I’m just askin’

From a priest reader:

Everyone is insisting that the SSPX accept Vatican II.

Can we insist that everybody accept Trent?

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in I'm just askin'..., Mail from priests. Bookmark the permalink.

75 Responses to I’m just askin’

  1. Lepanto says:

    Not to mention every other council from Nicaea to (dare I say it) the First Vatican Coucil

  2. Andy K. says:

    *SHRIEEEEEEEEEEEEK!!!!!!*

    *quivering* But, but, but… but Fr!!!

    That’s PRE-VATICAN II!!!!!!!!!!!

    *runs behind a wall and hides*

    :-D

  3. Fr. Steve says:

    Amen!

  4. Antonio says:

    Hermeneutic of continuity. From Nicea to Vatican II.

  5. Richard says:

    NO,NO,NO! You must remember,it’s VII time. Nothing prior to VII counts anymore. You can’t sit there silently, praying by yourself. Don’t you get it? Party, party,party. You haven’t seen most of these people since last Sunday’s party. Now you have to ignore all that stuffiness that kept us shackled to that priest up there, with his back to us, mumbling something. Nobody even knew what he was doing. All that talk about how great it was. Humbug! Just check the numbers. Aren’t we a larger, happier family now?

  6. Nick says:

    I’m lost here. That is a bad comparison.

    Trent had many infallible declarations and has been a solid Standard for 500 years.
    Vatican II did not infallibly clarify/define, was pastoral in nature, and has only been 50 years.

    If a Catholic doesn’t accept Trent, they’re in grave sin/heresy.

    This is not to say VII is ‘optional’ and can be thrown away like garbage (quite the contrary), only that the same level of assent is not required.

  7. don Jeffry says:

    The point is that many people do accept Vatican II but NOT the Council of Trent. Hence we have people who have discarded tradition yet appeal to tradition to require assent to Vatican II in the tradition of the Church but as if there were the concept of superseding by the most recent which always requires assent to it and to it alone. Screwball notions!
    don Jeffry

  8. Fabrizio says:

    Nick,

    you said:

    That is a bad comparison. Trent had many infallible declarations and has been a solid Standard for 500 years. Vatican II did not infallibly clarify/define, was pastoral in nature, and has only been 50 years. If a Catholic doesn’t accept Trent, they’re in grave sin/heresy

    see, that\’s precisely what makes Fr. Z\’s point valid. Because in the name of the well known \”hermeneutic of rupture\”, many of the hypocrites who are now crying wolf because of FSSPX possibly returning to full communion actually reject Trent and even the Gosppel, since their fantasies about Vatican II are for them the litmus test of what is acceptable or not.

    Precisely because the Pope teaches that Vatican II 1) is not a superdogma (nor the Gospel) 2) that the Church didn\’t start in 1965 and 3) that Vatican II does not say what they claim it says, we can demand that those who rave about \”the spirit of the council\” give a visible proof of doctrinal and sacramental communion with Peter and the Church.

    Do they think the Mass is what Trent says it is and all Popes from Peter to Benedict have held and taught? Do they believe that the Pope has the authority and the prerogatives Christ gave him and the Councils confirmed? Do they accept the Pope\’s teaching on the meaning of ministerial priesthood? Do they share our own same Ecclesiology, Christology as received from Peter and the Apostles? The list could go on.

    We\’re just askin\’…

  9. Fabrizio says:

    Just an appendix to my comment above. And this is just a quick search. Do \”rupturists\” accept Trent? Because Vatican II does. Just askin\’…

    Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum on Divine Revelation, 1:

    “Therefore, following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council, this present council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine on divine revelation and how it is handed on, so that by hearing the message of salvation the whole world may believe, by believing it may hope, and by hoping it may love.”

    Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium on the Church, 51:

    “This Sacred Council accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who having died are still being purified; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent.”

    Dogmatic Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium on Sacred Liturgy, 6:

    “the Church has never failed to come together to celebrate the paschal mystery: reading those things \”which were in all the scriptures concerning him\” (Luke 24:27), celebrating the eucharist in which \”the victory and triumph of his death are again made present\” (Council of Trent, Session XIII, Decree on the Holy Eucharist, c.5.)

    7: To accomplish so great a work, Christ is always present in His Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the person of His minister, \”the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross\” (Council of Trent, Session XXII, Doctrine on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, c. 2.), but especially under the Eucharistic species

    5: The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact….

