Bishop Lefebvregreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
did bishop Lefebvre die excommunicated or did he reconcile with the Vatican before dying? what were his main tenets?
-- ENRIQUE ORTIZ (eaortiz@yahoo.com), April 15, 1999
I don4t know if he died excomunicated, but basically he rejected Vatican II en-bloc. The most media-apparent consequence was his insistence on saying the Mass using the pre-conciliar St. Pius V rite. Questions adressed by the Concile - such as the sacerdotal vocation of lay people, Eccumenism and (surprisingly enough) the infallibility of a Concile in communion with the pope etc- were considered heretical by him, and he regarded every "post-conciliar" popes as hesesiarchs and little less than the antichrist himself. He accompanied these positions with ultra-conservative right-wing temporal politics. He was excomunacated "latae sententiae" when he ordained a new bishop to continue his movement, acting a de-facto schism.The irony of this affair is that (as far as I4m informed) he was the only bishop excommunicated in this pontificate, leaving the auto- intitulated "progressive" catholics without ammunition for some time in their harsh and continuous atack to the "reactionary and pre- conciliar" pope John Paul II !!!
-- Atila Belloquim (atila@choose.com.br), September 06, 1999.
i must admit to having the utmost respect for the calibre of an individual such as bishop levevre. in my most humble oppinion his critique re: the comparison between the novus ordo and the mass of luther should make catholics take notice of what has happened to their church since vat ll. he was offered an arrangement (deal) by the vatican if he would mollify his remarks somewhat and the excommunication would then be removed. from what i understand, at the last minute he rejected the arrangement and subsequently died excommunicated. excommunication from what i understand means, we don't talk to him, not necessarily that he is or was an evil person. cardinals ottaviani and bacci also shared the views of archbishop lefebvre but chose not to tweek the nose of the magisterium. in reading some of the writings over the signature of pope john paul ll, i get the impression that he would like to reverse some of the actions taken by bishoprics around the world but he being the policician he must be in order to retain some assemblance of peace in the church, if not the world, has attempted to reverse the current thinking. pax domini. juan
-- juan (declined@aol.com), September 06, 1999.
Juan - Your insight is very good as I also feel many issues of heresy are political in nature. Many forward thinking people have been " hushed " for centuries as we all know.As I wrote to my own Archbishop once when the diocese was ordered to not read a book The Church leaders must move ahead as we the laity have now the means and ways to be educated and alert. +Peace+
-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), September 07, 1999.
jean: in what manner, might it be suggested, that the church move forward? pax domini
-- juan (declined@aol.com), September 07, 1999.
Juan - Your question made me smile but here goes. If I were Pope:The first thing would to make sure everyone has their favourite ice cream in sufficient quantities to satisfy themselves and lots of coffee. Also priests and nuns are allowed to date with the proviso of not getting into the habit.
Now the Agenda:
First and foremost would be to have seminarians not enter until they have graduate college and worked for a living a number of years perhaps five. This would allow them the insight to know what goes into the baskets and envelopes every Sundy and to realize the constant begging is offensive. Also how to spend money wisely.
Second: An honest approach to homosexuality. To see it as a confused manner of reaching out to be accepted and loved. Not spurned and rejected and then given lip-service as members of the Church. Any active homosexual ordained priest be taken away from his duties until he fully understands and deals with this confusion. In the area of pedophilia any active priest be excused from his duties for life as there is no known cure for this illness.
Thirdly: First year of seminary be involved in a form of pycho- analysis as to why he truly wants to be a priest. So many go there with stars in their eyes and some leave with broken hearts and others stay for the life-benefits. ** See first item on agenda.
Forth: Mandatory parish/hospital/prison/street work to acclimatize the seminarians to again seeing who Christ came for being the common/sick/rejected members of the society. I think of people like Cardinal Spellman and the damage he did to so many young men and women in his dilusion as the American Pope.
Fifth: To have the Bishops given an oral exam every five years on the contents of Vatican Two as more than 80% have not read it in full. Their so called position as shepherd leaves much to be desired in many dioceses. Many are rung climbers much like in the corporate world.
Six: A return to fully respecting Religious Orders male and female rather then giving lip service. So many nuns have a great deal to offer and are being frustrated by the patriarchs in the system.
Seven: Marriage tribunals be made more aware of the compassion and forgiveness of Christ. Moral Theology states to enter marriage one must be aware. So many enter due to emotional needs at an early age resulting in a mid-life crisis.
Eight: Those married in the Church of diffent faiths be fully recognised as a union in the eyes of God The Father through Jesus Christ. To stop the pain of one not being able to share the fullness of the Church. This is hypocrisy at its fullest.
How is that for starters?
-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), September 08, 1999.
