what is at stake, as well as the meaning of genuine reform, Catholics need only look back about five hundred years.  In 1512-1517, the Fifth Lateran Council met in Rome.  It was intended to be a great reforming Council.  It failed.  Why?  Because its analysis of the Catholic crisis at the moment was shallow; because the reforms it proposed were either inadequate in themselves or inadequately implemented; and because the Church’s bishops, including the reigning pope, lacked the will and the courage necessary to do the needed job.  The failure of Lateran V was the prelude to the Reformation, which shattered the unity of the Christian West and set in motion the dynamics that eventually led to the European wars of religion.  Failures of reform carry a high cost."

Note, that Weigle is saying that BOTH the 5th Lateran Council, AND the implementation of it, were flawed.

Now the 5th Lateran Council was a valid council, and the Holy Spirit was there. Although all that happens is within God’s PERMISSIVE will, the Holy Spirit does not want that which looses souls or divides the Church. The Holy Spirit is all knowing and wise, and is not the author of shallow analysis or inadequately proposed reforms.

It logically follows that if the Bishops and Pope had been Holy–having both the ability and the willingness to listen to the Holy Spirit–they would not have composed shallow analysis or proposed inadequate reforms. Unless they did so through human weakness–which in itself would be a sin in such a situation.

So, if Weigle, Neuhaus, and others, are correct that valid Church Councils can fail, then what is the universe of possible explanations?

Please understand that this answer is intended to be nothing more than pedestrian: Satan is the only possible other explanation. Only Satan provides BAD advice at a valid Church council, and as for sin (e.g., pride, vanity, weakness on such an important matter), that too is from Satan.

So, what inevitably follows from that? Well, we know that the Holy Spirit protects a valid council for unambiguous error concerning teachings of faith and morals: that is not at issue. But, regarding prudential matters, this means that the bishops sometimes either didn’t listen to the Holy Spirit at all, or listened and said “no.” And in both cases, it logically follows that they are saying “yes” to Satan (concerning some prudential issues). Is there any other possibility?

Let’s put ourselves back in those days. Some after the Council would have (reasonably) insisted that, since the Holy Spirit was there, the Council was a precious gift from God specifically designed to combat the evils coming from outside the Church. To deny the perfection of Lateran V was to deny the perfection of the Holy Spirit. It was to set oneself up as judge of God! It was to spurn a precious gift, and reject authority. It was, in a very important way, to cease to be Catholic.

Others after the Council would have (reasonably) insisted–especially after 40 years–that the fruits of the Council did not indicate that it was–at least not COMPLETELY–a gift from God at all. That leaves only the possibilities that it was–in part–an act of rebellion, vanity, or cowardliness…a result (at least in part) of saying “yes” to Satan. No doubt, they had some specific events or behavioral patterns to point to in order to support this thesis, as well as the fruits (Jesus’ test). And to embrace those parts of the Council which had been proven to be of Satan is evil, and to attribute such evil to the Holy Spirit is blasphemy…and such people have ceased to be Catholic in an important way.

Problem: there is no middle ground between the Holy Spirit and Satan, and the issue is too important to overlook. And so, I’m sure, they never did come to agreement.

But they did die. And their children or grandchildren eventually put the issue behind them. And–in the case of Lateran V–put the valid Council behind them as well.

Now regarding Vatican II, we shall see what the future holds–but not from Earth.

(BTW, Excubitor, my comments–after my first post–were not addressing your posts.)

 

[SBroxson]

Relevant to this subject of obedience is this article:

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=7075

From the article:

“In the spring of 2007 the Founder of Miles Jesu, Fr. Alfonso Durán, was removed from the office as Superior General, a position which he filled since the founding of the Ecclesial Family in 1964…

"During the Apostolic Visitation a number of irregularities and questionable practices came to light in the sworn testimonies of many members. Also the behavior of Fr. Durán in regards to certain questionable conduct and his exercise of authority came to light…

"In time it has become clear and undeniable, that the Founder, Fr. Alfonso Durán, presented erratic behaviors that were totally beyond the scope of the powers given to him. Some members have identified wounds caused by the inappropriate exercise of authority under his leadership. The mistaken sense of allegiance and obedience instilled in the membership facilitated his behavior, which was totally unacceptable and not in accord with the discipline of the Church nor supportable in any way by a healthy sense of consecrated life.

“Members who challenged his actions or behavior were often ostracized. The internal discipline and customs of the Institute provided protection for the Founder. It must be said in justice, that most of the members had no idea of the improper conduct of the Founder.”

This is a very good organization, as is Legionnaires of Christ who were taken over by the Vatican, forced to abandon their vow of never criticizing a superior and reporting anybody who does, and whose superiors stated clearly and repeatedly that Fr. Marciel had committed serious and repeated acts which were totally inconsistent with his position–including fathering children.