    Decree Presbyterium ordinis on the ministry and life of priests, 2:

    “These ministers in the society of the faithful are able by the sacred power of orders to offer sacrifice and to forgive sins (Council of Trent, 23rd session, chapter 1, canon 1)”

    Decree Optatam totius on priestly training, 21:

    “The Fathers of this holy synod have pursued the work begun by the Council of Trent.”

  10. veritas says:

    Did not Newman query the necessity of Vatican I regarding it as the work of an aggressive and insolent faction that caused the hearts of the faithful to mourn, yet was pleased when he regarded the Almighty as preserving it from error by ensuring that the ultramontanists were thwarted?

    I wonder how many people have read the Decrees of Trent? Is there a popular yet accurate publication? Its history seems to be still told best by a Silesian Jesuit whose work, in several volumes, is translated from German.

  11. Ann says:

    Of course Trent must be accepted. I heard ladies in the parish I attend actually say that Vatican II did away with Trent completely and they truly believed this because somebody had taught it to them. But Vatican II referenced Trent constantly, so much so that it seems obvious to me that Vat II is a pastoral review and reapplication of Trent to our modern world.

    I think it is very sad that those who prefer “the spirit of…” to the actual councils are tolerated and given so much of a voice and yet those who go too far in the other direction (which is just as wrong) are not given the same courtesy and dialog time.

    I am glad that the SSPX are moving back toward being in communion. I dislike the extremity of some of what I read from that quarter, but there are points in their favor too. Perhaps if they return to full communion they will balance against “the spirit of….” people and the Vatican II as written at last will be implemented in a more universal way.

    Just my little thoughts on it.

  12. Vatican II did not come to abolish Trent, it came to fulfill it.

  13. Gorgasal says:

    I personally would be happy if people clamoring for the SSPX to accept Vatican II first accepted Vatican II themselves – all of it, not cherry-picked bits that agree with their preconceptions. Yes, I am thinking of a number of German theologians.

  14. Raphaela says:

    Agree with Gorgasal. I would love to see the faces of some of those champions of Vatican-II-as-superdogma if one asked them whether they had a decent track record in, say, celebrating the NO in Latin!

  15. TNCath says:

    Of course. Without Trent, there would have been no Vatican II. The anti-spam word I typed was “continuity.” That just about says it all.

  16. Jack says:

    I would be grateful to Nick to tell me what’s the meaning of “level of assent”. I don’t see levels. Either one says “yes”, or one says “no”. “Yes, but” with respect to one’s yes isn’t an option.

    And there seems to be a lot of confusion about “pastoral”. For liberals, of course, it mean “doing things MY way”. Yet for authentic Catholics it ought mean the application of the Church’s moral teachings to a particular situation, usually a historical situation. Or?

    I’m also not happy with The Great Divorce between the Church’s Prophetic Office and her Pastoral Office, just as I know High Church Anglicans (not the same as Anglo-Catholics) who divorce the Pastoral and Prophetic Offices from the Priestly Office. In truth, these three Offices are always working together, and one implies the other two.

  17. That’s a good test question to quickly identify a modernist.

  18. SR says:

    Odd thing among certain Catholics I know or have read: They reject Trent. Reject the new catechism. Reject virtually all papal encyclicals (Humanae Vitae anyone?). Reject routine papal authority and pronouncements (Summorum Pontificum comes to mind). Reject Tradition, and apparently reject Vatican-2 (when viewed and taken as a whole, as expressed in the actual documents). So why, in all honesty and sincerity, do they call themselves Catholic?

  19. joy says:

    The documents of the Council of Trent were in a handy volume put out by TAN. It is very easy reading, and has Vat. 1 in the back as well.

    And yes, they have to accept it.

  20. Paul Haley says:

    Wow! What a devastating question? By the looks of the comments it generated, that’s a topic that will keep on generating. When I read the documents of Trent and compare them to Vatican II, there is simply no comparison as to their potency if you get my drift. Still, Vatican II was a valid ecumenical council convened by a validly elected pontiff so it deserves our assent whenever possible. Ah, but there is the rub – whenever possible. Don’t ask me to answer that question online. Instead, I refer you to what the then Cardinal Ratzinger said to the Bishops of Chile in 1988:

    “The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”

    Why, then, all this hub-bub about the SSPX having to accept Vatican II before they receive “full communion”, a term which I think is an oxymoron? Oh well, it’s not for me to question why but merely do or die, I guess.

