Let this be a warning to you all

Those of you who are regular reades know that I am not much for the via media approach to things unless it is in reference to the principle in medio stat virtus

Nevertheless, I also hold fast to the old phrase of the late Msgr. Richard Schuler, who was wont to say, "You can go into the ditch on either side of the road, right or left, but either way you are still in the ditch."

With that in mind, consider these following videos.

First, I drag back into view, much like a decaying badger than needs closer examination, the closing "liturgy" of the Left Coast Call To Action folks.  This is pretty wacky… and tasteless!  An unbeatable combination, that.  As I mentioned elsewhere, I wouldn’t rule out alien life being involved with this.  just think, they got a retired bishop into enneagrams to do this, with big puppets, even. 

If you have seen this already, just skip ahead.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSbiL3XduvY]

Creepy.

In the meantime, let’s play dress up!

Over in the other ditch, we find the liturgical hijinx of anti-pope Gregory XVII.

Yes, friends, we still have anti-Popes. 

This video, from 2001, shows the Spaniard, known for taxt purposes as Clemente Domínguez y Gómez aka "Gregory XVII", who proclaimed himself Pope back in 1978.  He is head of the Palmarian Catholic Church

He has visions! But without liturgical dancers or puppets… unless you count those dupes who are around him,

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGUQqNgffUM]

Biretta tip to Hallowed Ground for the video…   o{]:¬)

You will be pleased to know that His Anti-Holiness was succeeded in 2005 by Manuel Alonso Corral who omniously took the name of Peter II.  Ooooo…

We can find groups to fit our every ecclesiological fantasy.  And some of them have their own Popes!

For example, you can be a follower of Pius XIII, who probably has to pay state taxes in Montana as Lucian Pulvermacher.  He even had some white smoke to signal his election from his cottage’s chimney.

So it isn’t the Sistine Chapel… but hey!  Traditions are cool!

It is very important to stay in union with the Vicar of Christ, folks.  It is important to follow faithfully the liturgical books and stick to the Church’s teachings and laws. 

There is no precise "middle of the road" for Catholics… and the road is fairly wide.  And you can go off the road into the ditch.  Frankly, I think the right side of the road is the fastest, smoothest and safest lane to get to heaven. 

But pay attention there, too! 

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

89 Responses to Let this be a warning to you all

  1. Tiny says:

    and at 2:34, the “cardinal” on the left checks his watch!

  2. Wm. Christopher Hoag says:

    Although the video clip calls the visions of the Palmarian anti-Pope to be a hoax, I think it would be better to say that the origins of the Palmarian spiritual phenomena is diabolical rather than fanciful, i.e., the visions and levitations are preternatural in origin rather than natural–and certainly not supernatural!

  3. Tom says:

    This charade has nothing to do with the “right,” if by that is meant close adherence to orthodoxy. These guys are simply hucksters at best, perhaps diabolically influenced, but really much, much closer to the puppeteers of Call to Action than they are to say, the SSPX.

    The only difference between the Puppeteers and the Palmarians is that the Palmarians appear to favor fancy vestmensts and trappings instead of potato head puppets. Other than that, are they really different?

  4. Andy Lucy says:

    I especially liked Pulvermacher’s “Coronation” photo. I don’t know if it is still on their site, but the 4×4 chicken wire in the background lent a rustic feel to the whole production.

  5. Tom says:

    This clownish stuff is nothing to do with the “right,” if by that term is meant a close adherence to orthodoxy. These dress-up lovers have more in common with the Potato head folks than with say, the SSPX. They just prefer fancy vestments and trappings over Potato heads… other than those incidentals, are the two groups essentially different?

    The truth is not a Hegelian synthesis between the Palmarian thesis and the Potato Head antithesis.

  6. Wm.: Well.. it could be that the guy is just crazy and really likes to dress up.

  7. Tom says:

    Sorry for the duplicate… thought the first one didn’t make it.

  8. Andy: You know, there may come a day when some Bishop of Rome will have to be elected in circumstances such as those.

    But not yet!

  9. Wm. Christopher Hoag says:

    Fr Z: Well.. it could be that the guy is just crazy and really likes to dress up.

    Hell, I’m crazy and like to bander about in fancy dress, but I do not claim to be Pope of my own religion nor experience paranormal phenonomena.

    No. The late Clemente Domínguez y Gómez was under the influence of fallen angels, perhaps unknowingly but still their human tool.

  10. Michael says:

    As I write this, I am watching an EWTN televised broadcast of Abundant Life, with johnette Benkovic and Fr. Ed Silvia. The program is on charismatic renewal, and they are going on and on about how wonderful it is to be blessed with the gift of tongues. This is all craziness, isn’t it? I have to confess that I had been absent from the Church for several decades. This charismatic stuff is one of the reasons I was driven away…..too many people claiming gifts of the spirit, and doing their own thing. I saw how it took over a community of monks, and chaos resulted. It’s so antithetical to the idea of a community under an abbot. In my opinion, it’s antithetical to the very idea of the Church. I had heard that Mother A. had spoken positively of this movement in the past. I think JPII did as well. I listen to Benkovic and Silvia on the radio on occasion. They have been strong, speaking against the New Age movement. I’m shocked to see them talking about this. Can someone comment on this? Father? Anyone??

  11. elizabeth mckernan says:

    That clip with the anti-pope was extraordinary. I’ve never heard of them happily but see that they do have a congregation. Some of the tallest mitres ever seen too and colourful vestments. One question came to mind – how does the anti-pope keep his mitre on his head while he is doing a fair imitation of limbo dancing?

    I cannot help wondering whether this sect came into being as a direct result of the simplification of the vestments during the 60s and 70s – almost a protest against the ‘polyester ponchos’ and ‘bedouin birthing tents’ we are so familiar with today. The poor chap does seem to be of a certain age, and not too agile after his strenuous ‘visions.’

    What with that and Mr Potatomen I shall look forward to attending a ‘normal’ Mass this Sunday celebrated by a priest who I am sure would never dream of imposing such horrors on his congregation.

  12. Wm: Then you are privy to information I don’t have access to.

    I suggest you pray for him.

  13. mbd says:

    I suppose that the second video demonstrates that there really is a place for blue liturgical vestments after all.

  14. B. says:

    What is kind of amusing is that the Palmarian Church has its own sedevacantists.
    When Clemente Dominguez published his personally revised version of the Bible some of his clergy accused him of heresy. But they didn’t proceed to the obvious conclusion that he was just a fake from the get-go, no, they insist that Jesus Christ personally transfered the see of Peter to Palmar de Troya and made Clemente pope, but he later lost the papacy due to his heresy.

    As they explain:
    36. Is it not true that there are similarities between what is happening now in the Palmarian Church and what happened in Rome in the seventies? Yes! Satan, like at that time, is trying to dissolve the Church from within and destroy the Faith of the Palmarians!

  15. B. says:

    What is kind of amusing is that the Palmarian Church has its own sedevacantists.
    When Clemente Dominguez published his personally revised version of the Bible some of his clergy accused him of heresy. But they didn’t proceed to the obvious conclusion that he was just a fake from the get-go, no, they insist that Jesus Christ personally transfered the see of Peter to Palmar de Troya and made Clemente pope, but he later lost the papacy due to his heresy.

