Like the catholic product they have produced over the past 40 years, some of these theologians only teach Vatican II lite. It is no wonder that they find their theological center in the documents that interest them, but have worked to directly undermine or ignore those Vatican II documents which don’t fit their agenda.
“For the full recognition of the decrees of the Second Vatican Council” The papal cancellation of the excommunication of bishops from The Society of St. Pius X signifies the reception into full communion with the See of Rome those who have consistently opposed the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.Regarding the anti-Semitic remarks and the denial of the German national-socialist persecution of the Jews by Bishop Richard Williamson and his followers, we share the indignation of our Jewish sisters and brothers. Moreover, we state that the SSPX’s attitude towards Judaism does not correspond to the Council’s understanding of and commitment to Jewish-Christian dialogue. We support the recent statements of Bishops’ Conferences, and others, all over the world, on this issue. We also welcome the recent statements made on these matters by Pope Benedict XVI and the Vatican’s Secretariate of State.
We believe that the close correlation between the excommunication’s cancellation and the 50th anniversary of the calling of a General Council of the Church by Blessed Pope John XXIII gives a clear indication of the direction which the present Papacy wishes to take. We sense a desire to return to a pre Vatican II Church with its fear of openness to the breath of the Holy Spirit, a positive appreciation of ‘the signs of the times’, and the values of democratic institutions. We are very concerned that this act of rehabilitation heralds a turn-around on important documents of Vatican II, for example, the decree on ecumenism “Unitatis Redintegratio”, the declaration on non-Christian religions “Nostra Aetate”, the declaration on religious liberty “Dignitatis Humanae” and the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, “Gaudium et Spes”. Such an act will have a disastrous effect on the credibility of the Roman-Catholic Church. For Catholics who love their Church, the price is too high!
The Pope hopes this act will help unify the Church. However we think it is particularly outrageous that the Vatican’s renewed overtures to a schismatic traditionalist movement have been undertaken without the imposition of any conditions whatsoever. In June 2008, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of Levebvre’s excommunication, the SSPX rejected the invitation of the Holy See towards theological reconciliation. Likewise, the fraternity rejected the invitation to sign a five-topic declaration containing conditions for its re-integration in the Roman Church.
A return to full communion with the Catholic Church can only be made possible if the documents and teachings of the Second Vatican Council are fully accepted without any reservations, as requested by the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” on the topic of the Tridentine rite. It is also imperative that the papal ministries of Blessed Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI are recognised and accepted. The Church of Rome, perceived as the Barque of St Peter, lists heavily as long as the Vatican: * only rehabilitates the “lost sheep” at the traditionalist edge of the Church, and makes no similar offer to other excommunicated or marginalised Catholics * persists in preventing progressive theologians from teaching * refuses dialogue with all movements in the Church (Essen, January 28, 2009)
We Are Church UK 5 February 2009 (Based upon an original text by Prof. Dr. Norbert Scholl, Angelhofweg 24b, D-69259 Wilhelmsfeld) http://www.petition-vaticanum2.org/pageID_7327623.html
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
32. The liturgy makes distinctions between persons according to their liturgical function and sacred Orders, and there are liturgical laws providing for due honors to be given to civil authorities. Apart from these instances, no special honors are to be paid in the liturgy to any private persons or classes of persons, whether in the ceremonies or by external display.
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites
63. Because of the use of the mother tongue in the administration of the sacraments and sacramentals can often be of considerable help to the people, this use is to be extended according to the following norms:
a) The vernacular language may be used in administering the sacraments and sacramentals, according to the norm of Art. 36.
86. Priests who are engaged in the sacred pastoral ministry will offer the praises of the hours with greater fervor the more vividly they realize that they must heed St. Paul’s exhortation: “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:11). For the work in which they labor will effect nothing and bring forth no fruit except by the power of the Lord who said: “Without me you can do nothing” (John 15: 5). That is why the apostles, instituting deacons, said: “We will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:4).
116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.
But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.
GRAVISSIMUM EDUCATIONIS
APOSTOLICAM ACTUOSITATEM
10. Students who follow the venerable tradition of celibacy according to the holy and fixed laws of their own rite are to be educated to this state with great care. For renouncing thereby the companionship of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matt. 19:12), they embrace the Lord with an undivided love altogether befitting the new covenant, bear witness to the resurrection of the world to come (cf. Luke 20:36), and obtain a most suitable aid for the continual exercise of that perfect charity whereby they can become all things to all men in their priestly ministry. Let them deeply realize how gratefully that state ought to be received, not, indeed, only as commanded by ecclesiastical law, but as a precious gift of God for which they should humbly pray. Through the inspiration and help of the grace of the Holy Spirit let them freely and generously hasten to respond to this gift.