  21. Francesco says:

    The reality is that they don’t even accept Vatican II. What they mean by Vatican II is usually the “spirit” of Vatican II, which I believe was a hallucination that they saw while smoking one joint too many in the 60s, if you know what I mean.

  22. Wm. Christopher Hoag says:

    Can we ask persons to accept to simply accept the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture in all its parts?

    Or…can we ask persons to accept the Fourth Lateran Council: “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.) ;-)

  23. Nathan says:

    What gives this question particular pertinence is that, up to the election of Pope Benedict, in many quarters of the mainstream Church (admittedly an ambiguous concept) this was a question that simply couldn’t be asked.

    In Christ,

  24. Brian Edward Miles says:

    I think when all understand Vatican II correctly (both the SSPX and the modernists) we may find that it is the SSPX who needs to insist that the modernists accept Vatican II.

  25. RBrown says:

    And there seems to be a lot of confusion about “pastoral”. For liberals, of course, it mean “doing things MY way”. Yet for authentic Catholics it ought mean the application of the Church’s moral teachings to a particular situation, usually a historical situation. Or?
    Comment by Jack

    Why would you limit it to moral teachings?

  26. QC says:

    Here’s an anti-Catholic site that actually gets it–notice especailly the section on the Vatican II and post-Vatican II endorsement of Trent:

    http://www.behindthebadge.net/apologetics/discuss132.html

  27. chironomo says:

    I read in a news release from CWN this morning that some theologians were “chastising” the Pope for the lifting of the excommunications, saying that it was a sign of returning to a time when the church was not open to the “breath of the Holy Spirit” ushered in at Vatican II. This about sums up their view of VII… it was the rebuttal of all previous law, replacing it with an “openess” to a vaguely defined “Spirit” which, I suppose, can say whatever they want it to say.

    Sadly, I see a monumental battle coming, and it is unlikely that either side will back down. I would like to see ALL BISHOPS sign a document of agreement with Vatican II… with a clear indication of what this means and what will result from this newly proclaimed agreement on everyone’s part….those who will not sign? Well, what happens to Bishops who don’t accept the valid teachings of the Church?

  28. Orthros says:

    Epic win

  29. Henry Edwards says:

    As the Vatican II quotations cited by Fabrizio @ 3:33 am make clear, no Catholic can meaningfully say he accepts Vatican II if he rejects any decree of Trent.

    So isn’t this, in practice, more a question of who is authentically Catholic and who is not?

  30. Andrew, UK and sometimes Canada says:

    Oh, William (see above) beat me to it.

    Lateran IV – reaffirmed Transubstantiation, introduced yearly confession, yearly reception of the Eucharist, forbade clerics from assisting in judicial duels (which consequently ended), held clerics to a higher standard than the laity, encouraged schools…to name but a few. All under the great Innocent III +{{{:-)

  31. momoften says:

    We can get into the technicalities of the validation of Vatican II or any Councils, but, the fact remains–they totally REJECT Vatican II. Look at Luther…yes, he saw a problem(s) within the church and he bailed to form his own church—I wish they would reconcile, but they have bailed out somewhat the same way Luther has…in pride they say “We are right, the church is wrong” in humility they will have to reconcile – Think about it , they left so quickly after Vatican II…not waiting for the dust to settle or staying to fight the fight

  32. Paul Haley says:

    Comment by veritas

    I wonder how many people have read the Decrees of Trent? Is there a popular yet accurate publication? Its history seems to be still told best by a Silesian Jesuit whose work, in several volumes, is translated from German.

    On my website, http://phaley.faithweb.com/ I have e-Book – Veritas & Sapientia (Truth & Wisdom) in which you will find extracts of the Trent decrees. In fact, they take up a good part of the book more or less as the foundation for my thesis that The Truth Shall Set You Free. The full text of the documents can be found at http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html and I hope this answers your question. Happy reading!

  33. Jim says:

    To get even more basic, will everyone accept the Council of Nicaea? Even the pastors of
    dissident parishes in Australia?

  34. Liam says:

    Lots of theys and thems goin on here. Imagine if we had to fast from that for Lent.

  35. RichR says:

    Great question, Fr Z.

    This should be something that we share with liberals, but with young conservative Catholics, too. After the New Evangelization, you had a surge of apologetics that has helped form a militantly-loyal laity in this country (ages 25-40). I am one of them. Many of my type have a reaction to anything that looks like disloyalty to the Pope or the Church (such as the opinions of the SSPX), but when pressed, we will admit that we have not read VII or any of the Councils.