    As they explain on their website:
    36. Is it not true that there are similarities between what is happening now in the Palmarian Church and what happened in Rome in the seventies? Yes! Satan, like at that time, is trying to dissolve the Church from within and destroy the Faith of the Palmarians!

  16. Neil Mulholland says:

    Don’t forget about poor old “Leo XIV”, who has had to remove his Papal Court to the fair burg of Hyder, Alaska (pop. 100 humans, 1000 grizzlies and a handful of creatures of indeterminate origin). His “bush mitre” consists of a Husqvarna Chainsaw ball cap.

    He hasn’t been heard from in quite a while, but given the frequency with which certain residents of Hyder regain consciousness, one shouldn’t presume his demise.

  17. I suppose that the second video demonstrates that there really is a place for blue liturgical vestments after all.

    Yes, off in the ditch, one side or the other.

  18. Patrick says:

    This is my very favorite anti-pope, Pope Michael:

    http://www.vaticaninexile.com/People/PopeMichael/DavidBawden.html

  19. LCB says:

    The wikipedia article on the Palmarians was an interesting read:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmarian_Catholic_Church

    Apparently, they have valid orders.

  20. andrew says:

    There is an indult in certain nations such as Spain for blue vestments on certain Marian feasts. (Certainly not in lieu of violet for advent or lent) But outside of that you are in the ditch.

    Good advice… always stay to the right, unless in the UK or Australia!

    Anyhow, wiki provides the necessary info: “Blue, a colour associated with the Virgin Mary, is allowed for the feast of the Immaculate Conception in some dioceses in Spain, Portugal, Mexico and South America. In the Philippines it is authorized for all feasts of the Virgin Mary, a practice followed in some other places without official authorization.”

    I looked into it since a Miles Christi pamphlet clearly shows Blue Vestments. It obviously would be from one of their locations in South America.

  21. Geoffrey says:

    That video took five minutes of my life and I want them back! ;-)

  22. elizabeth mckernan says:

    Patrick mentions the anti-pope Michael. I remember reading about him somewhere on the web that he had two followers – himself and his mother! I’m tempted to look up how many others there are.

  23. elizabeth mckernan says:

    I bet other English readers did not know there is a Pope Linus II living in Hertfordshire!

  24. andrew: There is an indult in certain nations such as Spain for blue vestments on certain Marian feasts.

    I doubt it. There certainly was one, but I wonder if it is still in force today. Maybe by custom, but this is still iffy, in my book.

  25. Jacob M. says:

    Ack! I hereby petition the (benevolent) dictator Father Zuhlsdorf for the permanent ban of the Call to Action Mass from further posts.

    It hurts to watch, on so many levels….

  26. I am thinking back to Mons Ronald Knox’s book Enthusiasm, which I haven’t read in 20 years: as I recall, it did not end up being quite the magnum opus he had envisioned but certainly it’s a fascinating glimpse into the heretical mind.

  27. I am thinking back to Mons Ronald Knox’s book Enthusiasm, which I haven\’t read in 20 years: as I recall, it did not end up being quite the magnum opus he had envisioned but certainly it’s a fascinating glimpse into the heretical mind.

  28. David Andrew says:

    To watch these videos is like driving past a car crash . . . grotesque, but you can’t take your eyes off of them! (Regardless which ditch the crash is in!)

  29. Besides the reaction of humor and horror was curiosity. How many people in this Palmyrian “church” (and a high proportion of the men seemed not only to be ordained, but monsignors, bishops and cardinals!)? And where in the world did they come up with that splendid looking church?

  30. Emilio III says:

    The Spanish liturgical calendar still lists blue as an optional color for the feast of the Immaculate Conception. It has two colors listed: bl/az (blanco/azul), just as on Gaudete and Laetare Sundays it has mo/rs (morado/rosa). None of the other Marian feasts use blue.

    http://www.conferenciaepiscopal.es/liturgia/calendarioliturgico.htm

  31. Tim says:

    That potato head video is difficult to watch, but became even more difficult when I saw a child there…involving a child in that drivel has GOT to be a form of child abuse.

  32. Fr Ó Buaidhe says:

    Palmarian Catholic Church:

    I genuinely feel queasy after watching that. It’s like watching someone who knows nothing about mental health reinforcing a patient’s delusions and having all the visitors act out roles in the fantasy. A fellow from my own diocese ran off and joined them years ago and became a ‘cardinal’. What on earth is the atmosphere like in their religious houses? What do they talk about? What do individuals aspire to? I don’t know if I want the answers.

    Oh, God help them and bring them back to sanity, logic and truth!

  33. Aaron says:

    The big puppets were bizarre.
    What were they supposed to be or represent, giving the best possible scenario and from their perspective.

    I have never seen giant puppets at a Mass not even on youtube.

  34. Michael says:

    \”You can go into the ditch on either side of the road, right or left, but either way you are still in the ditch\”

    This sounds reasonable enough, but upon reading it, I am always reminded of this other saying::

    \”I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.\”

    I do not mean to denigrate Msgr. Schuler here, I just get uncomfortable with those who insist that the \”middle of the road\” is by definition the correct path to take.

  35. dominic1962 says:

    The falling into either ditch or off of either side of the boat is different than the hot/cold/lukewarm senario. However, I’m not so sure there is a spectrum-I think it is more of a globe. When one starts sliding away from the top pole, they all ride it to the bottom pole of generalized wackiness.

    In all reality, you’d think that these Palmarians could at least get their vestments right. The Pope never wears a biretta, cardinals don’t wear darker red, etc. etc. Oh well, I guess none of that matters if you can make yourself pope and get others to play too.

    The Call to Action stuff doesn’t even pretend to look Catholic. At least the Spaniard nuts actually look Catholic. That said, when this cult dies out, some Spanish diocese will have a spiffy church building.

  36. Ottaviani says:

    That “Pope” Gregorio looks uncanningly like John XXIII.

    I believe the fruitcake of Palmer de Troya invented his own rite of mass. To which he also claimed that St. Pius V “appeared” to him and congratulated him, on improving on his own rite of mass.

    They also believe that Our Lady is present in the Host, along with Our Lord.

    Seriously Weird!

  37. torontonian says:

    Judging by the average age of the participants, the attendance at the West Coast CTA Conference is going to be mighty small in a decade or so.

  38. Gerard says:

    Alright, I’m sorry but it’s time to mention the white elephant in the room.

    Which ditch did JPII fall into? Right or left? Because he willfully participated in the “extravagances” of archbishop Marini for decades and I’m horrified by what I’ve seen from the last two major deceased Popes. (the real Popes)

    I feel horribly sorry for all of these people that had their faith crushed in the aftermath of Vatican II. The case of the Pulvermacher brothers is, I think one of the most tragic stories of a family breakup that I’ve ever seen or heard of.

    But as in all organizations responsibility must be held by those in power. Did we have anti-Popes in the same numbers as today during the reign of Pius XII? I only know of one. That’s because the ditch on the left was called heresy and to go into that ditch you had to willfully leave the Church if you wanted to publicly hold to that heresy.

    The ditch on the right didn’t exist because there was no being right of the Pope. This was because the Popes clearly and plainly expressed the gospel of He who sits at the right hand of the Father.

    The anti-Popes are a symptom of a tragedy of immeasurable proportions that took place and is still going on in the Church itself. “As the Church goes, so goes the world.” It’s my firm conviction that the tumult of the 60’s was not something that provoked chaos in the Church. It was the reverse. The chaos unleashed in the Church provoked the tumult of the 60’s.