Great.Jean, I agree with almost everything you said there. One or two nuances would be a bit different from my point of view, but I4ll leave this for another day. Beware! Ice-cream and coffee harm thy health and may be considered a sin against the fifth commandment! In that psychoanalysis thing of candidates for priesthood, I think you hit home. And as for marriages, I deem more than 90% of them are cannonically invalid today, for most "catholics" see the whole thing as a "beaultiful party". I think the Pope released something about that recently, didn4t he? I think many things you say here are on His agenda.
Juan, I agree with you that much nonsense has been done in the name of "the spirit of the counsil", but this is no privilege of the "progressive". Many things that Lefebrve said about the new rite might be quite right, but this is no excuse to affront the Church Teaching. After all, the council was a valid and lawful council, and binds every catholic to obedience. History shows that pos- conciliar "madness" in quite common, and most counsils only commence to bear good fruit after decades. We must not forget that while we as individuals have a lifespan of 60-80 years, the concepts of "quick" ands "slow" are quite different at the Church level. I think perhaps our sons and grandsons will have a much better perspective and they4ll be able to reap the good harvest sown by Vat II much better than us.
-- Atila Belloquim (atila@choose.com.br), September 08, 1999.
Bravo Atila - Our Church to me is likened to a fine Roman Chariot with four white steeds. Only problem is some fool put square wheels on the thing. All that energy to move forward only a bit. You have a good mind. Please expand on the Coucilar Madness. +Peace
-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), September 08, 1999.
it is very difficult for me to put in a short space, the years of mental anguish caused by the implementation of the liturgical changes in my church. from a reverent sacrifice to our god, we now have an atmosphere of a circus. changing text in ecclasiastical publications in order to express a propagandize version of thought brings tears to my eyes. vat ll was called by john xxlll, who subsequently di. his successor pope paul, as rumor has it, from the internal application of a fatal beverage. john paul ll came on the scene well after the institution of many of these changes. the questions begging answers are, who are those who wrote the changes? for what reason were they propogated when no-one else asked for them? what are their backgrounds? from whence did they come? it is obvious that a lot of fun is gleaned from speculating about the church. read my posts in "anger about catholics", then pick up your newspaper. some fun. to me this is serious business in dire need of "truth." have your search engine look up the prophecy of st. nilis then comment on its accuracy. the tridentine mass, a bloodless sacrifice to your god, demands awe inspiring reverence. i share the oppinion of many that, the novus ordo is not a valid mass.
-- juan (declined@aol.com), September 09, 1999.
i can't believe i wrote that...as when i sat down to respond, i had other thoughts in my mind. however, it was written. they are my thoughts as disjointed as they may be. i also ran out of room. pax domini juan.
-- juan (declined@aol.com), September 09, 1999.
Not at all!As for the validity of a Mass, it must be said that, if a drunken priest buys bread and wine in the supermarket, and than pronounces ONLY the consecration words for both species and than eats and drinks them, this is a VALID MASS (see St. Thomas Summa Theologica), although of course it would be a gross sacrilege.
I have done some research after your considerations, and I think you should really study the following web site, which deals with the use of the tridentine rite:
http://www.rc.net/sandiego/tlmc/docsindx.htm
I was not aware of the Ecclesia Dei et al. documents, and it was a pleasent surprise for me. The Church does not reject the Old Mass, as you can see in the link above!
-- Atila Belloquim (atila@choose.com.br), September 09, 1999.
Thank you, Atila.There has not been nearly enough reflection by so-called "traditionalists" on what is and is not a valid Mass. This notion that the Pope could approve an invalid Mass for the Catholic Church is ridiculous and is actually heretical.
There have been priests locked away in concentration camps who have celebrated Mass using small crumbs of bread saved from their meagre rations and a tiny drop of wine made by fermenting the juice of a raisin mixed with a bit of water. All they had time to do before their captors discovered them was to speak the words of consecration and receive our Lord's Body and Blood. A perfectly valid Mass and one greatly pleasing to God.
In light of that, talk of the Novus Ordo being invalid is pretty shallow. There are lots of obvious problems in the Church these days, but an invalid Mass is not one of them.
-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), September 10, 1999.
sorry dave., your observation regarding the clandestine masses celibrated in concentration camps is correct, however, in the oppinion of many, the words in the consecration of the novus ordo been so altered that it no longer meets the requirements dictated by prior counsils, including but not limited to trent. my forte of life does not include a huge amount of research as i deal in concepts. the minutia i leave to others. i do not have to be sold on something in which i all-ready believe. hoever, q) should i attend the new mass? a.) several persons have asked whether they sould stop attending the novus ordo. many attend such masses because a traditional latin mass is not available in their area or because they feel an obligation to their local parish. this is a decision that is fraught with much difficulty, but such people take solace from the fact that many catholics are simutaneously struggling with the very same issue, now more than ever as the american catholic church departs more and more from the traditional latin mass and introduces more and more novelties into the church's central worship. there is more. thirty years after the fact, the selling of the changes attributed to vatican ll continues. the inclusive language in ecclesiasticl documents have so altered the meaning so as to result in the withdrawl of the vatican imprimature. dave, come back to the church in which we were baptised. we must seek truth. is truth what someone says it is this year? will it be something else that some-one says it is next year? in the pope's encyclical "veritatis splendor" he asks for truth. truth will set you free. pax domini juan
-- juan (declined@aol.com), September 10, 1999.