    Instead of beating people over the head with the realization of their ignorance, we should use it as a segway to inviting them to read materials (such as early concilliar documents) that may give them a broader understanding of their identity as Catholics.

    The liturgy is not the only patrimony that is in danger of being lost.

  36. don Jeffry says:

    http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm

    On the left under MAGISTERIUM choose “Catechisms” then in the main frame choose “The Catechism of Trent”. There you can read the whole catechism of Trent like the Tan book. Best, don Jeffry

  37. Aelric says:

    The problem, of course, is that since Vatican II defined no new dogma, (fallen) nature abhorring a vacuum, every educated-beyond-their-intelligence-self-proclaimed-theologian stepped in to supply their own.

  38. Tom says:

    Shouldn’t we start calling it Trent I? Just the merest hint of a Trent II is going to create some waves!!!

  39. MenTaLguY says:

    _Can we insist that everybody accept Trent?_

    Yes please!

  40. What I learned way back when: was that Vatican II should not be considered a new council but a continuation of Vatican I…

  41. Wm. Christopher Hoag
    can we ask persons to accept the Fourth Lateran Council: “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.

    The CCC No. 846 says the same thing, however, CCC No. 847 says
    my paraphrase “God is God and he can do what he wants in reference to who is saved
    — of course this is true, but not a very good paradigm for moral theology (i.e. May lead to or become the sin of presumption). Better off IMHO to regard Our Lord as the Just Judge and not the teddy bear in the sky. As St. Faustina was told by Our Lord, the time for mercy is NOW the time for judgement is in the next world.

  42. Thomas says:

    +

    @Liam: amen to that.
    @Veritas: a great albeit expensive set is this one,

    http://www.amazon.com/Decrees-Ecumenical-Councils-2-Set/dp/0878404902/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234970081&sr=8-1

    with the orginal languages facing the translations.

  43. thomas says:

    Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils:
    http://www.amazon.com/Decrees-Ecumenical-Councils-2-Set/dp/0878404902/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234970094&sr=1-2

    is a two volume set of all the Councils, with Greek/Latin original and translations. Volume 2 includes Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II.

  44. depeccatoradvitam says:

    Adherence to doctrine, councils or Creed for that matter is no replacement for proper (re)evangelization and catechesis. This teaching and proclamation apostolate is what is lacking and worse hidden in obscurity due to too many inside the Church hierarchy and ranks who clearly are not well formed and move on their own agenda instead of focused on His plan.

    You cannot simply close the doors to The universal (little “c”)catholic Church to sequestor truth and hide in self-piety. The church must deeply and actively led by the bishops bring about a re-evangelization, true catechesis and be bursting at the seams to explode into the world about us. We should not be afraid, we should proclaim in the light and shout from the rooftops.

    You cannot force faith. It must be formed and based on truth for which and from which we are created. To force faith removes freedom. True freedom is a call to truth, but not by beatings and exclusion (unless interdict and excommunication are appropriately applied as an individual child is grounded for a specific bad deed or scandal to others).

    Here is where, while lacking in dogma and doctrine, christian communities are awakening many to the call of the Holy Spirit. Gather them in. Too bad, they have a gathering, but no further than scripture alone to continue. There is much to learn without destroying the Liturgy or decimating the doctrine. This could be in the true and faithful and fullness of the Catholic Church. But we move slowly and legalistically fight ourselves in the streets, ofte without decorum.

    A closed door policy will not work for the kingdom of God calls many if not all. We must be prepared to help others find the narrow gate.

    It is missionary time. It’s unity time for the inside of Christ’s Church. It’s truth time. It’s fullness of the faith imparted to us time. Pass it on!

  45. thomas says:

    being a unix geek, of course I think names are case sensitive :)

  46. Creagh says:

    Father this is an outrageous statement!

    How can you say this…??
    WE aren’t theologians! That’s why we have priests, bishops and cardinals.
    WE shouldn’t have to figure this ‘church’ stuff out.
    How can WE answer these questions?
    Do you really think we can start thinking for ourselves? Looking at the facts to make clear rational arguments?

    really Fr.. get real

    hmmmmm…. actually maybe we should

  47. Kimberly says:

    According to almost ALL acticles of TRENT its says “LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” if they do not accept the teaching, therefore we don’t need to ask the question about VII – they anathemized themselves.