    What culpability do the recent Popes bear in this sad scenario?

  39. Malta says:

    Gerard, excellent post, although, I disagree with this point:

    “As the Church goes, so goes the world.” It’s my firm conviction that the tumult of the 60’s was not something that provoked chaos in the Church. It was the reverse. The chaos unleashed in the Church provoked the tumult of the 60’s.”

    I think the Church was well on its way towards modernism before the 60’s. The Second Vatican Council was a catastrophe, but didn’t bring on the evils of the world but, rather, through ambiguous documents, allowed foul tendencies into the Church which weren’t envisioned by the Council Fathers.

    The Council Fathers were a mixed lot; some were modernists but many were not. But the whole jubilant spirit of the thing leant an ideal that nothing could go wrong. Everything went wrong. This Council wrought unimaginable damage on the Church, but most of it was unimagined by the Council Fathers themselves.

    Unfortunately (or fortunately) I don’t think the Church created the 60’s mentality; I think the 60’s mentality seeped its way into the Second Vatican Council. This Council was non-dogmatic (although prior dogma finds its way into the documents) any new idea promulgated at VII may be rejected by a Catholic as long as their are sound reasons for such rejection, and it is not done in a spirit of rebellion against our current Holy Father, Benedict XVI.

  40. Katherine Therese says:

    Potato Head video: puke
    Anti-Pope video: yawn. It did however eerily remind me of that Medjugorje seers (the blonde lady who ‘tours’) Gives me the heebie-jeebies.

  41. Gerard says:

    Malta,

    I can see and understand your points. We have a chicken and egg scenario at work. And of course, this is pure conjecture and only my opinion.

    Personally it took me 35 years to find the Catholic faith and I’m a cradle Catholic! I credit Our Lady and my Guardian Angel for keeping me safe and keeping my nose clean during that period and I blame Vatican II, the event, for a lot of lost time and opportunity.

    Fr. Malachi Martin in his book “Three Popes and the Cardinal” referred to the “rot” that was occurring in the Church even during Pacelli’s reign. It was like Pius XII was sitting on a boiling pot waiting for him to leave so it could blow.

    But… I do think that if John XXIII had had the physical strength and the sobriety of temperament of Cardinal Ruffini or Siri (dare I say, archbishop LeFebvre) and forced the original schemata to shape the Council’s documents, I think the outpouring of grace that he’d hoped for would have occurred and the Church would have been the ROCK that would have resisted the wave of modernism that swept the world. It took 20 years for the USSR to be called “the Evil Empire” and it’s just a shame that it didn’t come from the mouth of the Pope.

    To quote Fr. Martin again, “When Popes exercise their full power in the world, miracles happen.” We should keep praying that Pope Benedict will find the same spirit that gave Leo the Great the strength to go out and face the Churches enemies.

  42. Clara says:

    It’s funny how these things can pop up where you least expect them. My husband and I were once recruited by a relation to spend a day with an elderly friend of hers who “needed help with a move.” Who could refuse a request like that?

    It was only after we arrived at the house that the woman (an elderly divorcee with a grown daughter) took me into a bedroom of her new house to show me… a closet full of vestments and robes complete with a bishop’s staff! Why did she have such things? Because, as she explained to me, she was a Catholic bishop! (And our relative then took me aside to explain to me that, while the woman considered herself to be a Catholic, her particular church “was not in communion with Rome.” Uhh… no kidding.)

    It turned out that one of the main reasons we were there was because they had thought it might be “interesting” for us to help put together the woman’s “altar” and set up her “chapel.” Obviously it was an extremely awkward situation, but we just had to explain that, while we were happy to unpack her dishes and set up her deck chairs, we really couldn’t have anything at all to do with her “chapel.” So we passed an afternoon doing mundane chores of this sort, though really, I was somewhat more inclined to run for my life. The whole place was more than a little bit creepy. I don’t pretend to know a lot about demon possession and things of that ilk, but let’s just say, I think it’s very dangerous to open yourself up to unknown spiritual influences in a way that this woman had obviously done. At least we managed to escape without the “special blessing” that she kept wanting to give us!

    And here this bizarre “church” was meeting at a normal house in a nondescript American suburb. Who would think it?

  43. Malta says:

    Gerard,

    Great point. The schemata that Bl. John XXIII envisioned was rejected, and, of course, John returned to Our Lord before the Council really took shape, leaving it to the Rhine, so to speak.

  44. Patrick says:

    Isnt it amazing how once you stray from rome, it keeps splintering? Look at the protestants…how many of those churches are there? Right..

    What is really ludicrous about these so called “restored” churches… is they forget one simple little thing that makes us The Roman Catholic Church..no its not believe in Christ, or in His Holy Divinity being equal to His Holy Humanity. Nor is it the Authoritative teaching of Holy mother Church.

    Apostolic Tradition ring a bell? How can you have apostolic tradition when you make yourself pope, and are elected to the said office by cardinals you create… when you are in schism to the church?

    Its silliness really. I feel very sorry for these people, the truecatholic crowd, and others. At least the St. Pius X people still recognize the supremacy of Rome , and oh yes, apostolic sucession , though of course their schism is something totally different.

    I also dont buy the bit that the council in itself was wrong… If you read the documents…if you REALLY read them, it is pure church teaching. What happened is people basically hijacked the teaching of it. So you end up with people who think it was wrong, or potato heads at a mass, or women trying to ordain themselve “In Persona Christi ” (even though the last crucifix I looked at, Christ was male….. ).

    Bottom line is if you are truly catholic, then you trust in the Church, good times and bad. You Trust the Holy Spirit is guiding us, and you trust that through the “turmoil” that some say we are in, God has a greater good in store.

  45. Elise B says:

    About the Ottaviani schemata: it seems that a young peritus by the name of Joseph Ratzinger was instrumental in having them changed.

  46. Malta says:

    Patrick,

    I agree that we must trust in the Church, but, not, necessarily and conjenctually in Vatican II–a Pastoral Council, not covered with the protection of the Holy Spirit–even our current Pope implied that VII may be dispensible, theologically speaking, on a grand scale.

    Let’s look at Lumen Gentium. Is says:

    “But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place among these are the Moslems, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” (Ch. II:16)

    Now, that’s really a nice thing to say to the Moslems, but has one Moslem ever converted to Christ because of it? A personal anecdote: One of my best friends in the world, a person who I grew up with, went to Jr. High, and High school, and college together with, etc. Was born a Muslim in Afghanistan, and is sincerely a good guy. We just spent a lot of time with each other, during another friend’s wedding, and are still the best of friends. Now, according to VII I shouldn’t worry about his soul, because his religion is “first place” among God’s salvation plan. That’s how I read VII. And it’s really a slap in the face of all the great missionaries who ever walked the earth. It’s a slap in the face of the Apostles, who Christ told to go out convert the nations, which were largely pagan at that time, and someone such as St. Francis of Assisi, who specifically tried to convert Muslims. My friend is my “conversion project”, as another traditional catholic I know, Charles Coulombe, put it a few years back when speaking of a non-Catholic friend of his. But if I read VII literally, I wouldn’t care a stitch for my friend. That is the beginning of modernism, which also doesn’t care a stitch for the Sacrifice of Christ.