As I noted earlier, obedience was commonly used to facilitate the scandal and its cover-up.

None of this is to deny the clear spiritual benefits of true obedience.

My points are:

1. False obedience is not a theoretical, or even particularly rare, problem in the modern Church.
2. This is puzzling, in view of the fact that obedience is now rejected by large parts of the Church. And among those who reject obedience, a call or even demand of obedience has no effect what so ever.
3. False obedience has been used as a weapon: and that weapon can only be wielded against orthodox Catholics–who acknowledge the virtue in true obedience.

 

[yosupman]

Ultima,

I really feel sorry for you. It seems to me theologically your’re in the same place as you were almost a year ago. You must constantly read pre-vatican II papal encyclicals looking for “snipits” to support your un-acceptance of vatican II.

The church is the authority to interpret Vatican II. Your exegisis of papal writtings is completely unfaithful to the original intent. It sounds good, because frankly you cut and paste well. But in the great hallowed stream of living tradition, your interpretation of the churches understanding of obedience falls very short.

You put SSPX glasses on, and everything you read from the magisterium seems to prove your case. Well, I know Father Rizzo. Do you? I know Father Vanderputten. Do you? I know Father Calvin Goodwin. Do you? I know lots of other traditional priests, who were at the heart of the SSPX community when it was founded, and went through the seminary in Winona. I’ve been to St. Mary’s KS, the heart of traditional Catholicism and know lots of traditional Catholics. Do you? I have a friend that knew Bernard Felay he when was at St. Mary’s KS. My friends were there when the consecrations happened. I’ve know people in and now out of the SSPX group, and so have first had accounts of what that mindset is like. I’ve heard the exact same arguments you make a million times.

Ultima, you are like a psychiatrist friend I know. He redefines all words, until there is no meaing anymore. In thomistic philosophy, there is the principle of non-contradiction, or in a positive formula, of identity. For intstance, a man is a man, he can’t be a man, and a snake at the same time.

Who authoritatively interprets church tradition? The current living Pope. Period. Ultima, does the current living Pope, agree with your assertion about obedience to church teaching? I betcha he doesn’t agree with your understanding, becuase you’ve redefined what the churches teaching is, violating a simple thomistic principle of non-contradiction.

If its just you and me arguing in a room, I’ll bet you’ll try to make me seem like the crazy one. If we’re debating in a room with faithful catholics that follow not only the popes of the past, but including the current pope, I don’t think I’d seem so crazy at all.

 

[Abu]

Ultima Ratio
The charism of infallibility is engaged only when the Pope defines a dogma of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church.

False.

Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus, Chap 4, #9, an infallible dogma) is the basis for understanding infallibility.

“9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

For infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

As George Weigel writes: “The question is not whether Vatican II adequately analysed the Church’s situation. The question is whether that analysis has been correctly understood and vigorously implemented.” (The Courage To Be Catholic, Basic Books, 2002, p 6).

Layman
Are we obliged to tolerate post-1940’s changes to the Church?

Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and Trent. We assent to the teaching therein and obey the governance of the Church. We have the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of the Holy Sacrifice – both valid. We repudiate and refute all dissent from dogma and doctrine.

Cardinal Ratzinger has noted that there is striking contrast between the texts of Vatican II and the practical consequences which followed in the wake of the Council. “This is another of those cases which are all too frequent in recent years, where there is a contradiction between, on the one hand, what the Council actually says, the authentic structure of the Church, and Her worship, the real, contemporary pastoral requirements, and, on the other hand, the concrete response of particular clerical circles.” (The Ratzinger Report, Vittorio Messori, Ignatius, 1985, p 122-3). Which is why we shall shortly be having the renewed Liturgy of the Ordo Missae.

The key is assent to dogma and doctrine, with the obedience of faith as St Paul emphasises (Rom 1:5; 16.26), with the St Escriva admonition to be simple but not simpletons, and to consider work as prayer.

 

[Layman]

We can go to the TLM. We can teach our children fom the Baltimore Catechism. We can read the Douay Rheims bible.

The key thing about Vat. II is that it didn’t propose anything radical, AFAIK. But those who like what’s happened to the Church post-1940’s invoke it as a super-council, sweeping away any previous practice now found ‘unacceptable’ or ‘outdated’ and inserting anything the collective-dullness thinks is ‘nice’.

Result: banality.

**Especially noxious is the playing down of Hell and Damnation. I now realise the reason this was emphasised so much in the past: a priest is accountable for his efforts in saving souls. Preaching Hellfire was a way of saving his own, too. **

 

[SBroxson]

Let’s take an example that is NOT linked to a particular Council.

