Translate

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

1968, HUMANAE VITAE, VIET NAM, RIOTS, PROTEST, SIT-INS AND DISSENT--THE GLORY DAYS OF THOSE PRIESTS AND SEMINARIANS NOW IN THEIR 60'S AND OLDER!

My First Comments: (my second ones at the end)Cardinal James F. Stafford was the auxiliary bishop of Baltimore when I was in the seminary at St. Mary's, Roland Park (1976-80). The events he describes below happened in Baltimore in 1968, only eight years prior to my arriving there to begin seminary training. Many of the priests that he describes as dissenters where sons of St. Mary Seminary, the Cadillac of seminaries in this country and the oldest seminary of any religion in this country. It is said that the Naval Academy in Annapolis borrowed some of its structure and discipline for their students from St. Mary Seminary prior to 1968. 1968 was a pivotal year not only for Baltimore but also for St. Mary Seminary and for the rest of the Church throughout the world. We have yet to recover from the worst of its effect. We still have aging priests and laity who remember 1968 with great fondness and associate it with the euphemism "spirit of Vatican II."

Pope Benedict XVI, who during the council and afterward would have been considered a progressive priest and bishop disavowed much of what was being touted as the "spirit of Vatican II" progressiveness after he experience student riots against the Church around 1968 as well. Thus we now have two camps from that period of time who are still living. Pope Benedict and Cardinal Stafford represent one camp who was awakened to the disaster of Vatican II's "spirit" fomented by angry dissent and others like Frs. Hans Kung and Charles Curran and their admirers who still carry that 1968 torch of church politics of slash and burn! This divided Catholicism is at war with each other, a spiritual war, for the life and soul of the Catholic Church. But Jesus is victorious and the forces of dissent from the truth were doomed from the very beginning. History repeats itself and the outcome is always the same. Orthodoxy, (right belief) and Orthopraxis (right practice) always wins.


YOU CAN READ CARDINAL STAFFORD'S COMPLETE ARTICLE BY PRESSING THIS SENTENCE. The following is an excerpt:

English historian Paul Johnson dubs 1968 as the year of “America’s Suicide Attempt.” It included the Tet offensive in Vietnam with its tsunami-like effects in American life and politics, the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Memphis, Tennessee; the tumult in American cities on Palm Sunday weekend; and the June assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy in Southern California. It was also the year in which Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical letter on transmitting human life, Humanae Vitae (HV). He met immediate, premeditated, and unprecedented opposition from some American theologians and pastors. By any measure, 1968 was a bitter cup….

The summer of 1968 is a record of God’s hottest hour. The memories are not forgotten; they are painful. They remain vivid like a tornado in the plains of Colorado. They inhabit the whirlwind where God’s wrath dwells. In 1968, something terrible happened in the Church. Within the ministerial priesthood, ruptures developed everywhere among friends which never healed. And the wounds continue to affect the whole Church. The dissent, together with the leaders’ manipulation of the anger they fomented, became a supreme test. It changed fundamental relationships within the Church. It was a Peirasmòs [i.e. a trial, a test of faith] for many.

During the height of the 1968 Baltimore riots following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., I had made an emergency call to [an] inner-city pastor…He described the view from the rectory while speaking on the phone…his parish was becoming a raging inferno. He said, “From here I see nothing but fire burning everywhere. Everything has been set ablaze. The Church and rectory are untouched thus far.” He did not wish to leave or be evacuated. His voice betrayed disillusionment and fear. Later we learned that the parish buildings survived.

Memories of the physical violence in the city in April 1968 [following the king Assassination] helped me to name what had happened in August 1968 [in the explosion of dissent against Humanae Vitae]. Ecclesial dissent can become a kind of spiritual violence in its form and content.

What do I mean? Look at the results of the two events. After the violent 1968 Palm Sunday weekend, civil dialogue in metropolitan Baltimore broke down and came to a stop. It took a back seat to open anger and recriminations between whites and blacks. The…priests’ August gathering [against Humane Vitae] gave rise to its own ferocious acrimony. Conversations among the clergy…became contaminated with fear. Suspicions among priests were chronic. Fears abounded. And they continue. The Archdiocesan priesthood lost something of the fraternal whole which Baltimore priests had known for generations. 1968 marked the hiatus of the generational communio….Priests’ fraternity had been wounded. Pastoral dissent had attacked the Eucharistic foundation of the Church. Its nuptial significance had been denied. Some priests saw bishops as nothing more than Roman mannequins.

Cardinal Shehan later reported that on Monday morning, August 5, he “was startled to read in the Baltimore Sun that seventy-two priests of the Baltimore area had signed the Statement of Dissent.” What he later called “the years of crisis” began for him during that hot… August evening in 1968….Its unhinging consequences continue. Abusive, coercive dissent has become a reality in the Church and subjects her to violent, debilitating, unproductive, chronic controversies.