They are to be warned of the dangers that threaten their chastity especially in present-day society. Aided by suitable safeguards, both divine and human, let them learn to integrate their renunciation of marriage in such a way that they may suffer in their lives and work not only no harm from celibacy but rather acquire a deeper mastery of soul and body and a fuller maturity, and more perfectly receive the blessedness spoken of in the Gospel.
Perhaps a survey of how often these theologians pray the Divine Office, or include Gregorian Chant in the Liturgy, preserve the use of latin or refrain from withdrawing priestly celebacy.
Perhaps had the IMPLEMENTATIONS of Vat II conducted by these man in underminding or circumventing the full Vatican II documents not their truncated view of it not been carried out, we wouldn’t be faced with groups like the SSPX having left the church.
Their other problem is that “Aggiornamento” has been demonstrated to be an almost utter failure for the church. I hope that B16 will be given the time to implement “Ressourcement” which IMO is what was desired by the Vatican II council fathers.
Site supports Most Reverend Jose H. Gomez
Bishop Kevin W. Vann
![[SMMMHDH]](smmmhdh.png){kind=small}
quickbeam,
This is certainly over my head as far as my knowledge of Roman Catholicism. I had a couple questions:
As it is a given that
a)Jesus spoke Aramaic and probably read Hebrew and maybe knew some common Greek,
b)the Scriptures were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek,
c) the earliest centuries of the Church almost universally used Greek in its writings, theology and liturgy,
d) missionaries in the Church pre-great schism readily translated the Scriptures and liturgies to the local language,
e) by the end of the middle ages latin had become an oppressive tool of corupt clergy,
f) the Vulgate is rife with textual errors,
g) no common Christian speaks or understands latin, therefore preventing Christian participation in liturgy and Christian pedegogy from the liturgy
Please, please, please – explain to me how latin is somehow uniquely and divinely given for the worship and use of the Church. And why should it even be considered at all for use in the common life of the Church, other than it’s how it’s been for a couple centuries? I don’t mean that as harsh as it can sound, but it seems to me that latin may be useful for official Vatican documents, the use of it in the common life of the Church is rather to denigrate the way in which the Gospel takes root in cultures and nourishes the faithful.
Also, clearly some of the apostles, including St. Peter himself were married; there is no Scripture that commends celibacy as required or even normative for Christian pastoral and priestly ministry; the East has no problem with married priests; why is a reform of priestly celibacy not up for discussion? Of course, many priests are called to celibacy, but not all?
Finally, Gregorian Chant is powerful, and even a holy gift. But again, how is it that music should not be adaptable provided it retains holy reverence and suitabliity to worship? I would venture to say that Anglican chant is just as holy as Gregorian Chant 😉
Anyway, it’s not everyday I get to ask a devout Catholic these kinds of questions. I look forward to your response
ADH,
Sorry somehow I missed this one.
By what “standard” are you using against the Vulgate given there was no standard prior to it. But if you read Trent it simply states that it(Vulgate) can be used “in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.”
It doesn’t say you can’t use a different version. The beauty of the Vulgate is in the Old Testament IMO, because it draws on the Greek version of the Old Testament. The Vulgate really isn’t an issue. I do have a preference for the Psalms read in Latin since it pre-dates the Vulgate coming from Old Latin which were just as old as any Greek versions we have (mid-third century)
“no common Christian speaks or understands latin, therefore preventing Christian participation in liturgy and Christian pedegogy from the liturgy”
WHile I agree 95% of the laity and probably priesthood don’t understand it doesn’t mean its an obstacle to worship. Its actually very easy to follow along with the latin on the left side of the page and the native tongue on the right side of the page. I would also say that people can become distracted when the priest speaks in the native tongue, whereas the individual has to listen and read along (i.e. the individual is active not passive).
In fact the beauty of it IMO especially in this day and age of travel is to be able to get the sense of belonging to the local church and the universal, when hearing parts of the mass in latin in a foreign country. There’s a sense of oneness at least for me.
The overwhelming majority of Christian thought is written in latin. Lets face it there is something lost in translations and knowing latin assists one to understand not just latin but most every other European language as well.
Additionally in regard to papal elections since the college of cardinals is so diverse now then it has ever been those with a handle on latin were able to communicate with each other. Those that didn’t had to converse in languages not their native tongue to another who was listening not in their native tongue. When your faced with the burden of electing the next pope it would be helpful to feel comfortable with the other person in a common language.
“the use of it in the common life of the Church is rather to denigrate the way in which the Gospel takes root in cultures and nourishes the faithful.”
I’m not pushing for the old mass, I desire a mixture. Frankly Psalms should IMO always be sung in Hebrew or read in latin (I know that probably doesn’t make sense- except for me), the Gloria always in Latin, the creed always in the native tongue. Greek should be included as well. I just here Mekilite sung during the Pope’s visit to the middle east. It was beautiful.