  47. Here ( http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=es&geocode=&q=palmar+de+troya&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.29802,59.414063&ie=UTF8&ll=37.056157,-5.809144&spn=0.002046,0.003626&t=h&z=18 ) you can see the “territory” of the Palmarian Church. I remember one fact from this “pope” Clemente. He went in 1981 to Alba de Tormes (Salamanca – http://www.villaalbadetormes.com) to visit the tomb of Saint Teresa of Avila (who is buried in Alba, not in Avila). It was some months before the visit of our pope John Paul II. The people there understood that he wanted to steel the body of Saint Teresa and one of the priests there made the bells of the Saint Teresa’s Convent ring… Pope Clemente survived… almost a miracle! because all the village wanted to arrest him. In fact, one of the cars finished in the river near the city.
    I have not more information. If you want to visit the city, you can do it in the link above. They are building a new Basilica to Saint Teresa and they need money too! Here you can have more information: http://www.basilicadesantateresa.blogspot.com

  48. Fabrizio says:

    “Malta”,

    instead of blindly accepting the “rupturist”, neo-modernist version of what Vatican II supposedly taught or “changed”, you should try to read it with the Magisterium of Bl. John XXIII, Paul VI; John Paul I and II and Benedict XVI. Not to mention that the role of the Holy Spirit in it is hardly yours to evaluate, and that to reject/misread teachings that came after 1965 means to reject the idea of a living Church only to embrace a mental construction about an idealized past (and to misread the techings of that past too!). Who is the Pope? Is the Pope now reigning lying about Vatican II and the binding parts of its documents?

    Now, that’s really a nice thing to say to the Moslems, but has one Moslem ever converted to Christ because of it?
    Has ANYONE ever converted exclusively thanks to (totally misrepresented) excerpts form a document of ANY Council? Rather, it is the Holy Spirit that converts people to the true faith through the charitable efforts of loyal Catholics not seeking to win the Sour Grapes Award daily. People who will not describe the Church according to themselves and falling in the ditch discussed here no matter what side. Catholics who will rather take the time to actually read the Councils they criticize and see if the Pope hasn’t explained them a million times, instead of lecturing him and his predecessors on how to do their job (legitimate criticism or disagreement on certain practical decisions or wording of documents is another issue).

    I could introduce you to former-Muslisms who have converted and now accept ALL of the councils of the Church, with an understanding of what Lumen Gentium says farr deeper than that of many self-appointed Athanasius of XXI century. Where does the Council or the 5 Popes who made/followed it say that non-Catholics do not need to convert? Literally or not? How many times does the Church have to repeat that the modernist-relativist reading of Vatican II is baseless? How many other documents does CDF have to issue to make sure that “traditionalists” do not swallow rupturist distortions as any loyal reader of Commonweal, or NCR or the Tablet would?

    Lumen gentium says the exact contrary of what you claim, and documents explaining it (40 years of Papal encyclicals, angeluses, speeches, homilies and disciplinary actions aside) only keep coming.

    You might want to read

    1) Dominus Iesus:
    “certain theological proposals are developed — at times presented as assertions, and at times as hypotheses — in which Christian revelation and the mystery of Jesus Christ and the Church lose their character of absolute truth and salvific universality, or at least shadows of doubt and uncertainty are cast upon them.”

    “23. The intention of the present Declaration, in reiterating and clarifying certain truths of the faith, has been to follow the example of the Apostle Paul, who wrote to the faithful of Corinth: “I handed on to you as of first importance what I myself received” (1 Cor 15:3). Faced with certain problematic and even erroneous propositions, theological reflection is called to reconfirm the Church’s faith and to give reasons for her hope in a way that is convincing and effective.
    In treating the question of the true religion, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council taught: “We believe that this one true religion continues to exist in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus entrusted the task of spreading it among all people. Thus, he said to the Apostles: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you’ (Mt 28: 19-20). Especially in those things that concern God and his Church, all persons are required to seek the truth, and when they come to know it, to embrace it and hold fast to it”.99 “

    2) Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church
    “FIRST QUESTION: Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?
    RESPONSE The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council.[1] Paul VI affirmed it[2] and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: “There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation”.[3] The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention.[4]”

    3) Doctrinal note on some aspects of evangelization:
    “3. There is today, however, a growing confusion which leads many to leave the missionary command of the Lord unheard and ineffective (cf. Mt 28:19). Often it is maintained that any attempt to convince others on religious matters is a limitation of their freedom. From this perspective, it would only be legitimate to present one’s own ideas and to invite people to act according to their consciences, without aiming at their conversion to Christ and to the Catholic faith. It is enough, so they say, to help people to become more human or more faithful to their own religion; it is enough to build communities which strive for justice, freedom, peace and solidarity. Furthermore, some maintain that Christ should not be proclaimed to those who do not know him, nor should joining the Church be promoted, since it would also be possible to be saved without explicit knowledge of Christ and without formal incorporation in the Church.”

    “The growth of the Church in history, which results from missionary activity, is at the service of the presence of God through his Kingdom: one cannot in fact “detach the Kingdom from the Church”.[29]
    10. However, the Church’s “missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also de iure (or in principle)”.[30] For a long time, the reason for evangelization has not been clear to many among the Catholic faithful.[31] It is even stated that the claim to have received the gift of the fullness of God’s revelation masks an attitude of intolerance and a danger to peace.
    Those who make such claims are overlooking the fact that the fullness of the gift of truth, which God makes by revealing himself to man, respects the freedom which he himself created as an indelible mark of human nature: a freedom which is not indifference, but which is rather directed towards truth. This kind of respect is a requirement of the Catholic faith itself and of the love of Christ; it is a constitutive element of evangelization and, therefore, a good which is to be promoted inseparably with the commitment to making the fullness of salvation, which God offers to the human race in the Church, known and freely embraced.
    Respect for religious freedom[32] and its promotion “must not in any way make us indifferent towards truth and goodness. Indeed, love impels the followers of Christ to proclaim to all the truth which saves”.[33]”

  49. LCB says:

    Well, this thread illustrates how easy it is to go off into the right side ditch!

    Just because something happened AFTER the council doesn’t mean it is BECAUSE of the council. The problems in the Church experienced in the 60s and since had been building up for decades, just like the cultural problems had been building up for decades.

    In the 1940s and 50s, for example, the Church experienced extreme failures in priestly formation. The John Jay report shows that the average ‘problem priest’ was ordained BEFORE Vatican II. Or consider how many good priests left the active priesthood under Paul VI. We experienced a horrible failure in formation during that time period.

    Further, the Church authoritatively teaches that the Holy Spirit guides Councils. Some may not like what the Council taught… but it’s more likely that they don’t understand what the Council taught. Let’s be honest: one of the main problems in the Church today is a LACK of adherence to Vatican II. Point-in-case, the Call to Action liturgy is the embodiment of the “Spirit of Vatican II” without any actual connection to the Council documents.

  50. Fabrizio: Excellent. Well done.

  51. Fr. Marie-Paul says:

    You do have to admit that the Liturgical rubrics of “Greg 17th” are better than the Call to Action group :-) I suspect Greg 17th may have had a vision, but it wasn’t from Jesus. Too bad someone with a flashlight didn’t shine it into his eyes and see the reaction, or give him a pinprick and see what type of ecstasy there was. I wonder about the church’s reaction when the real Pope Benedict XVI declares the Co-redemptrix dogma?

