Posted on 05/02/2005 12:03:36 PM PDT by murphE
Ping
As Cardinal Alfons Stickler revealed ten years ago, in 1986 John Paul II convened a commission of nine cardinals to advise him on the legal status of the traditional Mass. Your Holiness (then Cardinal Ratzinger) was a member of that commission, along with Cardinals Stickler, Mayer, Oddi, Casaroli, Gantin, Innocenti, Palazzini, and Tomko.
The body of bishops failed in their confession of the Faith…. (By extension the accusation is that the Holy Spirit failed)
They spoke variously, one against another; there was nothing, after Nicea of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony, for nearly sixty years. There were untrustworthy Councils (Again, convicting the Holy Spirit of failure), unfaithful bishops; there was weakness, fear of consequences, misguidance, delusion, hallucination, endless, hopeless, extending into nearly every corner of the Catholic Church. The comparatively few who remained faithful were discredited and driven into exile; the rest were either deceivers or deceived.[26]
Holy Father, a growing number of the faithful are coming to realize that the crisis in the Church has arisen precisely from a misguided effort to change her in the name of the Second Vatican Council, just as Pius XII foresaw in his apprehension of the “innovators” all around him. The evidence of our senses, and reason itself, tells us that this effort has been an incalculable blunder of prudential judgment.(The Holy Spirit stands convicted yet again) Here again Msgr. Gamber speaks the truth with fearless candor: “Is this the spring people had hoped would emerge from the Second Vatican Council? Instead of a genuine renewal in our Church, we have seen only novelties. Instead of our religious life entering a period of new invigoration, as has happened in the past, what we see now is a form of Christianity that has turned towards the world.”[27] In your own sermon before the conclave, you too, Holy Father, seemed to concede the magnitude of this undeniable disaster:
There's a grand canyon between the Council and its implementation. There's no doubt that the spirit of the council was violated in its implementation. That does NOT, however, convict the Council itself, nor its goals, of being fraudulent or bereft of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I can create the world's greatest anti-hystamine drug to soothe allergies, but if the intended beneficiary uses the ingredients to create crystal meth, it doesn't make the medicine immoral or misguided, but the manipulation of said medicine is worthy of conviction.
If the seat of Rome is "vacant" or in need of "reproval", then the gates of hell have prevailed. Will one of the traditionalists please rationalize their position?
"If the seat of Rome is "vacant" or in need of "reproval", then the gates of hell have prevailed. Will one of the traditionalists please rationalize their position?"
Agreed. What makes their position any different than the private interpretation of our Protestant brothers?
Good point on implementation of Vatican 2. We haven't seen it because of the common dissent in the Church, esp. in the US.
Obedience.
Regards
As for the liturgy, the Novus Ordo is not going anywhere. The Tridentine Mass should be widely available, preferably in a Tridentine Rite so that those who wished to attend would not be at the mercy of a priest or bishop who simply refuses to permit it.
What do you think the Holy Spirit's role is in an ecumenical Council?
Actually the Novus Ordo should be defined as "the optional Vernacular Rite of Paul VI" and the inaccurate term "Tridentine" should be recognized as the only "Latin Rite."
The Holy Ghost would fail in the Church officially taught error. Bad cardinals and bishops cannot be considered such a failure. By your logic Christ would have failed by picking Judas as an Apostle.
Roman Rite Catholics have been making similar pleadings to those who took the demolition ball and crane to His House. And therein lies the problem. Ceaseless attempts to rid the flock from the presence of wolves is heartbreaking, and doomed before they put pen to paper. The heresy ridden cardinals and bishops have diluted the chair of Peter into a mere figurehead; an image of what used to be, but no longer is. Encyclicals are now worthless scribble. Everybody's equal. Every bishop is in total command his own fiefdom. This is a church gone mad, and from which a return to sanity is lost on those who do not see or hear, because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. - Matthew 13:13
Uh, you do realize that the passage you're annotating was authored by Cardinal Newman, right? And in fact, that it was delated to Rome as heretical by the Bishop of Newport, and yet the accusation was quashed?
You can see his quite successful defense of the passage here.
The three clauses which furnished matter of objection were these:—I said, (1), that "there was a temporary suspense of the functions of the 'Ecclesia docens;'" (2), that "the body of Bishops failed in their confession of the faith." (3), that "general councils, &c., said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth."
(1). That "there was a temporary suspense of the functions of the Ecclesia docens" is not true, if by saying so is meant that the Council of Nicæa held in 325 did not sufficiently define and promulgate for all times and all places the dogma of our Lord's divinity, and that the notoriety of that Council and the voices of its great supporters and maintainers, as Athanasius, Hilary, &c., did not bring home the dogma to the intelligence of the faithful in all parts of Christendom. But what I meant by "suspense" (I did not say "suspension," purposely,) was only this, that there was no authoritative utterance of the Church's infallible voice in matter of fact between the Nicene Council, A.D. 325, and the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, or, in the words which I actually used, "there was nothing after Nicæa of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony for nearly sixty years." As writing before the Vatican Definition of 1870, I did not lay stress upon the Roman Councils under Popes Julius and Damasus [Note 3].