“Also, clearly some of the apostles, including St. Peter himself were married; there is no Scripture that commends celibacy as required or even normative for Christian pastoral and priestly ministry; the East has no problem with married priests; why is a reform of priestly celibacy not up for discussion? Of course, many priests are called to celibacy, but not all?”
Man that was out of left field.
First on St. Peter and the other married Apostles. Here’s one you probably haven’t heard of before. Jewish priests of the Old Testament were required to abstain from sex during the periods when they were serving in the Temple for spiritual reasons. Catholic priests serve every day. Continence/abstinence from even the licit gratifications of marriage has traditionally been believed to be practices by the married apostles. Actually the east does in that you can only marry once and that’s before you enter the priesthood if I’m not mistaken, not after you enter. So while it’s not absolute it is restricted.
Actually priestly celibacy has been discussed in the past ten years, it was determined to remain as is. However this is clearly a jurisdictional ruling not strictly a doctrinal one so it can be changed. I just think it unlikely, it would create more problems then it would solve.
“how is it that music should not be adaptable provided it retains holy reverence and suitabliity to worship? I would venture to say that Anglican chant is just as holy as Gregorian Chant”
Hey I’d take just about any kind of chant over Song & Praise books we’ve endured for ever. Modern music is totally out IMO. Jazz and Rock are not compatible with religious music. Their rhythm appeals to the body not the spirit.
Thanks quickbeam,
On the priestly celibacy thing I was looking at the #10 thing above. I guess it wasn’t exactly directly related to your post.
On Latin-
I certainly relate to the appeal of “feeling at home” in the liturgy anywhere one goes. I think that the loss of “common prayer” amongst Anglicans is something we should consider more deeply (but I’m not as big a fan of the standard 1662 BCP: too calvinistic). But, for instance. The overwhelming majority of Eastern Orthodox use the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (one of my favorite saints). I have four versions of it myself. But that’s the beauty of it. I have a Greek one and a Russian one; and when I go to St. George’s here in St. Paul I get it in English, with Arabic melodies.
By appealing to “culture” I’m certainly not meaning to imply “whatever is popular.” But it seems that if I were to go to Russia, I would be able to “follow” along, despite the language barrier; and how much the greater for Russians to have this thing in their tongue?
All that to say, I sympathize with the situation with you. From what I understand, Catholic identity has suffered greatly since the loss of Latin, and I totally get that. It is the same for most Christian bodies in the post-WWII era it seems.
To the author of the blog:
I am not trained in theology, nor well-read. But I cannot help having an honest response to your position that Vatican II–specific constitutions in the documents pertaining to Vatican II, and in fact constitutions which SSPX are asking to be discussed and clarified in the tradition of the Church–must be fully accepted. How it seems to me is that you have not put together certain specific ideas in specific constitutions of Vatican II with the things that you deplore: the loss of Latin, the loss of chant, the apostacy of the Jenkins’ of this world. And yet the two entities are connected! I think this is demonstrable by analyzing which bishops supported Obama’s presence at ND and which did not. Will you not find the most strident Vatican II supporters the very ones kissing the hem of Obama’s robe? I am not very knowledgeable about the hierarchy of the US church, so I am asking you, who may be more conversant with their positions on Vatican II and ‘reform’ in speech and practice, at least those who have expressed it, will analyze this simple data and draw a conclusion.
But I thank you for your comment about the ‘universal Church’ at my blog, in the science fiction posts. But I’m afraid you won’t like the story in the long run, for the young priest would of course be, not SSPX (because their society would never permit one of their own to go off by themselves; they live in community), but doctrinally identical.
I am not qualified to argue the theological principles called into question by specific language in the constitutions of Vatican II, but there is a book that does so in well-documented detail, Unum Iotam. If you would read it, I think you, as a reasonable and tradition-hearted person, would see that the Church’s ‘credibility,’ whcich you argued weighed against a re-examination of what is actually asserted in the language of Vatican II,actually has nothing to lose, not one single iota to lose, from stating the traditional truth clearly and loudly. You must find some other argument, it seems to me.
Whitelilybolog,
“I think this is demonstrable by analyzing which bishops supported Obama’s presence at ND and which did not. Will you not find the most strident Vatican II supporters the very ones kissing the hem of Obama’s robe?”
One could get that impression, but I don’ think that’s the case.
There are 195 diocese in the USA. 73 bishops objected to ND’s actions with 4 auxiliary bishops. Included were 14 Archbishops out of 32 total and 4 Cardinals out of 16.
The policy of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI I think is a wait until they turn 75 and they will be replaced. Its a very slow process but it does prevent schism which is what would have occured over the past several years if Rome had taken that approach.