Juan - Like I am a conceptual thinker and is good enogh for me. to split hairs is left to those who are able to amuse themselves with that form of activity.The recent Asian Bishop's Conferance brought into focus a very deep concern of the Church being mass to be said and presented in the venecular. A native of Beijing would have difficult time in the conceptual aspects of a Roman Empire and the politics along with the Latin Rite.
My hope is all peoples will be able to acknowledge in a cognitive manner the Christ figure. The Jesuits attempted this in China and it did not take root. Perhaps a more understanding approach will bear fruit.
In addition the North American Indian did not forsake his " religion " for the consumption of a man. In India the same thing. WE do have a lotof work ahead of us as Christian without inposing our standards on to other cultures. " Be they yellow black of white they are precous in His sight - Jesus loves the little chidren of the world. "
-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), September 11, 1999.
Please see the following two excellent Web sites for definitive articles on the validity of the revised Mass:http://pweb.netcom.com/~matt1618/TRADIT.html
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ389.HTM
Juan, the Holy Father cannot deliver to the Catholic Church an invalid Mass and so deprive millions of Catholics valid sacraments. If you believe in the indefectibility of the Church (and if you are a Catholic you are bound to so believe, de fide) then you should acknowledge that what you are asserting is impossible. The Holy Spirit would not allow it.
Are there abuses? Yes, of course. Is the Second Vatican Council the cause of the abuses. No, of course not. Ecumenical Councils of the Church are protected by the Holy Spirit. The flight of so-called "traditionalists" from Vatican II is a loss of faith and indeed, alas, too often a separation from the Catholic Church.
So to you I say, come back to the Church.
God bless,
-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), September 11, 1999.
in 1965 i sat on my couch, watching and listening to an emmissary of his emminence archbiship fulton j. sheen answer question regarding the implementation of the liturgical changes attributed to vat ll. this was a panel discussion eminating from chicago, illinois. it was stated "we are prepared to write off a generation in order to fullfill these changes." at that time it was my conclusion that my church left me. since the inception of the internet, i have been made aware of the fact not only was i not alone, but there exists a large number of "write offs" such as myself that are desirous of bringing back to the latin and eastern rite, the revisionists who are responsible for this catastrophe. i laud you and many others for your committment to the faith but truth must will out. papal encyclicals have been repleat with calls to return to the latin rite in a political way. i must accept the possibility that the pope is aware of the many potential problems that would arise from a direct confrontation with the revisionists and seems to be seeking a long term solution. if many did not have the education via the latin rite, your position is noted as you just don't know as you were not taught. the church has left us "write offs" and i think it past time it return to us. p.s. j.b. and atila, i am not ignoring you. pax domini.
-- juan (declined@aol.com), September 12, 1999.
jan.24,2003anyone promulgating the traditional mass of the roman catholic church, which is back by same, including archbishop lefevbre, can hardly be considered to be wrong. what is wrong with novus ordo, is that its' roots, in vat. ii., were strongly intertwined with 8-9 protestant ministers attending the vat.ii. council, whose advise regarding the traditional mass, was to change it so that it would not be offensive to protestants! the resultant effect, was what we have today in the novus ordo, a quasi social get-together, which is anything but the mass as was always supported by the roman catholic church and ordered to be and not to change by papal order-dogma (council of trent). it was also changed so as to bring back to mother church all of those protestants, etc., who had strayed into other religions; however as a whole, that too failed! we who practice our faith and attend the traditional mass, are still maintaining the appropriate respect for the mass, in dress and attendance mannerisms, the same as was done prior to vat. ii. so tell me, how can that be wrong???compared with that novus ordo mass??? pax domini, deano gamble
-- clarence deano gamble (clarenceterp@aol.com), January 24, 2003.
Well said Clarence. I and others have been saying the same thing, in different words, but the results are always the same. This camp seems to be divided between pre-vatican 2 Catholics, and Post Vatican 2 Catholics. It is sad that Vatican 2 caused such a split. I have a quote from Bisop Sheen, made in 1967. At that time he said, that he would not send a child to a catholic college. He said to send them to a secular college, where they could defend the faith, rather than lose their faith at these so called catholic colleges.
-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 24, 2003.
And then there's me, Ed. I'm just a plain ol' Catholic. :-)
-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), January 24, 2003.
Indeed you are a Catholic Christine, but one that has probably never been to a traditional Mass.