Cardinal George Pell of Australia made interesting comments to some “progressive” Catholics in Australia which were published in The Catholic Word Report, July 2003 in the article “From Vatican II to Today.” One quote:

“In the past I have been in trouble for stating that the so-called doctrine of the primacy of conscience should be quietly dropped. I would like to reconsider my position here and now state that I believe this misleading doctrine of the primacy of conscience should be publicly rejected…Conscience is at the service of truth; it stands under God’s word. Conscience has no primacy. Truth has primacy. The Word of God has primacy…I believe that the mischievous doctrine of the primacy of conscience has been used to subvert the Church…”

(He also speaks of an “excessive optimism and overconfidence” at the Council—a theme echoed by James Hitchcock in “The End of Gaudium et Spes?” a month earlier in the same magazine. As indicated in an earlier post, such things are not gifts of the Holy Spirit–although unquestionably the Holy Spirit was at the Council.)

So he is contradicting the 2 most recent Popes, not to mention a host of luminaries throughout Church history: so who is the heretic?

I think it is clear that the answer is that there is no conflict: Cardinal Pell, the Popes, Aquinas, etc., all agree on the teaching of the Church.

What is at dispute is the most prudent brief summary of the teaching. No big deal?

Well, as Cardinal Pell points out, “primacy of the conscience” has been used to support all manner of evil–and presumably has resulted in the loss of many souls.

But can that be laid on the prudence of the formulation? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

My points are:

1. No all orthodox Catholics agree on prudential judgements.
2. Nevertheless, they can be TERRIBLY important!
3. The Holy Spirit is with the Church in council and out. So is Satan. When approaches and decisions that result in the loss of many souls (as far as we know), they are not of the Holy Spirit.
4. We have the freedom to disagree about prudential issues, but they are so linked with the faith that it is hard to disagree with reason and calm–it’s even hard to keep in mind that they are prudential issues.

The link to the topic is simple. Overwhelmingly obedience BECOMES AN ISSUE among orthodox Catholics in only two situations:

1. When somebody in religious authority is attempting to use obedience to commit/cover-up serious sin.
2. When there is a debate about prudential issues usually arising from relatively recent changes in the Church (in council and out).

Other than those two situations we are pretty much all in agreement over the importance of obedience.

 

[excubitor]

Let’s take an example that is NOT linked to a particular Council.

Cardinal George Pell of Australia made interesting comments to some “progressive” Catholics in Australia which were published in The Catholic Word Report, July 2003 in the article “From Vatican II to Today.” One quote:

“In the past I have been in trouble for stating that the so-called doctrine of the primacy of conscience should be quietly dropped. I would like to reconsider my position here and now state that I believe this misleading doctrine of the primacy of conscience should be publicly rejected…Conscience is at the service of truth; it stands under God’s word. Conscience has no primacy. Truth has primacy. The Word of God has primacy…I believe that the mischievous doctrine of the primacy of conscience has been used to subvert the Church…”

So he is contradicting the 2 most recent Popes, not to mention a host of luminaries throughout Church history: so who is the heretic?

Whatt?? Have I read that correctly? Are you calling Cardinal Pell a heretic?

What he is saying does not contradict previous Popes. Primacy of Conscience is a false teaching if it is being used against the authority of the Church. The truth as taught by the Holy Catholic Church is a greater authority than the conscience. A true and pure conscience cannot be at odds with Holy Mother church. If it is opposed to Holy Mother Church then it is evidence that the conscience is disordered and corrupt and should be ignored.

Conscience has a place in cases where an individual does not have access to the church or revealed truth, and so must rely upon their conscience to make the best judgement that they can.

Cardinal Pell is correct. Conscience is not an excuse for disobedience and subverting the authority of the Church. False Obedience (which has its foundation in primacy of conscience) is also not an excuse for disobedience.

Its like Sola Scriptura. This is an utterly useless doctrine and serves only one purpose. The overthrow of Church authority. False Obedience also has no purpose except to overthrow church authority.

 

[JosephdeMaistre]

We can go to the TLM. We can teach our children fom the Baltimore Catechism. We can read the Douay Rheims bible.

The key thing about Vat. II is that it didn’t propose anything radical, AFAIK. But those who like what’s happened to the Church post-1940’s invoke it as a super-council, sweeping away any previous practice now found ‘unacceptable’ or ‘outdated’ and inserting anything the collective-dullness thinks is ‘nice’.

Result: banality.

**Especially noxious is the playing down of Hell and Damnation. I now realise the reason this was emphasised so much in the past: a priest is accountable for his efforts in saving souls. Preaching Hellfire was a way of saving his own, too. **

It’s too bad this forum doesn’t have a Reputation System - I would’ve given this post an immense amount of Rep!

Much thanks for enlightening all of us.

 

[pnewton]

Much thanks for enlightening all of us.

You might have found something new, but you can only speak for yourself. I saw not one new idea in the post.