The violence of the initial disobedience was only a prelude to further and more pervasive violence. …Contempt for the truth, whether aggressive or passive, has become common in Church life. Dissenting priests, theologians and laypeople have continued their coercive techniques. From the beginning, the press has used them to further its own serpentine agenda.


My final comments: Cardinal Stafford's last three paragraphs above shows where we are with liberal-progressives in the Church and right-wing neo-conservatives. These two groups although on opposite ends of the spectrum were born of the theology of dissent and contempt for the Magisterium of the Church that reached its birthing in 1968 (it was in the womb during the Council and until about 1968.)

Neo-conservatives say they hold to the true teachings of the Church in the areas of faith and morals, but they undermine the bishops of the Church too, who don't agree with their agenda, such as those in the SSXP movement and their admirers. But what I contend is you can't have a faithful Catholicism without the living Magisterium of the Church, the Pope and bishops in union with him. You can't have orthodoxy but only heterodoxy with out them even when there is only tacit acknowledgment of their role in the Church. These neo-conservatives fall short of heresy but are heterodox nonetheless.

The same is true of the progressive heterodox. Although they tend toward heresy, often they fall short of actual heresy by their heterodox maneuvering. They dispise the the pope and bishops as do the neo-conservatives but for different reasons

Both heterdox groups tend toward schism although the neo-conservatives are more organized, unified and passionate in the heterodoxy and thus pose a greater threat to actual schism than do progressives who are disorganized, far from united and lack viable leadership.

Both heterdox groups were born in the 1960's! Need I say more?

Heterodoxy in the Roman Catholic Church refers to views that differ from strictly orthodox views, but retain sufficient faithfulness to the original doctrine to avoid heresy. Many Roman Catholics profess some heterodox views, either on doctrinal or social issues.[3] For example, the orthodox Catholic position on unbaptized infants is that their fate is uncertain, and "the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1261). A heterodox Catholic might profess the belief that unbaptized infants are offered the option to accept or deny salvation by God at their judgment. The belief is not orthodox, as the Church does not profess a belief as to what happens to unbaptized infants; however, it is also not heresy, as the Church accepts that such a scenario might be possible. By contrast, a denial of the doctrine of "Original Sin" (thereby negating the necessity of baptism for children) or Papal Infallibility would be labeled heretical because such ideas contradict the dogmas of the Roman church.


26 comments:

Templar said...

Neo-conservatives say they hold to the true teachings of the Church in the areas of faith and morals, but they undermine the bishops of the Church too, who don't agree with their agenda, such as those in the SSXP movement and their admirers.

****The SSPX are NOT Neo-Conservative, they are Traditionalists. In what way do Traditionalists undermine the authority of Bishops? Cite examples.

But what I contend is you can't have a faithful Catholicism without the living Magisterium of the Church, the Pope and bishops in union with him. You can't have orthodoxy but only heterodoxy with out them even when there is only tacit acknowledgment of their role in the Church.

*****I know of no one who would call themselves a Traditional Catholic who would disagree with this statement. If you believe Traditionalists fall in this category please cite examples. The SSPX is more "in Union" with the Pope than the vast majority of US Bishops and their Dioceses.

Blindly following MEN who failed in their obligation to hand down the Faith they were taught is not obedience, it is an abrogation of our God given free will to see the right as we know it to be right, and to defend the Faith from all it's enemies. Satan operates within the Church, we know this to be true because our Lady of Fatima and other apparitions have told us so. We are therefore obliged to look twice, double check, and loyally question what we are told to insure it is consistent with the Faith as it has always been.

To paraphrase The Bard: "Every man's duty is the Church, but every man's soul is his own; for we purpose not our souls when we purpose our duty."

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Templar you are simply wrong about the SSPX--they are not only traditionalist but they are also heterdox! Read on for documentation:
The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) is an international traditionalist Catholic organisation, founded in 1970 by the French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The society's official Latin name is Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii X, meaning "Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X".

Pope Benedict XVI has declared that, for doctrinal rather than disciplinary reasons, the SSPX has no canonical status in the Catholic Church and, because of that lack of canonical status, the ministries exercised by its ministers are not legitimate in the Church.[1] However, the society maintains that the Holy See is pursuing a two-pronged policy (an official de jure policy contradicted by de facto actions) and that the Holy Father has taken concrete actions that run contrary to the written statement, oftentimes recognizing the legal and valid existence and ministry of the Society priests.[2]

Tensions between the society and the Holy See reached their height in 1988, when Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops against the orders of Pope John Paul II. However, dialogue between the society and the Holy See has been ongoing for some years, and in January 2009 the Holy See remitted the excommunications of the Society's bishops that it had declared at the time of the 1988 consecrations[3] and expressed the hope that all members of the society would follow this up by speedily returning to full communion with the Church.[4][5]

In June 2009, Father Franz Schmidberger said that the SSPX is moving in the "direction of a personal prelature", somewhat similar to the situation of Opus Dei.[6] Father Schmidberger's view has not been confirmed by the Holy See, which sees the society as still requiring "to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church ... the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry."[7] In May, 2011, Vatican Press Office Director, Fr. Federico Lombardi reaffirmed the March 2009 statement made by Pope Benedict XVI: "As long as the Society [of St. Pius X] does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church...Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers...do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." [8]

Like their liberal, progressive counterparts, they skew Church teachings while avoiding heresy outright as in my description of heterodoxy at the bottom of my post.