  52. Marcin says:

    Fabrizio’s excellent arguments don’t change the fact, that in many places the documents of the Vat2 are formulated vaguely and lend themselves to just about any interpretation, depending on which hermeneutics one uses, if uses any. I can live with such problem within the Bible (aided by the Tradition), but that’s completely different kind of document.
    So you need a degree to properly understand Vat2, you get the degree, and than realize that a graduate next to you (possibly educated by the same Church) has an opposite understanding. That’s bad writing.
    Tough.

  53. Joe M says:

    After picking my jaw up off the floor, I looked at that first video a little more closely.

    Did anyone else notice that the ‘congregation’ in the first video is made up almost entirely of ‘white hairs’?

    Unless this was a meeting of the AARP (American Assn of Retired Persons) division of Call to Action, I think that is significant…

    The silliness (puppets, liturgical dance, cross bearer in a wheelchair, etc.) had an air of desperation to it, like the final throes of a dying animal. It was almost as if they were saying “Hey look, we are relevant! Don’t ignore us! You must listen to us!” However, I think, for the most part, the Church has moved on and left them behind. The unfortunate thing is that in the midst of all of that foolishness, Jesus was present. But it was sure hard to see him with everyone there trying to draw attention to themselves.

  54. Joe M. says:

    After picking my jaw up off the floor, I looked at that first video a little more closely.

    Did anyone else notice that the ‘congregation’ in the first video is made up almost entirely of ‘white hairs’? Unless this was a meeting of the AARP (American Assn of Retired Persons) division of Call to Action, I think that is significant…

    The silliness (puppets, liturgical dance, cross bearer in a wheelchair, etc.) had an air of desperation to it, like the final throes of a dying animal. It was almost as if they were saying “Hey look, we are relevant! Don’t ignore us! You must listen to us!” However, I think, for the most part, the Church has moved on and left them behind. The unfortunate thing is that in the midst of all of that foolishness, Jesus was present. But it was sure hard to see him with everyone there trying to draw attention to themselves.

  55. Patrick says:

    Fabrizio,

    That is one of the best posts I have ever read. Thank you.

  56. Nick says:

    The Palmarian catholic church does look very beautiful. I wish the real Catholic Church was like that.

    — Dont get me wrong I’m not saing the Pope should have fake visions or anything, but… ya know.

    Also, If they’re trying to be all traditional, I wonder why Clemente Domínguez y Gómez (the “pope”) isn’t wearing a tiara.

  57. Fabrizio, thanks for taking the time to write helpfully. As you point out, sometimes certain expressions need a bit of help, which does come from the Pontiffs involved or from others who understand the hermeneutic of continuity.

    Cheers! ?????

  58. Cel says:

    slo… uh, rather, saner traffic keep right.

  59. mbd says:

    It appears that the Northern California Call to Action website is still off-line – thanks to the tremendous number of hits it received from viewers of this and other sites.

  60. mbd says:

    One might say that they were driven into the ditch.

  61. Gerard says:

    Fabrizio,

    It seems that you are assuming that people don’t read or misread the Council documents.

    Romano Amerio knew exactly what the documents said. Atila Sinke Guimareas knows exactly what the documents said and he spent two decades interviewing the people who formulated them.

    But the basic problem is this:

    “The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that he sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously.”–John XXIII opening speech of Vatican II

    In this, Vatican II was an utter failure. The documents themselves are verbally sloppy, undefined in many areas and imprudent in the policies that they allow. Sacrosanctum Concilium is appealed to by very well-known Cardinal archbishops as justifications for the worst liturgical aberrations.

    “That is, the Twenty-first Ecumenical Council, which will draw upon the effective and important wealth of juridical, liturgical, apostolic, and administrative experiences, wishes to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion, which throughout twenty centuries, notwithstanding difficulties and contrasts, has become the common patrimony of men. It is a patrimony not well received by all, but always a rich treasure available to men of good will.”–John XXIII opening speech of Vatican II

    In this second goal of the Council, it is again, an utter failure. The very fact that the Popes and CDF have taught what the documents of the counil taught “millions of times” is evident that the Popes either aren’t sure or are incapable of effectively deciphering the documents and expressing them “without any attenuation or distortion.”

    And I’m sorry, Paul VI as quoted in the Response from the CDF is simply evidence of denial. He wouldn’t have had to include the Nota preavia in Lumen Gentium or written an encyclical called “Mysterium Fidei” during the Council if confusion and error weren’t prevalent and a real danger.

    You want clarity on ecumenism? Read the speeches of Cardinal Augustin Bea prior to and during the Council. He has more in common with Bishop Williamson of the SSPX than he does the ecumenical policies of Card. Kaspar, JPII and yes, even the current Holy Father.

    Iota Unum by Romano Amerio shows the philosophical errors that were a result of the formulations used in the Vatican II documents.

    Atila Sinke Guimareas in his multi-volume series on Vatican II builds a virtually unshakeable case that the results of the council were the results planned for by the periti who “hijacked” the council.

  62. patrick says:

    Again I will say, the Vatican II documents are pure church teaching. There are those however who chose to put their own spin on it. (CTA for instance). You are right, you cant ignore that that exists. But, you also cant blame the Council that that exists.

    In reality what we have are just new breeds of Heresies, wrong interpretations of things that have been true for 2000 years, and like the last 2000 years, they have always surfaced. But the Holy Spirit guides the councils. So, we have to trust that at the very letter (so go read the documents), the intent of the council was pure. It was how people interpreted the council, that led to discussions such as these.

    Are there people in the church, even bishops, who get it wrong? Sure. They are human. But, what drives the Church is the Holy Spirit. Even though it might not be apparent to us immediately, we should trust in that fact, and eventually, I promise it is all going to be alright.

  63. Patrick says:

    Gerard,

    Check your boots. I think you slipped into a ditch.

  64. malta says:

    “Not to mention that the role of the Holy Spirit in it is hardly yours to evaluate, and that to reject/misread teachings that came after 1965 means to reject the idea of a living Church only to embrace a mental construction about an idealized past (and to misread the techings of that past too!).”

    Re: the Holy Spirit, you’re correct, I misspoke. However, it is my opinion that VII was not infallible. You are incorrect to state that to, say, reject the Church’s current approach to Ecumenism that one is necessarily rejecting the idea of a living Church.

    “I could introduce you to former-Muslisms who have converted and now accept ALL of the councils of the Church, with an understanding of what Lumen Gentium says farr deeper than that of many self-appointed Athanasius of XXI century.”

    That may be true, but the point I was trying to make is not whether former Muslims accept All councils as valid (which I do, as well) but whether VII has helped to convert souls to the Church. My opinion is that VII led to reforms which has diminished the Church’s missionary role in converting souls.

    “Lumen gentium says the exact contrary of what you claim.”

    How so?

    “Not every valid council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis many of them have been just a waste of time.” Pope Benedict XVI writing as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

    http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=135210&highlight=&sid=26d8aa08d97b3a34499f1fba0014e2c4

    The question is not whether VII was a valid Council–which it most certainly was–but whether, in the final analysis, VII has benefited the Church.

  65. Michael says:

    “Again I will say, the Vatican II documents are pure church teaching. There are those however who chose to put their own spin on it. (CTA for instance). You are right, you cant ignore that that exists. But, you also cant blame the Council that that exists.”

    Patrick,
    Normally I would agree with you. If a document is mis-interpreted or badly interpreted is is likely the fault of the person doing the interpretation. Unfortunately, the current state of the Church does no really support this conclusion.