  48. Kimberly says:

    Accourding to almost all of the articles of TRENT, if a person does not ACCEPT “Let Him Be Anathema”, therefore we don’t have to ask the question about V11 because they have already anathemized themselves.

  49. Thomas says:

    @thomas: wow. this is scary.
    :o)

  50. RBrown says:

    Can we ask persons to accept to simply accept the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture in all its parts?

    Yes.

    What is an example errancy?

    Or…can we ask persons to accept the Fourth Lateran Council: “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.) ;-)
    Comment by Wm. Christopher Hoag

    Again, yes. But it is necessary to understand what is meant by “the Church”.

  51. RBrown says:

    depeccatoradvitam,

    1. Your comments seem to indicate that adherence to doctrine, Councils, or Creed have nothing to do with evangelization/catechesis. In fact, they are the foundation of all evangelization/catechesis.

    2. Dogma and doctrine exist so that one may understand Scripture.

    3. The Holy Spirit is the love breathed by the Father and the Son (from the Creed: in Spiritum Sanctum . . . qui ex patre filioque procedit), Spiritus Verbi (the Spirit of Truth). St Thomas’ famous words describing the procession of the HS: The Word breathing for Love (Verbum spirans amorem).

    The Holy Spirit, which proceeds from the Father and the Son, can never be separated from dogma and doctrine.

  52. Wm. Christopher Hoag says:

    Or…can we ask persons to accept the Fourth Lateran Council: “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.) ;-)
    Comment by Wm. Christopher Hoag

    Again, yes. But it is necessary to understand what is meant by “the Church”.

    How about this: for a narrowed, clearer understanding of “the Church”:

    “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

    Can we ask that this be confessed?

  53. Wm. Christopher Hoag says:

    BTW, I don’t want to take this down the rabbit hole with my quotes from Lateran IV and Eugene IV.

    Just seems everyone needs to internalize the hermeneutic of continuity and not be selective in its application!

  54. Calleva says:

    Nick said “I’m lost here. That is a bad comparison.

    Trent had many infallible declarations and has been a solid Standard for 500 years.
    Vatican II did not infallibly clarify/define, was pastoral in nature, and has only been 50 years.”

    Spirit of Vatican II has only been about 45 years and it has many declarations and anathemas. Anyone who does not assent to the reforms pronounced infallible by the (now missing) documents “Bugnini Dixit” and “Modernisti Regnant” shall be cast out and declared “Prae Vaticanum II” (as I was on one occasion by some Dutch bloke who didn’t like a letter I’d written to a Catholic paper)

  55. ssoldie says:

    why is it I find the anti catholic retoric from the protestant’s,so alike with the progressive catholic’s(neo con)anti traditionalism. ummm, just wondering. Why is one called rigid when one is faithful?

  56. Mitchell says:

    Growing up post Vat II I heard nothing about or even the mention of Trent. “0” That is the fault of Priests and Teachers during that period of time. They spoke only of Vat II as if no other Council ever occurred. A whole generation has been lost in the shuffle. I had to learn about it on my own in adulthood and it seemed as foreign as the Latin language which we are required by Vat II to use..Imagine my astonishment and wonder as a Catholic to have never heard of it. They (clergy) indeed intended to give the appearance that all began in 1965 with the close of Vat II. And that is all I have heard since, until finding a UA Mass and the Internet….

  57. RBrown says:

    Wm. Christopher Hoag,

    The Sacraments are necessary for Salvation, but it is possible to receive the fruits of Baptism outside of its Sacramental celebration.

    Would anyone in such a case be a member of the Church?

  58. Wm. Christopher Hoag says:

    The Sacraments are necessary for Salvation, but it is possible to receive the fruits of Baptism outside of its Sacramental celebration.

    Would anyone in such a case be a member of the Church?

    That is the rabbit hole we need not go down!

  59. RBrown says:

    Wm. Christopher Hoag,

    You already went down it with your comments above.