I think your correct in that what I would call the “spirit of Vat II” crowd does support Obama and all of the changes that occured in the church after Vat II. However what the council fathers wrote down and agreed to is not the same as what was implemented by numerous bishops in the 60/70/ & 80’s. The most glaring example may be the latest coming out of the closet Retired Archbishop Weakland.
I use to attend SSPX services back in the 80’s. Sorry but IMO having been out in the wilderness as it were has hurt many in the SSPX and I think its more rebellion agains the church then standing for the church. In fact while I understand why they refused to submit under the conditions that existed back in the 70’s (having lived during that time period). But they didn’t stand a fight for the church in the trenches. Those chose to separate and while it probably made for a wonderful liturgy, it didn’t have to fight the clown mass, liturgical dancing and any number of other issues.
I messed up the name of a great book: it’s really Iota Unum, not what I put. You may buy it at Angeles Press (you’ll pay the same for a hardbound there as for a softbound on Amazon).
quickbeam, I didn’t realize you left a reply to my post until today. It was very thoughtful of you. I can’t understand what point you were making with the numbers you posted, there in the 3rd paragraph, especially since you seem to contradict one possible point by saying that you think I am correct that the Church Loves Obama crowd are also ardent ‘spirit of VII’ folk. And Weakland ‘coming out’ has nothing to do with either point, does it? How does it? Has he made statements supporting Obama? Was he a big pusher of VII doctrine? And how is that discussion related to the gay discussion? (Yes, I know; priests living a gay life seem to support what they see as ‘the reform’–that’s probably because it leaves ever so much more wiggle room to make excuses for one’s sin. But are they big clown mass practioneers, too?
But listen–have you considered the thesis that the problem lay in the documents that came out of VII and the planning that went into VII? The expectations that the entire hierarchy had of the Council, related to what actually transpired at the Council? That’s the thesis of Iota Unum, and the author documents it so thoroughtly. Your own thesissees also a contradiction, but believes that it comes later, between the writing of the documents and the subsequent implementation, as if there were nothing wrong with the documents. But there is!
Take, for example, just one part of Gaudium et Spes. Paragraph 30 says that in contemporary society, the moral obligation that ought to take pride of place is social solidarity, because we are ‘genuinely new men, makers of a new humanity.’ This is not the teaching of the Church. The traditional teaching of the Church is that there are truly ‘stages’ of mankind, fallen mankind and mankind redeemed by Christ; only at the end of time will mankind, endowed with grace by Christ, will be glorified in a supreme assimilation to the Creator, as taught in Thomist theology.
But the wording that we have reached that stage in our time, not the end of time, completely present in the document, in paragraph 30, certainly expresses the spirit that followed the Council, that complete goofy optimism that flies in in the face of everything learned in the twentieth century, and it’s the same spirit that permits to this day all the Weaklands to mock God. They are new men, they have no need for rules. They simply ignore the carnage wrought all around them by the same old sinners and no ‘new men’ at all.
I really can’t explain in an email all the wordings in VII documents that change Catholic teaching–please read Iota Unum, which cites every source. Please, please do–and then let me know on thewhitelilyblog to come here to see an answer. It’s not so many places, and if the discussions take place–they can be clarified!!! And then the subsequent application of those principles to policy can happen. We’ll begin to use Latin again, and we’ll return to confession, and we’ll stop those annulments and start really fighting divorce, and abortion, too, and we’ll stop talking in Catholic sanctuaries, and we’ll stop destroying our priesthood and we’ll stop teaching heresy! Dear heart, don’t expect those things to happen until the clarification happens.
I wish you’d read Another Eve on my blog. It’s the story of a priest.
I have been in SSPX communities for the last five or six years. I was in Mexco, in Guadalajara for two years, there’s San Atanasio there. I went every day. They’re wonderful people, but I know what you mean, they are isolated. They have to do a full traditional choir without any help or money, a school with ditto, nada, the parishes around them attack them continually. And yet I was with a group of women who took Catholic books around the neighborhoods so that the people would have the faith. I don’t mean SSPX books, I mean the whole gamut, the writings of the saints, old, easy children’s books, the writings of the Angelic Doctors, all of it. Which was heavy to carry! Saturdays, we’d be out going door to door. That’s Catholicism. It doesn’t seem a bit cowardly to me (referring to what you said about SSPX choosing to separate and not fighting the clown masses–and did you fight them in a single parish, and win? Or did you change parishes? Hmmm? Cause I tried to fight, in the parish. Ha ha! I couldn’t pray! I was like a starving person!)
Please, sir, the documents have to be revisisted. It’s not rebellion to say so! Read Iota Unum and then write me! Oh I just checked the ‘notify me’ box under the Reply box, so maybe I’ll know. But won’t you please read that book first?