-- Ed Richards (loztra@aol.com), January 24, 2003.
Stereotyping, Ed?I'm 44 years old, which means I attended nothing BUT the Traditional Mass through age 11.
My dad is a church organist, and everything I know about Gregorian Chant I learned from him.
Plus, as I've stated here before, the first Sunday of every month I attend the Traditional Indult Mass at the San Fernando (CA) Mission. I've also attended it at the San Juan Capistrano and Buenaventura Missions, as well as at St. Mary's in Huntington Beach and the Carmelite chapel in Duarte.
May I offer you a slice of "humble pie" ? ;-)
-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), January 24, 2003.
Dear Ed,The original traditional Mass was in the vernacular. Then came the traditional Mass in Greek for a few centuries. Then the traditional Mass in Latin. Now the tradition is back to the vernacular. Which traditional Mass are you referring to?
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 24, 2003.
Dear Ed,One additional point. Vatican II did not cause a split. Catholics resistant to the work of the Holy Spirit in Vatican II caused a split between themselves and the Church.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 24, 2003.
To make that point, Paul, you have to specifically point out exactly what, in detail, was the work of the Holy Spirit there, and how exactly we know that it is the work of the Holy Spirit based on the Deposit of the Faith, and exactly how certain Catholics are resistant to it, on principle; exactly what the split consists of and what are the operative principles at work in that split, and how those who split on the wrong side of it are where they are based on the contradictions of which doctrines.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 24, 2003.
Christine, I'llhave a slice of that humble pie right now, It'l go good with the coffee I'm going to have. And Paul, I'm referring to the Mass without the clowns. They are not admitted in costume, in our church, even if they are priests. By the way, I just read of a priest, drove his moorcycle, down the center aisle of the cathedral. to start the Mass. Bishop didn't utter a word of protest. This is quite recently. Our poor guys have to walk in.
-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 24, 2003.
SorryPaul, that was a ,cheap shot, although the facts are true. Why do these Bishops tolerate this outlandish behaviour?Christine, is another story, she'll come back with a topper!
-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 24, 2003.
Emerald,To make that point, Paul, you have to specifically point out exactly what, in detail, was the work of the Holy Spirit there, and how exactly we know that it is the work of the Holy Spirit based on the Deposit of the Faith, and exactly how certain Catholics are resistant to it, on principle; exactly what the split consists of and what are the operative principles at work in that split, and how those who split on the wrong side of it are where they are based on the contradictions of which doctrines.
O.K. Emerald, show me this data proving that the Tridentine mass is valid. Around A.D. 600 there was a MAJOR change in the canon, either prove the changes were warranted by the standards you've set above or admit the whole 1400 years of Tridentine worship were invalid.
Kind of a stupid thing to ask? What do you think? Try applying the same to VatII. If you are a lone dissenter, it's not up to the Pope and Bishops to prove everything to YOUR satisfaction, some people have hardened their hearts to the Holy Spirit and will not listen to anything other than themselves REGARDLESS of what is said to them. This can even happen with Bishops or Popes. Look at Lefebvre, he reneged on an agreement with the Pope and directly disobeyed his legitimate authority, and still claimed to be Correct! Unbelievable.
When all the church goes one way, and you insist on going the other, it's up to YOU to prove to everyone else you're not the one who'se lost, and not for everyone else to prove to you that they aren't.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 24, 2003.
Hey Ed - Give that poor priest the benefit of the doubt! Maybe his car broke down and he had to hitch a ride with a Hell's Angel! ;-)
-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), January 24, 2003.
Christine, this guy had everything, leather jacket, tatoos, whiskers, et al. Singing, "comin' in on a bike, and a prayer"
-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 24, 2003.
Yowza! Did he have a gee-tar too? ;-)
-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), January 24, 2003.
"O.K. Emerald, show me this data proving that the Tridentine mass is valid."Data? I hate data. =) Valid? Do you mean valid or illicit? Where did I mention the Tridentine Mass? I'm not sure what is being asked, or moreso, how reference to the Tridentine Mass relates to what I said. This was the claim:
"Catholics resistant to the work of the Holy Spirit in Vatican II caused a split between themselves and the Church."
It seems to me that there are several hidden premises involved in the statement, and I wish to draw them out so that I can see how they would relate to or affect any particular conclusions drawn from the statement.
"Around A.D. 600 there was a MAJOR change in the canon, either prove the changes were warranted by the standards you've set above or admit the whole 1400 years of Tridentine worship were invalid."
I have set up no standards that I would call uniquely my own; I'm not sure why I'm interested in proving the changes were warranted or unwarranted. Why?
"Kind of a stupid thing to ask? What do you think?"
I don't know... it doesn't seems to apply, though, to the nature of the understanding I am trying to achieve.
"Try applying the same to VatII."