  60. Nick P says:

    ssoldie: that is so true. Progessive Catholics alot of times talk the same way Protestants do. I actually had a discusion regarding praise and worship. and she talked the same way a Protestant would. For example, “Dont you want to dance for Jesus?” …this blows my mind talking to Liberal Catholics are like talking to Protestants….i wonder why???????????? :)

    Deo Gratias
    for our Current Sovereign Pontiff, he is trying to right the ship (ark)

  61. Michael J says:

    R Brown,

    Limiting my comments to the quote above, it seems to me that Cantante Domino quite plainly states that only Catholics can receive the fruits of the sacraments:

    “… only those remaining within this unity [are Catholics] can profit by [receive the fruits of] the sacraments of the Church unto salvation …”

  62. RBrown says:

    Limiting my comments to the quote above, it seems to me that Cantante Domino quite plainly states that only Catholics can receive the fruits of the sacraments:
    “… only those remaining within this unity [are Catholics] can profit by [receive the fruits of] the sacraments of the Church unto salvation …”
    Comment by Michael J

    Your interpretation of Cantate Domino contradicts Christ’s own words to the Good Thief.

    cf: CCC 1258.

  63. Vincent says:

    How about the Syllabus of Errors?

  64. RBrown says:

    How about the Syllabus of Errors?
    Comment by Vincent

    What’s the point?

  65. Martin Feeney says:

    Your interpretation of Cantate Domino contradicts Christ’s own words to the Good Thief.

    Whether you reckon the beginning of the New Law, under which baptism is obligatory for salvation, to the death of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, or the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, the reality is that St. Dismas the Good Thief died prior to the inauguration of the New Law. He was subject to the Mosaic Law, and died under that dispensation. His time was indeed so short in the Limbo of the Fathers that our Lord delivered the Good Thief from there probably within the hour of his death.

    Cantate Domino does not nor cannot contradict the words of Christ.

  66. depeccatoradvitam says:

    RBrown

    I was not advocating the separation of doctrine, Councils, or Creed as “have nothing to do with evangelization/catechesis.”

    It is the Holy Spirit that guides all of this, not men.

    The non-acceptance or abandonment of the tenants of the faith are the concern. People are abandoning the (big “C”) Catholic Church. Those being initiated to the faith in other Christian communities are growing because they have a gift to bring about that first evangelization or re-evangelization. That is the thing that I am saying we need to relearn as part of the Church militant.

    The new or returning soul must first walk before running and I am saying that we are missing the whole basis of faith in that people are NOT connected to God–Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are missing the core essence and to jump into the deepest dogma and doctrine that we know today without there basic understanding of the faith, is not going to bear good fruits. This is not abandoning nor separation from doctrine, Councils, Sacraments, or Creed. It is not about eccumenical wishy washy-ness or all equality of the Christian spectrum. It is a need from the core of (big “c”) Catholic Church to raise a flag, carry the banner and reassume the helm of evangelization/catechesis. To teach clearly and fully from those first few baby steps to the full on run.

    Quite simply, the Catholic Church has lost its role, due to misguided and erroneous teaching within her ranks. She has lost the street battle for hearts and minds, and the best of us continue to fight a penthouse battle over the (yes important) details, but forget that many are missing the core essentials that even bring one to form correctly in the faith. Why would preaching to a true, but obscure Canon or a subparagraph of a conciliar document engage the beginner or the one slipping in their faith? If it is important, there is underlying truth that is already misunderstood and necessary to the fullness of the details of the doctrine.

    Many want to close the doors and strike anathema on anyone not so perfect as learned ourselves. But Jesus walked the streets and ate with sinners, and sought out those who had no connection to faith, not the righteous, but that they may become followers. He taught boldly and compassionately. Meanwhile these very pages with some of our best and brightest of the tightest doctrine snipe at each other with impunity and too often scandalous itself.

    I am asking that we take a step back from where we think we know things. Step into the shoes of the non-believer and the mis-believer. If dogma and doctrine are there to perfect the message of Scripture what good is all of it when the basic core of faith is unknown, incorrectly assumed and there is no accepted truth to hang deeper faith upon and no example to seek or reconcile among true believers.

    This applies to plenty of cradle Catholics as well who for family, prestige, etc. find entitlement to their faith without any work on their part. Christian, yes. But not living to their Baptism, to their call to action as a Confirmandi.

    So to your point, no they can’t be separated, but one must first know of God and who His three persons are and why they exist. We were not born a saint. Even Saint Augustine grew into the role through attainment of knowledge, prayers of others and practice practice practice.

    It all must be built upon the smallest mustard seed, a grain of truth upon which it is possible to learn or revisit and to engage the soul grow, knowing the Creed, Sacraments and their own place in the kingdom correctly before going deeper to the reason behind the dogma, doctrine and practices.