    Think about it for a moment. If the Council was faultless, it means that you are among a very select minority who interpret it correctly. Virtually every other Priest, Bishop and Cardinal (with notable exceptions) got it wrong. At what point is it appropriate to blame the teacher for the failure of the students?

    Keep in mind also that nobody (here at least) is claiming that the council taught falsehoods; rather I (and I presume others) am claiming that the council taught extremely poorly

  66. Ed says:

    Father Z and Company,
    I read with interest the Wikipedia article about the Palmarian Catholic Church. As one of you stated above, they may have valid orders, their first bishops having been ordained illicitly by a Catholic bishop. I read on, however, to see that they have changed several doctrines and dogmas–including the idea that Mary, too, is Really Present in the Eucharist(!). I got to wondering, then, at what point to the orders become invalid? Are they invalidated now because the group has attempted to change doctrine and dogma? (The same, of course, would be said for the Anglican Communion–if their orders are now invalid, at what point did the validity “decay,” so to speak?)

    Thanks, and God bless.

  67. boredoftheworld says:

    Gerard,

    Check your boots. I think you slipped into a ditch.
    Comment by Patrick

    That’s equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “lalalalalala I can’t hear you!”

    In the main, saying the palmarians are off in the ditch to the right is bizarre because apparently they abandoned the traditional Mass some time ago in favor of a liturgy that consists almost exclusively of the words of consecration.

    Beyond that, we should (although of course it isn’t going to happen) reject the usage of “right and left” because in the Church we DON’T deal with right and left, we deal with right and wrong, good and evil. The two videos in this blog entry don’t reflect right and left, they depict the commencement exercises of two clown schools.

    And then somehow this discussion turned into a symposium on the clarity of the documents of Vatican II. Between this thread and the one on the canonization process of JPII two words occurred to me that I never expected to connect to my religion: “fanboys” (or fanbois, which is the unisex appellation) and “haterz”. Popular culture (if it can still be so called) has finally given me the tools to deal with the internal strife in the life of the Church.

    Regardless, There is today, however, a growing confusion… and 23. The intention of the present Declaration, in reiterating and clarifying certain truths of the faith… are citations from the applauded post by Fabrizio. If the documents of the Second Vatican Council are so clear why is there “growing confusion” and a never-ending flood of “documents explaining it (40 years of Papal encyclicals, angeluses, speeches, homilies and disciplinary actions…”? It seems to me that the very defense admits to the problem. When I tell my children to clean up the play room I don’t need to issue clarifications. I wonder if the bottom line argument supporting the clarity of the documents is going to be that all those who are confused are really just ill-willed.

    (btw, check the wiki entry on the palmarians: “His church later declared him to be Pope Saint Gregory, XVII, the Very Great” Game. Set. Match. We’re going to have to start calling JPII “the fabulous” to beat that.)

  68. patrick says:

    It wasnt the council that taught poorly, it was select people who came from the council that interpreted and presented the documents poorly, thats all I am saying. Was the council fruitful? I honestly dont think we are far enough down the trail to determine that. Yes , there have been schisms. Yes there are people who think that a priest is simply a job function, and that even in the context of the mass we are all equal. However look at the good things that have come about.. people are actively learning about their faith in ways that they never could, simply because the nonsense exists, like this puppet mass, like these schismatics who have visions.

    My point is, in ANY generation you are going to have people that take church teaching, put their own spin on it, and go crazy for lack of a better way to put this. That doesnt make the councils to blame though. The early church had nestorius, arius, and marcion. This is no different. Heck, even some of the popes, legitimately elected popes, werent that great. Thats the point I was trying to make, but failed to articulate.

    I think in the end, this council has benefited the church, in that it has made others step up to the plate, and start actively learning about their faith, as pretty much everyone on this thread is showing evidence of. That to me, shows a fruit of the council.

  69. Tiny says:

    I blame the liberal media.

  70. Michael says:

    “However look at the good things that have come about.. people are actively learning about their faith in ways that they never could”

    Here you are presuming cause and effect and have not even demonstrated a simple correlation. The correlation, by the way is just the opposite. There are fewer people actively learning about their faith since the council.

    Upon re-reading, though I am not really sure I quite understand what you are saying. Are you truly saying that the council should be commended because it invited abuses such as the puppet mass which in turn cause people to examine their faith more closely?

    “My point is, in ANY generation you are going to have people that take church teaching, put their own spin on it, and go crazy for lack of a better way to put this.”

    Very good point and quite true, but it does not address the issue at hand. Its not that there are a few heretical groups here and there. It is that there is widespread and virtually universal mis-interpretation about what the council actually attempted to teach.

  71. patrick says:

    I am not saying the council should be commended because of the abuses. But its not the council’s fault for the abuses. Its the interpretations.

    What I was saying, is that the abuses that have happened from misinterpretations of the council, have drawn the lay people who do care, the people who come to sites like this, into learning about their faith more deeply. I am not saying at all that the council should be commended because abuses happened. You cant really. The council didnt make those abuses, misinterpretation did, and that is due to the Bishops and Priests and laity, who distorted the council to their own liking. Its not that the docs arent clear. Think about it, there were obvious political agendas at the root of alot of these things.

  72. patrick f says:

    Also I think there two patrick’s posting :) I didnt say the bit about the boots and the ditch. Just so we are clear.

  73. Patrick says:

    “patrick f” is correct. I said the boots and the ditch part.

    And I agree with him that the council didn’t cause the abuse. Poorly formed priests did.

  74. Dear,

    With all respect, but this post does nothing but ridiculize these sad developments. While the Palmarian sect (apparitionism caused this) was never sedevacantist before August 1978, Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher was a sedevacantist before his “conclave”. The Sede Vacante theory on the illegitimacy of the conciliar popes who – according to this theory – had before election or after it automatically lost their office due to (personal and/or officialized) public heresy (public defection) from the Catholic faith (CIC 1917 can 188, par 4; CIC 1983 also has a similar canon) is not addressed in this post.

    Ridiculization cannot occur in this cheap way to the sad theory of sedevacantism. The fact that people were brought to believing that the conciliar and post-conciliar Roman pontiffs publicly elected were indeed public heretics and that the Conciliar documents and post-conciliar teachings contain heresies, already shows how sad the situation in the modern Vatican is too. This never occurred in the past on this large scale, not even in the case of Pope John XXII and his (material) heresy on the Beatific Vision (not yet de fide divina defined back then).

    Sedevacantism needs to be seriously discussed, addressed and refuted (or accepted, I hope not). NOt ridiculed.

  75. Patrick says:

    Ok. sedevacanism. Its Protestantism if you want to get to it. Again I blame the media. People have just so much info at their disposal now. There is no way to check it all. So, the idea of authoritative teaching gets strained, because its so much easier to “dupe ” a large crowd now.

  76. Alexander:

    I dunno…some things are ridiculous, and pointing that out is appropriate and often salutary. But one should do so with charity and good cheer.

  77. Marcin says:

    patrick, you can keep saying “I am not saying the council should be commended because of the abuses. But its not the council’s fault for the abuses. Its the interpretations.“, but that’s just plain false. It’s the same error as saying that Daddy Lenin (you can put Stalin here if you wish) was a nice, warm guy, only his advisers were bloody cruel monsters who stole the revolution.