I can't; I don't know what my agenda would be there.
(continued...)
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 24, 2003.
(continued...)"If you are a lone dissenter, it's not up to the Pope and Bishops to prove everything to YOUR satisfaction..."
I am a dissenter? Just for accuracy's sake, would you mean "heretic"? The term dissenter seems uniquely recent, as far as I can tell. I'm curious if anyone can trace the usage of this term. In the meantime, I would suppose you to mean "heretic", or perhaps "schismatic". Another term doesn't come immediately to me. Trust that I am neither.
"...some people have hardened their hearts to the Holy Spirit and will not listen to anything other than themselves REGARDLESS of what is said to them."
Yes; I believe this is the "unforgivable sin" you were asking about in another thread. The resoluteness in sin and rejection of grace to the death.
"This can even happen with Bishops or Popes. Look at Lefebvre, he reneged on an agreement with the Pope and directly disobeyed his legitimate authority..."
Seems he did disobey the Pope, so it would seem. The dynamics of what took place are unclear to me. Was I promoting Lefebvre though? I don't recall doing that.
Would it be, though, a valid argument if someone where to use this fact of disobedience on Lefebvre's part to attempt to valid any point of modernism?
(continued...)
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 24, 2003.
(continued...)"When all the church goes one way, and you insist on going the other, it's up to YOU to prove to everyone else you're not the one who's lost, and not for everyone else to prove to you that they aren't."
Do you mean me me or you as in the universal you as in everybody who might do this? Do you mean 'me' as in Emerald? I'm not going anywhere.
The Church "goes" nowhere in a direction, unless you mean up I guess as in a symbolic reference to salvation... the people go up; the Church and does not evolve in a direction, if this is what you mean. So completely documentable to the point of tears.
(continued...)
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 24, 2003.
(continued...)"...and not for everyone else to prove to you that they aren't."
Proving things... to what end? Me proving things? The ways of man. Proving things to others, to a body of people so as to achieve approval? This would be somewhat akin to achieving truth measurable by concensus. This brings to mind a body of the faithful which sways or flows by some other principle, or principle of other, and with truth being measured by relativity of one member to another.
What I see is each member achieving unity with each other by means of each being afixed to truth, immutable truth. Hidden membership in a mystical body, the body of Christ the Church. The one Catholic Church, being founded upon the Rock, the unchangeable, the new and eternal covenant.
Remember those progressives, maybe you've seen them, that believe that by coming together they "form" the Eucharist? You don't buy that, I'm sure, and I don't either... and you know that it is by means of the Eucharist that the faithful achieve unity, through the blood of Christ.
That tricky principle of achieved unity apart from Christ and the Truth can be found at use elsewhere as well. It is used in many other places as it is a strategy that seems useful to the enemy.
I go to the indult. I'm not sure... does this fact help or does it breed more questions?
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 24, 2003.
No Christine. It wasn't a geetar, it was a banjo, and he was beltin' out the theme from "Deliverance". I suppose it's his prayer for salvation.
-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 24, 2003.
Emerald,Valid? Do you mean valid or illicit?
Sorry, I meant "licit". After thinking about it (and Chris' posts) I must agree that once ordained, a priest can perform a very illegal mass, but still say mass. That is a real problem, if a bishop "goes bad" and consecrates more bishops, there can be no end to schisms of any ilk.
On the rest, I'm not sure if you really want a point by point answer, but I'm guessing "not" as my next sentences are hopefully a better explanation. My point was that every time in the recent past that VatII comes up it *seems* like there is some schismatic or one who sympathizes with their cause saying that VatII yielded an INFERIOR mass than was present previously. If the Holy Spirit is with the Church, this cannot be true, the schismatics are wrong. If it IS true, there's no point to being Catholic, (and if that is true, probably no point in being Christian). That is the point I was trying to make, you may have your preferences (I prefer the Latin mass myself) but to say one is INFERIOR really is to me incompatible with being a Catholic.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 26, 2003.
Oh, in fairness I should add that my wife can't STAND the Tridentine rite as she feels it does not engender the same feeling of a Christian community that the Novus Ordo does, but rather feels like individuals all individually praying to God. Me, I like the time to reflect and pray, but I must admit I see her point, the nice thing about the Tridentine rite is you won't be bothered by your neighbors...Our kids end up going to both. Now THAT is a full exposure to the Faith.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 26, 2003.
What I'm pursuing here, Frank, is not really to uphold a particular proposition, so much as to draw out people's conceptions of how it is they think that the Holy Spirit guides the Church.It is important because in many of the discussions revolving around these issues, people's assumptions or conceptions of how it is that the Holy Spirit operates is evoked very heavily and is very much woven into what makes up their conclusions.
Paul posits his idea about some of the causality above; he says:
"Catholics resistant to the work of the Holy Spirit in Vatican II caused a split between themselves and the Church."