Marc said...

Father, did you seriously just cite Wikipedia to "prove" your points about the SSPX?

Please cite some actual examples to support your contentions that the SSPX are (1) heterodox, (2) neo-Conservative, (3) undermining the Bishops of the Church, and /or (4) have skewed Church teaching.

In the examples you provide, I hope you use current examples in light of the fact that any and all excommunications have been vacated by the Holy See (that is, treated as if they never existed).

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Marc, the fact that this group has pushed the Holy Father (many of them now) into a corner is heterodox in and of itself--but our Holy Father have been very solicitous with them and are working to bring them into full communion with the Church on doctrinal issues which have not all been made public. The fact that the excommunication has been lifted means little at this point, since they have no canonical status in the Church which has not been resolved, quite heterodox if you will.
Just those examples should indicate their heterodoxy in terms of church discipline and we need to know exactly what they reject of Vatican II as I believe they reject it entirely, which is certainly heterodox but they justify it saying they haven't changed what they were from before and after the Council, but they reject the council--Catholics in good standing cannot reject the council and when bishops do, that's heterodoxy.

9-14-2011

VATICAN CITY, 14 SEP 2011 (VIS) - At midday today the Holy See Press Office released the following communiqué concerning the position of the Society of St. Pius X:

On 14 September at the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Joseph Levada, prefect of the congregation and president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei; Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer S.J., secretary of the congregation, and Msgr. Guido Pozzo, secretary of the pontifical commission, met with Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, who was accompanied by Fr. Niklaus Pfluger and Fr. Alain-Marc Nely, respectively first and second assistant general to the society.

Following the appeal of 15 December 2008, addressed by the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, the Holy Father decided to remove the excommunication against the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre. At the same time, he approved the opening of discussions with the society in order to clarify doctrinal problems and to heal the existing rift.

In order to put the Holy Father's instructions into effect, a joint study commission was set up, composed of experts from the Society of St. Pius X and from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who met in Rome on eight occasions between October 2009 and April 2011. Their discussions, which aimed to identify and study the essential doctrinal difficulties in the controversial issues, had the result of clarifying the positions of the two sides and their respective motivations.

While bearing in mind the concerns and demands presented by the Society of St. Pius X about protecting the integrity of the Catholic faith against Vatican Council II's "hermeneutic of rupture" with Tradition (a theme addressed by Pope Benedict XVI in his address to the Roman Curia on 22 December 2005), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith maintains that the fundamental basis for achieving full reconciliation with the Apostolic See is the acceptance of the text of the Doctrinal Preamble, which was handed over during a meeting on 14 September 2011. The Preamble defines certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church Magisterium and "sentire cum Ecclesia". At the same time, it leaves open to legitimate discussion the examination and theological explanation of individual expressions and formulations contained in the documents of Vatican Council II and later Magisterium.

At the same meeting, certain suggestions were made for a canonical solution to the position of the Society of St. Pius X, with a view to achieving the desired reconciliation.

Marc said...

Thank you for providing concrete examples for discussion!

Maybe you could elaborate on what you mean by their pushing the Holy Father into a corner?

I don't think that their canonical situation is an indication of heterodoxy as heterodoxy has to do with doctrines and the Faith, not disciplinary issues. Their irregluar canonical status is partly based in the current discussion over doctrinal issues. It is also partly based on things related to the founding of the SSPX and other complicated issues that none of us really have a good handle on (nor do we really need to).

[I don't really buy into the artificial claims about "full communion" and "partial communion". The SSPX believe the Catholic faith as proclaimed by the Catholic Church and profess allegiance to the Pope of Rome, therefore they are in communion with the See of Peter and inside the Catholic Church according to any actual definition of communion. Diagreeing with portions of VII does not put one outside the Church, partially for the reasons I will set out below.]

I can tell you precisely which portions of Vatican II are at issue. It is important to note that the founder of the SSPX participated at Vatican II: he helped to arrange the agendas beforehand at the request of Pope Bl. John XIII (although those agendas were later thrown out) and he voted for 14 of the 16 documents produced at the Council.

The issues in debate are the Vatican II statements regarding religious liberty (Dignitatis Humanae), ecumenism (Gaudium et Spes), and the "college of bishops" (Lumen Gentium, which was particularly controversial amongst the Council Fathers even at the time!). Additionally, misinterpretations regarding the Novus Ordo also must play into the discussion.