    We are not gifted with all knowledge. Many have not been given good basics of evangelization nor catechesis even though they or their families check-box Catholic in the great form of life. Too often, it is not just a vacancy in the teaching, but counter teaching from the wolves among us.

    We cannot teach them with an axe. We must begin with core teachings based on truth so that they may once again understand the Creed, the Sacraments and then the dogma and doctrines will make sense, and more importantly be accepted, not just tossed away as personal interpretation. And we cannot force them to accept, only to inform them to choose correctly, to choose God.

  67. Quilisma says:

    Surely that bottle of \’Spirit of Vatican II\’ is nearly empty by now and so that we could actually get down simply to reading what it says on the label.
    I mean, talk about the SSPX being unwilling to accept some parts of it. How about all those that say they do accept it and:
    a. Haven\’t given pride of place to Gregorian Chant
    b. Haven\’t retained Latin as the language of the Roman Rite (with a sprinkling of vernacular, of course)
    and many many more…..

  68. ssoldie says:

    Bravo..Quilisma..Bravo God bless Holy Father Benedict XVI

  69. RBrown says:

    Whether you reckon the beginning of the New Law, under which baptism is obligatory for salvation, to the death of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, or the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, the reality is that St. Dismas the Good Thief died prior to the inauguration of the New Law.

    Unrepentant Thomist that I am, I consider the Church to begin at the first instant of the Incarnation, when the Head of the Church was conceived. The beginning of the Church corresponds with the beginning of the New Law.

    He was subject to the Mosaic Law, and died under that dispensation. His time was indeed so short in the Limbo of the Fathers that our Lord delivered the Good Thief from there probably within the hour of his death.

    So you’re saying that when Christ said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, he should have added, “but really not yet”?

    Cantate Domino does not nor cannot contradict the words of Christ.
    Comment by Martin Feeney

    I never said it did. I said the problem was with his interpretation.

  70. RBrown says:

    depeccatoreadvitam,

    I am a convert from a family with a family who was a born again agnostic and a lukewarm Episcopalian mother.

    I converted while a student at the University of Kansas. The prof under whom I studied was the instrument in more than 100 conversions. Of those many converts, most are married, but 2 are bishops (1), 2 are nuns in the South of France, at least 15 are priests, c. 8 are monks (originally in a monastery in France, now in Oklahoma), and two of us have doctorates in theology from the Angelicum.

    If you’re interested in conversion, its personal cost, and how it comes about, I have some stories that might interest you.

    (1) Actually, although both bishops were students, only one was actually a convert.

  71. joy says:

    Tom, I’d love to see the reaction if Trent II were announced.
    hehehe

  72. don Jeffry says:

    Anybody ever hear of baptism by desire?

  73. RBrown says:

    Anybody ever hear of baptism by desire?
    Comment by don Jeffry

    NB my reference above to CCC 1258

  74. Corleone says:

    I personally have issues with Nostra Aetate in that to me it seems to conflict with earlier teachings on the subject of Mohammedanism. The Latin text specifically uses the word “Muslimos”, wherein prior to this the word is “Maomettanos” which is the traditional and more theologically correct term. In fact, I am unaware of the church using “Muslimos” prior to Vatican II in any official document. Can anywone here help me out?

    But more to the point (and I’ll quote the rest in English):
    The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.

    This seems VERY contrary to the church teaching that God is triune, and those who do not worship the Triune God are indeed worshipping false gods. And to claim Mohammedans “submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees” presupposes that these decrees Mohammedans submit to in the name of god did in fact come from Him. Which they did not!

    Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

    OK…RED FLAG!!!! Any statement that says we should all FORGET THE PAST for whatever best interest is wayward in thinking. Rather than forget the past, shouldn’t we acknowledge the wrongs (on both sides) in order to get past them? I think it is this “forgetting of the past” which has led to the drastic historical revisionism of the last 40 odd years, specifically in the area of the crussades. Hollywood especially depicts the Mohammedans as the noble, educated indigenous inhabitants, and the crussaders as the unwashed zealots hell-bent on conquest.

    Other than this troublesome and seemingly false attempt at eccumenism, I don’t have problems with Vatican II.

  75. Michael J says:

    R Brown,

    When did the seven Sacraments instituted by Christ become obligatory? When did Christ found His Church? I assume by your statement above that you think these events happened at the moment of Christ’s conception, but what has the Church said about when these took place?

    Getting back to “my” interpretation of Cantate Domino, show the contradiction please, because I do not see it.