That sounds good to most people probably, but I'm wondering if a barrage of properly targeted questions may show that we really cannot pin down the Holy Spirit and use Him in such ways to disprove others by way of argument. In other words, in making argument, it has about as much convincing weight as those people who go around saying "God spoke to me". No personal offense meant here, Paul. But it presumes that we can fathom the mind and ways of the Holy Spirit, and can document them for use in syllogisms, such as:
"If the Holy Spirit is with the Church, this cannot be true, the schismatics are wrong."
(con't...)
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 26, 2003.
(con't...)The most interesting thing I think I've found so far is that, of all people, the sedevacantists use this very same argument, believe it or not. Or at least and argument based on very similiar premises. They figure that the pope is a heretic for whatever reasons, and because they believe this they believe that the Holy Spirit cannot be with him, but... they believe the Holy Spirit promised he would always be with the Church, therefore... and here it is... the pope is not really the pope. False conclusion, I'm sure you would agree.
What this stems from, from what I kind tell, is that there is something missing in people's concepts of how the Holy Spirit guides His Church. Of course the Holy Spirit will be with us always; it is promised. But to use this statement as a premise in an argument... well hmmmm... it leads me to wonder if people might not have a full or proper understanding of how the ordinary and supreme magisterium operates.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 26, 2003.
Dear Emerald,I see no valid comparison between the statement "the Holy Spirit speaks through Councils of the Church", and the statement "God spoke to me". Subjectively, an individual might be equally convinced of the validity of both statements - or even more convinced of the second one. Objectively however there is every reason for certainty regarding the first statement; but substantial reason for doubt regarding the second, even while recognizing the possibility that it might be objectively true.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 26, 2003.
"I see no valid comparison between the statement "the Holy Spirit speaks through Councils of the Church", and the statement "God spoke to me"."I think you're right; my point is though, the way they used by people in argumentation, particular by those of post-conciliar leanings towards those of traditionalist leanings, carries about the same weight in the power to convince or nail down the truth.
What I'm hinting at is that one could inadvertantly begin to attach specific meanings, concepts, directions, etc, as manifestations of "The Holy Spirit speaking", and perhaps attribute particular things and ideas to Him that may or may not be actually one of His truths.
Sure God speaks to people, but perhaps this or that person's claim that speaks to them is not the case.
Sure the Holy Spirit guides the Church, but perhaps this or that person's claim as to exactly what is a manifestion of the Holy Spirit's guidance is not necessarily not the case.
It is a tall order to say exactly what the Holy Spirit says.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 26, 2003.
For an individual it is not just a tall order - it is an impossibility. For the Magisterium on the other hand, it is a divine guarantee (whatsoever you bind ...). The only way an individual can have any authority behind his claims is to claim the teaching of the Church as his own.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 26, 2003.
"For an individual it is not just a tall order - it is an impossibility."But, in a certain manner, you just did the impossible when you cited failure to adhere to the Holy Spirit's intentions as the cause of specific division in the Church. The reason is because you tend to infer specific knowledge of the intent of the Holy Spirit to point to a conclusion.
"The only way an individual can have any authority behind his claims is to claim the teaching of the Church as his own."
Right. This also includes the magisterium itself.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 26, 2003.
I think you have it backwards - the Church claims the teaching of the Magisterium as its own. The Magisterium doesn't get its teaching from the Church. It gets its teaching from the Holy Spirit, and delivers it to the Church. The Church has no other access to the Holy Spirit, on doctrinal matters. The Magisterium is not distinct from the Church, but is the Church's own teaching authority, through which its inspired doctrine flows into it.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 26, 2003.
"The Magisterium doesn't get its teaching from the Church. It gets its teaching from the Holy Spirit, and delivers it to the Church."Aha! I believe that is not accurate; there is the source of it.
btw, what is up with this server? It hardly lets me post without an error.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 26, 2003.
Thanks, Paul, that is exactly what I was looking for from you, the hidden premises involved.I believe those premises are not the perennial teachings of the Church on the matter.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 26, 2003.
Dear Emerald,I don't understand your problem here. "Church" and "Magisterium" are not competing entities. Magisterium is a function of the Church, and exists only within the Church, its very own divinely-ordained, infallible teaching authority. How can you say the Magisterium gets its teaching FROM the Church, when the Church possesses no doctrine that did not come to it through the Magisterium? Without the Magisterium, the Church has no infallible doctrine at all. It still might have doctrines, as Protestant churches do - but like specifically Protestant doctrine they would not be divinely revealed, or infallible. The Holy Spirit is the source of the Church's truth, and the Magisterium is the channel of that truth.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 26, 2003.
""Church" and "Magisterium" are not competing entities."That's exactly my point. Some proposals put forth today are most definitely in competition with doctrines clarified in the past, giving the appearance of competition.