Essentially, at this point, the issue boils down to the Holy Father seeking to impose his understanding of the hermeneutic of continuity whereas the SSPX sees a hermeneutic of rupture. Since the Pope has not infallibly declared his idea of a hermeneutic of continuity, there is room for difference of opinion there. Basically, the SSPX wants Rome to proclaim boldly that the Church still believes everything that was set forth by the Popes and Councils prior to Vatican II regarding religious liberty and ecumenism. This is seen as necssary in light of the VII documents that seem to be contrary to prior teaching (particularly Mortalium Animos, among other documents). The Holy Father's hermeneutic of continuity implies, without overtly stating, that the SSPX is correct that the teaching has not changed (which it, of course cannot); however, the Holy See will not state that where VII appears to conflict with prior teachings, VII is incorrect on those points (which it can be considering that Council did not presume to proclaim any doctrine infallibly or otherwise).

I understand both sides here - the Pope doesn't want to come out and say VII is not infallible (although Pope Paul VI didn't have a problem saying that). This is an appeasement for the liberals in the Church who see VII as a "super Council" although I'm not sure that is the Holy Father's reasoning. The SSPX wants these issues clarified for the good of the Catholic people, which is a noble goal, if perhaps not the best pastoral move (from the liberal perspective).

I say all this to say that if you are going to be calling the SSPX heterodox, you could just as easily call the Holy Father himself heterodox. God forbid!

Anonymous said...

Fr. McDonald: They despise the pope and bishops as do the neo-conservatives but for different reasons

As usual, you make well some incisive points about the origins of the present dissent in the Church. But it weakens the argument to rely upon false dichotomies that posit moral equivalent between those whose hearts are in the right place and those whose aren't.

Although most of the traditional Catholics I know span the OF-EF divide fairly smoothly, over the years I have enjoyed exposure to some of those further out "neo-conservatives" you allude to. Of course, I know that there exist so-called sede-vacantists who don't, but I have yet to meet personally an SSPXer (or the like) who does not exhibit loyalty to Church and Faith. Or who fails to profess--and actually feel, so far as I can judge--allegiance to our Holy Father. Indeed, many of them believe (rightly or wrongly) that they are among Pope Benedict's truest supporters, in holding out for the continuity with tradition that they see him as himself favoring. My own best guess is that he is grateful for their "intransigence"--up to a point that the current SSPX discussions admittedly may be nearing--believing that it strengthens his hand in attempting to right the barque of Peter, by moving it in the direction that they (seemingly almost alone) have never abandoned.

Whereas the type of progressives you cite typically are openly disloyal to all of the above. Is it not unfair to those who want to support every essential aspect of historical Catholic doctrine--even if some of their tactics seem misguided (or even uncanonical)--to put them in the same boat with those who would deny almost all Catholic essentials, and whose goal is to betray Church, Magisterium, Faith, and Pope as historically understood, rather than to support them?

Gene said...

Marc, Help me out here. It seems to me that if what we want is the TLM properly celebrated on a regular basis, then the FSSP should be sufficient for that. Taking up with the SSPX on a regular basis would indicate that there are other issues in question. From what I have read about SSPX, it almost seems they are de facto sedevacantists. Am I incorrect?

Marc said...

Pin: Yes, you are partially incorrect. This "fight" is about more than the Mass. It is about proclaiming boldly the True Faith. The FSSP does this by not really discussing VII, while the SSPX does this by affirmatively fighting against false ideas.

The return to the TLM is important, but it is not the whole issue. The return to pre-VII Catholicism (for lack of a better term) is the goal of the fight. Again, one can go to the FSSP and ignore the problems or one can go to the SSPX who are confronting the problems.

I see the merit to both strategies.

Templar said...

As Marc has pointed out, the SSPX does not reject the Council in total. They reject the validity of selected parts, which contradicts previous Doctrine established by Councils of the Church. Coupled with the statement of Paul VI that V2 changed no Doctrine and was not infallible, it is not Hetrodoxy to raise these questions, it is obligatory of Catholics to do so. If we never questioned anything we'd all be Arians.

So, if the SSPX are Heterodox because they question what begs to be questioned, then it stands to reason that questioning The Church would make you Heterodox. I reject that logic, it simply doesn't stand the sniff test.

Anonymous said...