    Now, of course you can have various and disparate interpretations of the clear statement, and then the burden of error lies with the interpreter. The example would be the ill-conceived _actual_ liturgical reform, as it happened. Yet, the very existence of so many clarifications of the Council issued by the same body (the Church) for the sole purpose of curbing the interpretations and keeping them in the orthodox range, is an obvious sign that the original statements were not clear. I mean, you can’t clarify what is clear!

    It may be that this non-success of Vat2 was unavoidable. Most of the great Councils (esp. of the first millenium) were convened to battle false teachings and to pronounce the clear mind of the Church in these particular matters. It looks like a clear goal, not always simple, but clear. Whereas the goal of the Vat2 was very elusive: reform? renewal? Compared to former it’s looks almost like… a no-goal. To achieve elusive goal vague documents are usually produced, and I would not blame the convened body for that. It’s the nature of things. This leads unfortunately to unavoidable question whether it was prudent to convene the Council…

    The interpreters, however, are not just poor helpless victims of the vague proceedings produced by the Council. They have their own agendas. The whole amnestic atmosphere after the Council was conducive to strayed thoughts. Just count how many times you have heard the sermon that mentions and expounds the teachings of the ancient Councils, besides Vat2. How often sermons refer back to the Fathers (by name and quote) and their interpretation of the Scripture? These topics may be still circulating in the scholarly quarters of seminaries, but Joe in the pew gets close to nothing. If anything conciliar, it is harping on Vat2. If any Fathers, they are Fathers of the II Vatican Council. What about Chrysostoms and Athanasiuses (Athanasii?), Maximus the Confessors and yes the Aeropagites (God grant many years to Pope Benedict), not to mention Bernards and Thomases? It comes to no surprise that such ruminations on Vat2 breed also false teaching or at best mistaken leadership. And if VatII is not set in the background of whole Tradition, with names, places and quotes (why not?), in everyday preaching day in and day out (that’s what I call teaching, you know – a school) it sends a signal to the folks anything from before VatII is antedeluvial, all evidence erased, and we have only the Uhrdokument (Scripture), which we try desparately to understand, standing alone. Smacks of Protestantism.

    And yet we do have giants whose shoulders we can step on.

  78. Nicolás Despósito says:

    Father Z., you do a good job showing the worst of the Novus Ordo and the craziest stuff of the so called Traditional Catholics in order to bring people back both to the ‘Pope of Rome’ and to the ‘old liturgy’. You do an even better job ignoring those priests and bishops who have consecrated their lives for the preservation of Catholic Dogma, and who have never made a compromise with the Modernists. The truth is that there are Schools, Seminaries, Convents and Parishes which vere et integre do preserve the Roman Catholic Faith. You ignore them. God keeps them going.
    I’m a ROMAN CATHOLIC priest who prays and works everyday for the Restoration of the Church. I hope that people like you will realize once and for all that the problem is not the interpretation of Vat. II but the Council itself.
    By the way, I adhere to the Thesis of Cassiciacum.
    God bless you.

  79. Ann says:

    Dear Fr. Nicolas,

    I am by no means any expert on the details of all Church documents or even Vatican Ii documents, although I have been through them and even studied some of them, so I am not able to refute your point about whether or not the problem was with the council itself or the interpretation of it. However, I do know that a past parish priest of ours expressed that he remembered not receiving a lot of formation after the council and the subsequent changes occurred and wished that there had been something ongoing for the priests of that time so that the “spirit” of the council could be properly and effectively passed on from Rome right down to the parishes. He continues now, in his late 60’s to try to bring Catholics to a fuller understanding of the VII documents and to at least get the lay people reading and studying them so that they will be able to recognize what was actually said rather than only what has been assumed by many who thought all the windows flew open making everything “new” acceptable.

    Secondly, I do have to comment on your assessment of Fr. Z’s approach. I am a product of the post VII Church. I have never known anything but the Novus Ordo Mass and in my years I have experienced many different versions of it, depending on the whims and ideas of various priests. I think for everyone, there is a line at which point they stop in their tracks and ask “wait a minute, what exactly is going on here and what is going to be next?” In other words, is this really the way it was meant to be? Is there something more there for us than just this silliness in the name of creativity?

    For me, the line became very visible over the past year and a half. I have never known much about the “old liturgy” except what some said about it in a derogatory way. For me, it was something that traditionalists hung onto because they couldn’t accept VII — that’s all I knew. But once my line started becoming bolder and bolder and I started to experience pain and a real sense that something was wrong, something was missing, I began to wonder what it was and in fact, “where” it was. For a few months before that, my son had begun reading and talking about the Tridentine Mass (I don’t know if that is a derogatory term or not so if it is, I ask all readers to forgive me for the mistake!). At first, I was unable to take it all in because it just seemed too far away from my experience. But as my line got bolder, and I realized that there was a reason our liturgies were getting so “free” and “feel good”, I was more open to his discussions and while neither he nor myself are of the mind that everything should just go back to the way it used to be (I don’t have enough knowledge to make that decision) I began to see what had been lost.

    My son recommended this blog to me as a means of getting information and learning. I have found from Fr. Z’s posts and comments a balance between expressing love for something traditional and fidelity to our Holy Father, as well as charity towards those of us who do not fully understand. I have seen his posts about negative happenings, and I have seen his posts giving credit where credit is due. I am learning a lot here from him and from others who obviously sincerely love their faith and our beautiful Church.

    Lastly, if you are a priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo as it is meant to be celebrated, reverently and with regard for the sacred, then I truly wish I could experience your presence as a priest. The fact that many things are not mentioned here on this blog, does not mean they are not of value or worth discussing. I do not know the meaning of “Thesis of Cassiciasum”, and it is possible that I am not clear on your meaning in your comments, so if I have misinterpretted your post in any way, I ask your forgiveness in advance.

  80. Malta says:

    Dear Ann,

    You provide a very nice and balanced post. “Thesis of Cassiciasum,” is, basically, sedevacantism-light:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedeprivationism

    The problem with this sort of thing is just this: who decides that the Thesis of Cassiciasum is right? Without the ultimate authority of the Pope, we all flounder in a sea of relativism.

    SSPX is a different story; they acknowledge that the current Pope is the successor of Peter, but that his judgment is skewed by Vatican II, a pastoral, non-dogmatic, and thus, potentially, fallible council.

    I don’t think anyone can deny that the modern Church is in dire straits: only 30% believe in the True Presence, and 90% of Catholic married couples use contraception, for instance. But, no Pope, even in modern times, has taught any error. In fact, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been courageous souls in fighting against modern errors. Thus, they are the successors of Peter, even if they, like Peter were and are flawed men (remember Peter denied Christ three times, and even Christ told him, “get behind me Satan.”)

  81. People who think that they can “refute” the sedevacantist theses (amongst others pertaining to the invalidity of the post-1968 new Latin rites for holy orders) by ridiculing them, do not understand the gravity of the situation and hugest crisis our Roman Catholic Church is in, worse than the Arian crisis in fact.

    Public defection from the Catholic faith by the “conciliar” popes after and/or before their election is the case here (all the rest is derived from this). This is a serious matter, treated not lightly in the past either. CIC 1917 canon 188, par 4, ‘Cum ex apostolatus officio’ (1559, footnote of CIC 1917 canon 188 par 4), and various other acts of Church law depend on this (including Apostolicae Sedis Vacantia of 1945, Pius XII).