Many of the new ways of looking at things are forced into use erroneously as doctrine when they are certainly not, and do not at all carry that character. The most common justification cited is the influence of the Holy Spirit through the magisterium. Those who question are said to be in opposition to the Holy Spirit or the magisterium.
The Holy Spirit, in turn, has items of understanding attributed to Him that lack foundation. I mean, look at the understanding that we have actually arrived at:
"The Magisterium is not distinct from the Church, but is the Church's own teaching authority, through which its inspired doctrine flows into it."
I mean, looky here... we have doctine flowing into the Church. Doctrine? We have always had the doctrine which we have always protected and defended. Now we have doctrine (new doctrine? more doctrine?) flowing into the Church. What is the new devilry? This is evolution; this is modernism.
"Without the Magisterium, the Church has no infallible doctrine at all."
No; if one were to kill ever last one of the magisterium so that not one was left, we still would have infallible doctrine. Acts of the supreme magisterium do not propose new doctrines, but seek to clarify what already is.
(more...)
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 26, 2003.
(more...)"The Holy Spirit is the source of the Church's truth, and the Magisterium is the channel of that truth."
No it isn't; it channels nothing. It defends doctrine. It upholds doctrine. It clarifies doctrine. It channels nothing; it proposes no new doctrines. If so, then abra cadabra, behold the new church, the new doctrines.
The way in which the Holy Spirit protects and guides the Church is not in the proposal of new doctrines, but in the prevention of the age old original doctrines by preventing alien "doctrines" from issuing forth in the name of the infallible magisterium. Read Pascendi.
To date, this has not happened. Many goofy proposals have been hiked up the flagpole, but none have been issued with the full weight of authority requiring assent by the faithful.
Of course many have proposed that they in fact do require assent by the faithful though they violate the law of noncontradition, but most claims are easily dismissed by adherence to the Deposit of the Faith; all such claims fail the attempts to indentify them as a genuine development of doctrine.
In all this, Paul, I in no way attack your own personal loyalty and membership in the body of Christ or your personal devotion... but on the theological matter at hand, I think we are getting something out in the open.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 26, 2003.
ooops."The way in which the Holy Spirit protects and guides the Church is not in the proposal of new doctrines, but in the prevention of the age old original doctrines by preventing alien "doctrines" from issuing forth in the name of the infallible magisterium."
...should read:
The way in which the Holy Spirit protects and guides the Church is not in the proposal of new doctrines, but in the protection of the age old original doctrines by preventing alien "doctrines" from issuing forth in the name of the infallible magisterium.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 26, 2003.
Emerald,It seems what you are saying is: "If the Magesterium proposes a change and an individual doesn't like it, they can reject it if THEY don't think it comes from the Holy Spirit". Is that about right? Do you believe an individual should be able to determine *for themselves* which teachings are valid and which aren't?
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 27, 2003.
""If the Magesterium proposes a change and an individual doesn't like it, they can reject it if THEY don't think it comes from the Holy Spirit". Is that about right?"Not really; first I would ask if the change is liturgical or doctrinal. If liturgical, certain changes can be made, sure, but if it is doctrinal, that's a whole different matter.
Doctrines cannot be changed no more than the fact the two and two equal four can be changed, because it is truth. In fact, according to Aquinas, we are to hold doctrine to be truth with even more tenacity than 2+2=4 due to the its having been divinely inspired, imparted to us as revelation from God.
So I would say, or rather the Church has always taught, that the magisterium cannot change doctrine. Is there some deeper understanding that can be procured via the magisterium regarding those same doctrines? Yes, but if those understandings are in any way in contradiction, they can never be construed as a "deeper understanding" of that same doctrine.
The work of the magisterium is in no way to create and promulgate new doctrines, but only to safeguard and promulgate the Deposit of the Faith, and to make clarifications which reaffirm what the Church has always taught as the need arises.
"Do you believe an individual should be able to determine *for themselves* which teachings are valid and which aren't?"
All the teachings of the Church are valid. Naturally, if an individual encounters concepts and ideas which are labelled "teachings of the Church" but are clearly in opposition to and in contradiction with the Deposit of the Faith, certainly the individual is under obligation to condemn them as such.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 27, 2003.
Here's the way I look at it, Frank, by means of a stupid little story I wrote up today and tried to post earler. I'll see if I can get the whole thing up this time. _____There was a rock and a set of blueprints, and a house was built upon the foundation of the rock using this set of blueprints.
The house over the years proved to be of solid construction, withstanding earthquakes and storms, wind and water, and even fire. Those safe and warm within its walls never ceased to be concerned for those who were en route to it, and wished them a safe journey to its doors and welcomed them at the gate of the fence upon their arrival with thanks and good cheer.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 27, 2003.