I have frequently read posts on this blog expressing opinions such as the following: “The Church is obviously in need of house cleaning. The ignorant need to be catechised, and the dissident need to be given the excommunicative boot” (I am not trying to single out this particular commentator, just giving an illustration). Let me make it clear that I do not regard myself as a “dissident” (or as a radical of any persuasion). However, I feel the need to dissent from such sentiments. They appear to be not only harsh and judgmental (of a person rather than an action). In addition, some might regard them as evidencing an impatient and zealous desire to purge rather than a desire to teach and to guide. I do not know what, if any, relation the expression of such sentiments might be to this very interesting discussion on the SSXP. Nor can I express an informed opinion on that particular issue. It is above my pay grade, as the saying goes. However, I do want to share some personal reflections that may be relevant to the issue of “dissidents.”
I was sad to witness how alienated my own mother had become from the Roman Catholic Church after she married my father at the end of the Second World War. To begin with, the pre-Vatican II Church hurt her badly by compelling her to promise to raise her children as Catholics (a promise she was unable to give in the circumstances she faced in her marriage to a non-Catholic – please resist any temptation to rush to judgment by concluding she had a real choice without knowing all the facts). And then the implementation of Vatican II took away her beloved Tridentine Latin Mass (the TLM was not even offered as an option in addition to the revised Mass in the vernacular). Although she made her peace with the Church many years later, once the Church blessed her marriage after my father (and indeed I myself) chose to become Catholic, she had suffered many years of anguish. I am sure that if she were alive today she would be pleased, as I am, to see the reintroduction of the old forms (why were they ever eliminated instead of supplemented?).
That said, please spare a thought for those many of us who joined the post-Vatican II Church and who were taught to believe and to worship in ways that were deemed acceptable for so long. It is the only Church we have known. I am dismayed that some now appear so eager to do to us what the Church did to my mother. I hope that our Church will at least be patient and allow time to adjust to so many frequent and often radical changes, with gentle teaching and guidance, even if she cannot find it in her heart still to find a place ultimately for some of those she helped to create. Some people do not mind fast, frequent, and radical change. Others of a more conservative disposition find it more difficult to handle.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Thank you for your comments and family history. Where I believe we are today as a Church is a Church of great diversity, especially liturgical diversity, that could not have been imagined prior to Vatican II or in the first 25 years after. Who would have thought we would have the Tridentine Mass back but also more contemporay expressions of the Mass and now the Anglican Use Mass and an Anglican Ordinariate Mass that could allow other Protestant Churches that have an liturgy traced back to Rome and a spirituality to have their own ordinariate. I think pastoral flexibility is important too.
My problem is with the theology of dissent and an unhealthy antipathy toward the office of bishops and clergy as though we're the enemny or as though God's laws can be manipulated. I'm for unity in the Holy Spirit that has to be based upon the hierarchical order of the Church and the role of bishop to teach, rule and sanctify. Of course this is only in the areas of faith, morals and canon law. When we clergy callously cast the teachings of the Church aside for some democratic view of what the Church should be, then I think we barking up the wrong tree.

Gene said...

Anon,Neither you or your mother fit the definition of "dissident." Fallen away Catholics and confused Catholics are not dissidents. I think you probably know what I mean when I say "dissident."

Hammer of Fascists said...

Much to consider in these posts.

To begin with, while I will agree that both left-wing and right-wing dissent are equally wrong in the fact of their dissent, I do not see the problems these two movements present as equally grave, since left wing dissent is _far_ more ubiquitous. It’s very hard to find a parish that doesn’t display at least some trace of modernism today; compare that to the fact that as far as I know there’s only a single SSPX parish in all of Georgia.

Further, I almost never hear leftist/modernist dissenter even mention the Magisterium, much less cite it as authority or argue that he’s being faithful to it. For the average leftist/modernist, being Catholic has nothing to with the Magisterium.

Trads, on the other hand, talk a _lot_ about the Magisterium precisely because it’s important for them to be faithful to it (and thus to the Church). They generally extend to the Church the honor of believing that in her conciliar and papal pronouncements, she says what she means and means what she says. Since certain things in the VII documents are hard to square with statements of earlier councils, the Trads are concerned with trying to find ways to reconcile the latter with the former, since an inability to do so would call the Church’s very authority, and thus her very nature and identity, into grave question. (Modernists, once again, don’t let this bother them at all; they simply utter the phrase “Vatican II” like a mantra, often without even bothering to read the documents.) SSPX takes the easiest logical approach to this problem, even if it is wrong: If VII says “X” and earlier conciliar documents say “Not X,” one or the other must be wrong, or at least non-magisterial, and they go with the quantitative weight and consistency of the earlier councils. Other approaches are possible, but while they may be more orthodox, they’re also more logically difficult.

As to Anonymous’s long post: S/he raises the important point that the pre-VII Church wasn’t perfect. It could be, and often was, narrow-minded, condescending, and triumphalistic. I myself have been targeted by echoes of such attitudes on occasion. Without meaning to belittle Anonymous’s family’s experiences, though, I do have to ask, given the pervasiveness of modernism in AmChurch, when, and by whom, the most damage has been done in purely quantitative terms—by the narrow-minded pre-VII Church or by the modernist and indifferentist post VII Church?

Respectfully submitted.

Carol H. said...

Anon,

I'm sorry if you misunderstood my comment about housecleaning and excommunication. Your mother's situation was not a form of dissent.

The dissenters I was referring to are the ones like Nancy Pelosi and others who are trying to destroy the Church from within. They publicly claim to be Catholic, then publicly stand against Church teaching. If Fluke were Catholic, she would be one of the dissenters.

The Church has always been against abortion and infanticide. If you google DIDACHE, you will see a document that dates about 90 AD that lists what Christians believe, and you will see the proof there.

Sins don't change over time. What was once a sin is still a sin today. The dissenters are trying to change that- they are trying to change our core beliefs- they are trying to force the Church to become what it never has been and never can be. They are confusing some members of the Church and tearing it apart from within.