(2). That "the body of Bishops failed in their confession of the faith," p. 17. Here, if the word "body" is used in the sense of the Latin "corpus," as "corpus" is used in theological treatises, and as it doubtless would be translated for the benefit of readers ignorant of the English language, certainly this would be a heretical statement. But I meant nothing of the kind. I used it in the vague, familiar, genuine sense of which Johnson gives instances in his dictionary, as meaning "the great preponderance," or, "the mass" of Bishops, viewing them in the main or the gross, as a cumulus of individuals. Thus Hooker says, "Life and death have divided between them the whole body of mankind;" Clarendon, after speaking of the van of the king's army, says, "in the body was the king and the prince:" and Addison speaks of "navigable rivers, which ran up into the body of Italy." In this sense it is true historically that the body of Bishops failed in their confession. Tillemont, quoting from St. Gregory Nazianzen, says, "La souscription (Arienne) etait une des dispositions necessaires pour entrer et pour se conserver dans l'episcopat. L'encre était toujours toute prête, et l'accusateur aussi. Ceux qui avaient paru invincibles jusques alors, céderent à cette tempête. Si leur esprit ne tomba pas dans l'heresie, leur main néanmoins y consentit ... Peu d'Evêques s'exemterent de ce malheur, n' y ayant eu que ceux que leur propre bassesse faisait negliger, ou que leur vertu fit resister genereusement, et que Dieu conserva afin qu'il restât encore quelque semence et quelque racine pour faire refleurir Israel." T. vi. p. 499. In St. Gregory's own words, [plen oligon agan, pantes tou kairou gegonasi; tosouton allelon dienenkontes, hoson tous men proteron, tous de husteron touto pathein]. Orat. xxi. 24. p. 401. Ed. Bened.
(3). That "general councils said what they should not have said, and did what obscured and compromised revealed truth." Here again the question to be determined is what is meant by the word "general." If I meant by "general" ecumenical, I should have spoken as no Catholic can speak; but ecumenical Councils there were none between 325 and 381, and so I could not be referring to any; and in matter of fact I used the word "general" in contrast to "ecumenical," as I had used it in Tract No. 90, and as Bellarmine uses the word. He makes a fourfold division of "general Councils," viz., those which are approbata; reprobata; partim confirmata, partim reprobata; and nec manifeste probata nec manifeste reprobata. Among the "reprobata" he placed the Arian Councils. They were quite large enough to be called "generalia;" the twin Councils of Seleucia and Ariminum numbering as many as 540 Bishops. When I spoke then of "general councils compromising revealed truth," I spoke of the Arian or Eusebian Councils, not of the Catholic.
I hope this is enough to observe on this subject.
3. A distinguished theologian infers from my words that I deny that "the Church is in every time the activum instrumentum docendi." But I do not admit the fairness of this inference. Distinguo: activum instrumentum docendi virtuale, C. Actuale, N. The Ecumenical Council of 325 was an effective authority in 341, 351, and 359, though at those dates the Arians were in the seats of teaching. ...
I'm not a sedevacantist. (though it is not a heresy to be one) But there is this strange attitude among conciliarists that they believe the promises of Christ guarantee a lot more than they do. Christ promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church. That implies that the Church must DO something against the gates of Hell. Neos tend to think the phrase means the gates of the Church will withstand the powers of Hell and somehow keep the smoke of Satan out of the Curia. If they think that, then they have a problem with Paul VI who was no traditionalist.
But it's not, is it?
Define it however you wish. There is no apparent clamoring for the wholesale return of the Tridentine Mass among even the world's bishops, to say nothing of priests and laymen.
How many bishops celebrate the Indult?
What disobedience is there in this letter? Please explain what you mean.
Ah, but will it be true ecumenism, in the mold of Bl. John XXIII?
We address Ourselves now to all of you who are separated from this Apostolic See. May this wonderful Spectacle of unity, by which the Catholic Church is set apart and distinguished, as well as the prayers and entreaties with which she begs God for unity, stir your hearts and awaken you to what is really in your best interest.May We, in fond anticipation, address you as sons and brethren? May We hope with a father's love for your return? (Ad Petri Cathedram §79-80)
Since BXVI desires dialogue, he will never use such words. In point of fact, he avoided them.
Accuracy in defining things is not a hallmark of the Curia in the post-cociliar period in the Church.
There is even less clamoring for the Novus Ordo (declining attendance), or priests that want to celebrate it(priest shortage).
At best there is a droning acceptance and accompanying loss of faith in supernatural reality. Most Catholics don't know the Old Rite so they won't clamor for steak if all they know is chipped beef.
If I can define it however I wish, I'll define it as the "Sucky Rite" but that's just my own poetic description.
No one here has stated that, and you didn't even have to read the whole letter to see to whom it is addressed.
or in need of "reproval", then the gates of hell have prevailed.
So the gates of hell prevailed way back when Paul rebuked Pope Peter I?
Why don't you read the letter instead of attacking things it doesn't say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.