At times repairs were needing to be made… the beams would sag and termites would eat away at its foundations, but timely repairs were always made by those who lived in the house and loved the house, always in accordance with the original blueprints. Styles of furniture and drapery and paint & wallpaper would come and go, but the house in its layout and design would always remain the same.People would come to visit and to explore its secret passages, and in the great dining hall would partake in discussions of the great ideas well into the night.
Despite its great age, the house was structurally as sound as the day it was built by the tireless efforts of the original men who knew and loved the Architect, and knew His intentions and were loyal to Him and His blueprints. As these men passed on, so they passed to others the charge to care for this house and to be loyal to the blueprints and to the design from the mind of the Architect.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 27, 2003.
At length, it came to pass that the house was less frequently visited as in the past; that the house seemed so empty… and what a pity, that such a fine piece of art and architecture be so wasted, so unused, so unappreciated. So many rooms lie waiting for some soul to occupy them, to assist in the upkeep of the house, to partake in the supper in the grand dining hall next to the fire, to greet the newcomers at the gate of the fence.Of the visitors who did come, many seemed more interested in the fine discussions in the dining hall than in devoting the necessary attentions to the loving upkeep and maintenance of the house.
“Perhaps something should be done to attract more visitors”, some of the occupants mused, in course of one of these fine discussions in the grand dining hall one evening, as the talk had drifted from things unseen to the affairs of men.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 27, 2003.
So out went the invitations. So confident were they in a healthy response to their invitations that they became concerned about the house itself; about its ability to accommodate what they fancied would be such a great and joyous response to the invitations. They turned their attention to the house itself and began to reason amongst themselves. Is the grand dining hall too small? Are there enough rooms?A quick check of the basement revealed that many of the supporting beams were failing because of rot and termites. It had been so long since anyone had checked down here. Only a few people had remained in the house these days and occupied its rooms day to day that they could hardly keep up with all the maintenance. And surely the wallpaper and the colors of the paints were not up to par. Everyone agreed to this much. But then other ideas and desires began to surface.
“Well,” some said, “since such extensive work is to be done in so many structural areas of this fine house, perhaps this is an opportunity for us to make modifications to its design and layout so as to accommodate all these guests which, no doubt, will be arriving at any time now.”
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 27, 2003.
Now this proposal bothered some of the grand houses’ occupants greatly. Others thought it was a fantastic and good idea, and by and by, so it was agreed to by most.Renovations began immediately and in earnest. Dust flew everywhere, and the noise and racket made it virtually impossible for the a few remaining loyal occupants of this grand house to sleep or even carry on their daily duties unhindered. These occupants so wanted to help and to welcome more newcomers, but they could not shake the doubts they had about the way the remodeling efforts were being managed.
It soon became clear that this was a very, very large undertaking… outside help was needed, no doubt. Soon came the help in the form of strangers, hired hands, unfamiliar with the history and the blueprints of the house. They brandished all manner of opinions as to style and construction methods and solutions for a quick completion to the remodel, but none made any attempt to reference the original blueprints.
Meanwhile, though the invitations went out long ago, no one had yet to respond. “No matter”, some of the occupants said to themselves, “The word will get around. With these changes, people will clamor to view our grand house, so remodeled. Rebuild it, and they will come.”
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 27, 2003.
As the confusion of the remodeling efforts continued day to day, the doubts that some had originally began to fester, and the confidence the others had in the remodeling effort seem to creep into new areas of the house… some even wanted to add rooms to accommodate more guests and others wanted to even perform demolition of other rooms, as they did not seem adequate or useful anymore.Some were so disillusioned that they left the house. They reasoned to themselves that this house was not even the same house anymore; that the original architect and the original builders would never recognize this house as the same house as the original. Of these, some left the house and the property altogether and sought to build a new house in a new place, having hastily made copies of the blueprints before they left.
Others camped out in the lawns and garden areas and waited, confused as what to do. But they refused to leave the property and to go beyond its gates. Others yet retreated into the upper rooms, away from the noise and clamor and arguments and strangers.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 27, 2003.
The renovators, though, pushed ever onward, ever so eagerly insisting that remodeling efforts, though not to be found in the original blueprints, were certainly in keeping with the general principles of what the Architect and the original builders had in mind with the original intent of the house. “And the new building materials are better in so many ways, are they not? Look what progress has been made in methods and materials. And besides, the building inspector has assured us that all is structurally sound.”But then there were some who hovered around the remodeling process, pestering the workers and other house members with endless questions and concerns and complaints. These questioners were, in turn, leveled with all manner of accusation by the renovators as to their intentions, their duties, even their loyalty to the Architect, even as to their membership and welcome within the household.
All the while, few of the invited guests arrived. Those that did appear at the gate in the fence, though, mostly came without invitation and from the waysides, and the handful of guests who did come with invitation in hand often asked, in doubt, if they had arrived at the proper address…
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 27, 2003.