Excommunication for these dissenters would actually be an act of mercy. It would remove all confusion as to where the Church stands, the faithful will be able to worship in peace, and the excommunicant will have an opportunity to reexamine his conscience. If the excommunicant repents, he will be welcomed back with open arms. If he doesn't repent, then the word 'Catholic' does not fit his personal beliefs anyway.

I hope this helps to clarify things for you. I'll pray a Rosary tonight for the repose of your mother. God bless you!

Templar said...

Dissent is not a sin, there is no Commandment against it. In fact right centered dissent (such as against the recent HHS Mandate) is clearly what Catholics are called to do. Dissent against the Church, that being right centered dissent, to correct error, is not only also right, it is as old as the Church itself and goes back to St Paul challenging St Peter (First Pope!!) in Galatians 2.

Galatians 2:21 - "I cast not away the grace of God. For if justice be by the law, then Christ died in vain."

Anonymous said...

They family story by Anonymous is interesting.
It's sad that your mother suffered so much, but look at the fruit of that suffering..you and your father became Catholic. Two lost sheep found theri way home. That's no small thing. It's everything.

If thing were made 'easy', it's highly probable that such a wonderous event would not have occured.
Catholics suffer types of martyrdoms in various ways.
Catholics know the redemptive power of suffering.
Many a good mother has endured long suffering for the long term sake of her family.
Catholics know that God puts all suffering to good use, it is never wasted.

Anonymous, are you being a bit selfish by begging that things stay the way YOU like them?..Just a thought for internal reflection.

FYI: Many of the ultra tradionalists here are also converts to the Faith,just like you, in case you didn't know that tidbit.
~SL

Anonymous said...

One more thing Anonymous...
We don't know the facts of your mother's situation, but why blame the Church for her alienation and anguish...Your father could have given loving support to his new wife, no? He could have agreed to raise the children Catholic, no?
He could have chosen to not put her in that situation, no?
Does not he bear some blame for her anguish and alienation?
We don't need you to answer these publicaly...just putting out a concept that your story led me to, which applies to all of us:

Often we blame the Church, when in fact Holy Mother Church is merely trying to properly care for her children, and the children alienate themselves by being prideful, and know-it-all, and rebellious in their hearts, and often disobedient.

Many a good Catholic felt hurt and confused by V2, including my own mother....so I'm not singling out anyone, please don't misunderstand.

~SL

Militia Immaculata said...

It's wrong to say Vatican II taught error. Archbishop Lefebvre claimed that same thing and thought that it was OK to do so because Vatican II was pastoral. Here's what Pope Paul VI had to say about that:

"You cannot invoke the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral in order to accept certain texts of the Council and to refute others. Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature; only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith. But the rest is also a part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to which all faithful must make a confident reception and a sincere application" (Letter to Archbishop Lefebvre, Nov. 10, 1976).

It makes no difference that no infallible dogma was proclaimed at Vatican II. Paul VI said the following (some traditionalists only quote part of the first sentence and leave out the rest):

"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary Magisterium. This ordinary Magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents."

The key phrase here is "extraordinary statement of dogmas," as those would automatically be considered infallible. But Vatican II was an exercise of the "supreme ordinary Magisterium," which is also guaranteed to be free from error by the mere fact that Catholics are supposed to accept them.

(to be continued)

Militia Immaculata said...

Then on May 24, 1976, Paul VI said the following in an allocution to the secret consistory of cardinals (referring especially to the distortion of the council by Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers):

"There are those who, under the pretext of a greater fidelity to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically refuse the teaching of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that stem from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under Our authority, willed by Christ."

And His Holiness added in frustration:

"It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would be in danger also because of the post-conciliar reforms and guidelines, which there is a duty to disobey to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Does it belong to this group, and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not an Ecumenical Council, to establish which of the countless traditions must be regarded as the norm of faith!"

(to be continued)

Militia Immaculata said...

By the way, I think it would help if we remembered that while Vatican II isn't infallible in the sense that it didn't proclaim new dogmas, that doesn't mean it's not infallible period -- and it certainly doesn't mean it taught error. A fairly recent issue of L'Osservatore Romano, dated Dec. 2, 2011, states the following:

The Second Vatican Council did not define any dogma, in the sense that it proposed no doctrine with a definitive act. However, even if the Magisterium proposes a teaching without directly invoking the charism of infallibility, it does not follow that such a teaching is therefore to be considered “fallible” – in the sense that what is proposed is somehow a “provisional doctrine” or just an “authoritative opinion.” Every authentic expression of the Magisterium must be received for what it truly is: a teaching given by Pastors who, in the apostolic succession, speak with the “charism of truth” (Dei Verbum, n. 8), “endowed with the authority of Christ” (Lumen Gentium, n. 25), “and by the light of the Holy Spirit” (ibid.).