    How will we be able to free the Church from this Crisis? She will be freed, but how? It is necessary to understand that e.g. the responses to the Rore-Sanctifica.org Organization’s theological arguments of the invalidity of the new rite for episcopal ordination (18.6.1968, Paul VI) have not been seriously refuted with any arguments, and that similar matters happened with the Assisi Conferences, and the 2000 allocution by pope John Paul II that the Holy Ghost had in fact wanted and caused the “religious experiences” of Mohammed and Buddha and other founders of non-Catholic religions, and that the Spirit brought them to fruition. This, not yet mentioning Dignitatis humanae and its difficult content (which can more easily be explained and defended as Catholic than the acts and allocutions of the conciliar popes themselves), is a huge job, never taken seriously by anyone.

    One can deny the phenomenon, but that’s not intellectually honest. Read and try the proof of the sedevacantists. Not the cheap NovusOrdoWatch.org-rhetorics and stuff, but the arguments. If things are that clear, there must be orthodox Roman Catholic theologians around who can refute sedevacantism and its theories and evidence. Not by ridiculing them, but by answering. Ridiculization is a pagan phenomenon, a vulgar phenomenon, practiced by the Jews and Romans against Our Lord at the Cross too.

    Do not do so, in this era where the Mystical Body of Christ seems to be indeed mystically crucified, also by “His own”.

  82. Malta says:

    Dear Mr. Zelewski,

    I would not ridicule sedevacantists, I simply disagree with the proposition that the throne of Peter is empty. Even Paul VI, who destroyed or undid so much in the Church, came out with the incredibly propitious to the faith, prophetic and courageous encyclical Humanae Vitae–against his own cadre of advisors, Cardinals included! I agree with you about Assisi (couldn’t find the 2000 allocution you reference) but not everything a Pope says or does is necessarily good or true:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes

    God Bless

  83. Nicolás Despósito says:

    Dear Malta,

    Since Vatican II the official Church has taught and promoted the heresy of Ecumenism. Ecumenism is intrinsically evil, and was condemned many times by the Church. Ecumenism denies the Dogma of Faith ‘Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus’, affirming that non-catholic religions are means of salvation. Paul VI and all his successors have taught Ecumenism in theory and in practice. Benedict XVI believes, teaches and promotes Ecumenism. No one can deny that. Such an intention of teaching an erroneous doctrine goes against the common good of the Church, and therefore against the very end (finis) of ecclesiastical authority. I’m not speaking of personal heresy, loss of office nor anything like that. What I’m saying is that the intention of the whole official hierarchy-expressed in so many ways these last 43 years- is to make us believe that Ecumenism is right. But Ecumenism is NOT right. Therefore they don’t have authority to impose on us this false religion. But in a pope, ‘not to have authority’ means that he is not really the pope, even if legitimately elected. That’s, in summary, the “Thesis of Cassiciacum”.
    Thank you for your time.
    God bless you.

  84. Nicolás Despósito:

    Huh?

  85. Nicolás Despósito says:

    Fr. Zuhlsdorf,

    Sorry if I appeared out of context. I was trying to answer post n.80 by Malta, and probably I got too abstract…
    Thank you for your patience. I enjoy your blog.

    Fr. Despósito

  86. Joshua says:

    About the Ottaviani schemata: it seems that a young peritus by the name of Joseph Ratzinger was instrumental in having them changed.
    Comment by Elise B

    Yes, he was one of the “liberals” (thinking of the way the term is used in the Rhine flows into the Tiver). But Rev. Rahner and Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx were much more responsible. Ratzinger only shows up as a helper it seems. I think it important to recognise the conspiracies and yes heretical agendas of some of the major pushers at Vatican II, and to recognise that the documents are poorly written (Paul VI refused to believe that Lumen Gentium was written in a way to be interpreted in the “extreme liberal view” until finally he saw a letter from a liberal purporting to do that. He broke down and cried and that is why we have the prelimnary note to chapter 3). At the same time, the Holy Ghost prevented any heresy or the like from being in the council documents. Even many council fathers rightfully pointed that the periti would skew the documents after the council, and against the will of the Fathers Pope Paul VI made changes correcting for orthodoxy and clarity (such as the sources of revelation).

    So I think the conspiracies just prove the Church was protected. The great administrative coups of the European Alliance still failed to wrought the radical changes they aimed for. One major coup, though, was what they told the press. There was a Dutch Indonesian Bishop who stated the goal of Vatican II for the liturgy to be to make a ecumenical Mass with no nonscriptural elements. Of course that was not true, but such things shaped the world’s views on it. (he also said, when asked, that such proposals were not from the people he served, in fact he said they would be the ones to oppose it the most. Typical liberal, he knows best for you)

  87. Malta says:

    Dear Fr. Nicolas,

    Ecumenism is not a “doctrine,” defined, by Vatican II, it is a “decree” and thus is, potentially, fallible. Catholic ecumenism itself is not heresy. Dietrich von Hildebrand in The Devastated Vineyard that: “The attitude which goes with true ecumenism involves sympathetically emphasizing the elements of truth in other religions while clearly rejecting the errors they contain.” Hildebrand is a person I put my full trust in, as did Lefebvre. You are speaking of syncretism. While I’m not fond of the “all-out” ecumenism espoused by VII, nowhere do I find syncretism. If you have a source that says merely speaking with other religions (the Catholic form of ecumenism, which is different from inter-faith prayer services) is heresy, I would be interested to see it.

    The true ideal of Catholic ecumenism is to bring every Christian believer to the Catholic fold, as even UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO states:

    “[w]hen the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion have been gradually overcome, all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that unity which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning.”

    There is nothing heretical in that, even if it is unrealistically optimistic, and even though UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO has brought forth no good fruit (again, in my opinion), and much discord in the Catholic Church. Here’s a question: When I go to dinner with my protestant relatives, is it heretical for me to bow my head in prayer with them at dinner? Unitatis states that it is permissible or even desirable, I don’t know. But re-reading this document, I don’t see heresy:

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2ecum.htm

    Please show me how prayer, without acquiescence, with, say, protestants, is heretical. That is as close as you’ll get in the documents of VII. Now, I’ll grant you that many priests and even Bishops have taken Unitatis and used it for heretical purposes. Lefebvre himself points-out this problem:

    http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_three/Chapter_8.htm

    You say that “Ecumenism denies the Dogma of Faith ‘Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus’”. It doesn’t deny it, but it may, sometimes, shield it. I think the Church would have been better off had VII never happened, but it did happen; it was a fallible, changeable, pastoral council. However, it was a valid council. Therefore we have to preserve our wonderful Catholic faith notwithstanding the ambiguities, challenges and explaining away that has to be done because of VII.

  88. Nicolás Despósito says:

    Dear Malta,

    Unitatis Redintegratio affirms that: 1) Salvation can be had outside the Church, 2) Faith is independent of truth and completely subjective, 3) One can belong to the Mystical Body of Christ without becoming a member of the Catholic Church, 3) False religions can have “imperfect communion” with the Holy Catholic Church.
    Probably this is not the place to discuss these things. If you want citations or a more elaborate response you can send me your e-mail address. Mine is epikeya@gmail.com.
    By the way, even if Vat. II was a “Pastoral Council” its teaching has to be regarded infallible (by those who accept it) since Paul VI declared it to be part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. I can give you that quote too…
    Fr. Despósito