Then later on the article states the following:

A number of innovations of a doctrinal nature are to be found in the documents of the Second Vatican Council: on the sacramental nature of the episcopate, on episcopal collegiality, on religious freedom, etc. These innovations in matters concerning faith or morals, not proposed with a definitive act, still require religious submission of intellect and will, even though some of them were and still are the object of controversy with regard to their continuity with earlier magisterial teaching, or their compatibility with the tradition. In the face of such difficulties in understanding the continuity of certain Conciliar Teachings with the tradition, the Catholic attitude, having taken into account the unity of the Magisterium, is to seek a unitive interpretation in which the texts of the Second Vatican Council and the preceding Magisterial documents illuminate each other. Not only should the Second Vatican Council be interpreted in the light of previous Magisterial documents, but also some of these earlier magisterial documents can be understood better in the light of the Second Vatican Council. This is nothing new in the history of the Church. It should be remembered, for example, that the meaning of important concepts adopted in the First Council of Nicaea in the formulation of the Trinitarian and Christological faith (hypóstasis, ousía), were greatly clarified by later Councils. The interpretation of the innovations taught by the Second Vatican Council must therefore reject, as Benedict XVI put it, “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture,” while it must affirm the “hermeneutic of reform, of renewal within continuity” (Discourse, 22 December 2005). These are innovations in the sense that they explain new aspects which have not previously been formulated by the Magisterium, but which do not doctrinally contradict previous Magisterial documents. This is so even though, in certain cases — for example, concerning religious freedom — these innovations imply very different consequences at the level of historical decisions concerning juridical and political applications of the teaching, especially given the changes in historical and social conditions. An authentic interpretation of Conciliar texts can only be made by the Magisterium of the Church herself. Therefore, in the theological work of the interpretation of passages in the Conciliar texts which arouse queries or seem to present difficulties, it is above all necessary to take into account the sense in which they have been interpreted in subsequent Magisterial interventions. Nevertheless, there remains space for legitimate theological freedom to explain in one way or in another how certain formulations present in the Conciliar texts do not contradict the Tradition and, therefore, to explain the correct meaning of some expressions contained in those passages.

(to be continued)

Militia Immaculata said...

Now let's deal a bit with some of the "disputed" teachings of Vatican II. Take religious liberty, for instance. Some claim Dignitatis Humanae conflicts with Quas Primas or Quanta Cura. Actually, there's no conflict. Quas Primas and Quanta Cura were against the Freemasonry idea of religious freedom. That's what the Church teaches against, always has, and always will. Dignitatis Humanae was against COMMUNIST dictatorships that FORCED their people to be godless.

Do you remember the time of Dignitatis Humanae? Does the Soviet Empire tell you something? How about Catholic Poland, Catholic Lithuania under Communist slavery? Or millions of Christians in Ukraine, Vietnam, Cuba, Slovenia, etc. under Communism and official atheism?

It is extremely easy: Quas Primas and Quanta Cura were against Freemasonry states; Dignitatis Humanae was against Communist slavery that forced their people to live without God.

Actually, the Catechism of the Catholic Church harmonizes the teachings of Quas Primas, Quanta Cura, and Dignitatis Humanae very well:

2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,( 37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953,799) but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right (Pius XII, 6 December 1953).

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner (Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3). The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order." (cf Pío IX, enc. "Quanta cura").

So you see? There's no moral freedom to choose a religion. All is about a political freedom so Communist states do not impose anti-God teaching.

"In order to be faithful to the divine command, "teach all nations" (Matt. 28:19-20), the Catholic Church must work with all urgency and concern "that the word of God be spread abroad and glorified" (2 Thess. 3:1). Hence the Church earnestly begs of its children that, "first of all, supplications, prayers, petitions, acts of thanksgiving be made for all men.... For this is good and agreeable in the sight of God our Savior, who wills that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1-4). In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church. (35) For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Christians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, "in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth" (2 Cor. 6:6-7), and let them be about their task of spreading the light of life with all confidence(36) and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood." (Dignitatis Humanae).

Militia Immaculata said...

Whoops, I just realized I'm not done yet!

Ecumenism is another teaching of Vatican II that the SSPX questions. However, ecumenism in and of itself isn't wrong or bad. What the Church condemns is FALSE ecumenism -- the idea that it really doesn't matter what you believe just so long as you worship God. And Pope Paul VI reiterated the Church's condemnation of false ecumenism: "The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded" (Unitatis Redintegratio).

And then there's collegiality. Collegiality is the proper internal relationship for the college of bishops. It respects the authority of bishops as successors to Apostles and ordinaries of their own dioceses. Often, radical traditionalists will oppose it in favor of a headstrong version of ultramontanism, in which the pope is somehow more completely a bishop than other bishops. In reality, the pope is not higher than a bishop (he isn't ordained pope, his order is still episcopal), but is sort of the big brother and the leader among the bishops. Authentic collegiality respects the authority of individual bishops while still holding the pope as their leader. So, for instance, the pope rarely tells other bishops how to run their dioceses, but often makes overarching norms for how bishops should run dioceses. At times, though, when necessary, the pope may order another bishop to do something, but it's usually only after other things have been exhausted. The pope has the authority, but it's not necessarily right for him to abuse the authority, so he treats the bishops with collegiality.

Marc said...

Well said, M.I. Perhaps you should forward your explanation to the Superior General of the SSPX as he continues to mull over these issues in light of today's events.

You have certainly given me much to consider and I thank you for taking the time to post it. I was starting to feel like the only one in these comments who bothered to cite actual Church documents and here you have trumped me with your posts!

Perhaps you will indulge me by pondering the following questions, which I don't mean in an argumenative way:

Do you think there is room for disagreement over the idea of rupture or continuity? I mean, do we have an obligation to subscribe to the "reform of the reform"?

And, if the issues you mention from VII are to be considered and believed in the manner you suggest (and I agree with you suggestion), then what does it mean to have religious assent to VII? If VII says nothing new, then can't we simply pay it no mind? If VII restates Mortalium Animos on the issue of ecumenism, for example, then why don't we just stick with MA since it is much clearer? Since I must believe the encyclical, as an act of the infallible ordinary Magesterium, can I not just pay no mind to a later document that claims to restate the teaching (to which I owe a lesser degree of assent and belief)?

If VII proclaimed no new doctrine (which I agree it did not), then why is it cited so heavily in the new CCC? Wouldn't it strengthen the position to cite the older documents? [I'm coming at this from a lawyer's perspective where age of law and clarity mean something.]

Militia Immaculata said...

Marc --

Thanks for the compliment. However, I'm afraid I don't think forwarding the explanations I've provided to the SSPX superior general would do any good. Call me jaded, but I don't think the SSPX has the right attitude. The following excerpts from a recent sermon by Bishop Fellay illustrate that (the full sermon can be found at http://stas.org/publications/announcements-archive/552-extract-from-sermon-of-bishop-fellay-on-february-2nd-2012.html ):

"We told them very clearly, if you accept us as is, without change, without obliging us to accept these things, then we are ready. But if you want us to accept these things, we are not."

"On the contrary, it is our duty to continuously go there, knock at the door, and not beg that we may enter (because we are in) but beg that they may convert; that they may change and come back to what makes the Church."

That's not a Catholic attitude to have; the Church saves us, not the other way around! And what gall, telling the Church she must "come back to what makes the Church"! Not even the Orthodox say that, and even many Protestant groups wouldn't go that far. Ecclesia semper reformanda, as the saying goes (The Church is always reforming -- that means that the Church -- in her human "element" -- is always in need of Christ's grace, the guidance of the Holy Ghost, on the road to the Father's glory), but the Church (ecclesia) is and will always be the pillar and foundation of truth, not any particular religious order or society.

As for your questions, answered in the order you asked them . . .

1. Probably. You cite accepting the "reform of the reform" as an example. Well you certainly don't have to like it or think it's sufficient. If you think it would be better if the Church returned 100% to the Extraordinary Form, that's fine too -- just so long as you don't go too far and fall into the grave error of believing that the Ordinary Form is intrinsically (as opposed to extrinsically) less efficacious grace-wise, an abomination no matter how reverently and "by the book" it's celebrated, etc.

(to be continued)

Militia Immaculata said...

2. Well, Marc, the thing is, Vatican II not only restated Church doctrine but further clarified and fleshed it out. So really, your example of using Mortalium Animos vs. a later document that restates the teaching (but further fleshes is out) is making like an "either/or" situation when it's really a "both/and" situation -- we use both!

Actually, it wouldn't do to just disregard Vatican II because although it didn't define any dogmas, it DID settle some issues via the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, such as the following:

-- The subdiaconate isn't a sacrament but only a sacramental.

-- Consecration to the episcopate isn't a new sacrament but rather the fullness of the sacrament of holy orders.

-- It cleared up the fact that the Council of Trent didn't declare that Scripture and Tradition were 2 separate sources but rather 2 parts of the same source.

-- The details of religious liberty in relation to the state were defined solemnly and definitively.

-- The Blessed Virgin Mary is Mother of the Church and is properly understood as a member of the Church.

-- Lumen Gentium Chapter 25 provides the watershed understanding of the doctrine of infallibility and completes the work that Vatican I wasn't able to deal with in 1870 and which Pius XII dealt with partially in Humani Generis. There is no more comprehensive explication and defense of the Magisterium in any other magisterial document.

3. You ask why Vatican II is cited so heavily in the Catechism of the Catholic Church if it proclaimed no new doctrine. Perhaps it's because dissenters so often claim the Church stopped teaching this or that since Vatican II, and the Church has to show that those who make such claims are dead wrong -- that Vatican II did away with nothing.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

MI, I like your theological, understanding and historical grasp of Vatican II! Your comments bring me back to the best of my seminary experience (although I lament the fact my seminary was very liberal, it was academically sound and did a wonderful job of showing the continuity of Vatican II with what preceded but also what was further enhanced and why.