The division in the Catholic Church (Churches)

[tz620q]

You must not be a traditional Catholic (haVEN'T read a lot of your posts...)

But yes, one liturgy IS better because, again, it is in compliance with the way GOD wants things done. As you may know it is human nature to want to do things "your own way," which often means doing things the devil's way. He is far more cunning than you or I. We should not so much fear him as fear OUR weaknesses in dealing with him. He nearly always wins against us because he is more intelligent and doesn't have the handicap of having a human body.

So where was I? I'll be back when I remember..

I am all in favor of discussing liturgy as a means for man to worship God and what is better. We stumble along and humans make decisions on how to do this. The only thing we can do as People of God is try to get the greatest minds together in conference and pray for God's guidance. This was done at Trent and it was done at VII.

 

[tz620q]

The ‘Tridentine’ Mass was an organic development of the Roman Rite. The novus ordo was a quickly thrown together invention of a handful of people. So not similar in development.

The TLM isn’t just a heritage thing. It is, among other things, there for us to reclaim good elements of it to enrich the somewhat impoverished novus ordo. At least that was the opinion of pope Benedict when he allowed a freer use of the TLM. His goal was reform of the reform, an attempt to actually realize what Vatican II intended rather than what the bureaucrats invented for us.

I love Pope Benedict and cheered his support for the TLM. Our current Pope is not as supportive; but there is a practical question here. As time goes by, fewer and fewer young people are learning Latin. This leads to a decline in priests that know how to do the TLM. That need is what Bishop LeFebvre was trying to fill. I don't see this as extra-ecclesial or even a division in the church. It is to me a love of the older liturgy, that causes a dedication to its preservation. To be doubly redundant, I have no problem with supporting the TLM within the church. It is at the point where the SSPX starts pulling themselves away from the magisterium and the Pope where I start having problems.

 

[tz620q]

That's not my position, nor was it the position of Abp. Lefebvre, although I don't doubt that there are some people who go to the extreme belief that the NO is invalid (at which point I would say they are effectively sedes). My own position is that while it is valid, the NO is inferior to the TLM both theologically and aesthetically, and it is most often celebrated with egregious, scandalous, and even sacrilegious abuses, which have become so common that most Catholics don't think twice about a half dozen "extraordinary" ministers of Holy Communion being present every Sunday.

I think you would be hard pressed to find even the most rabidly pro-Latin rad-trad claiming that the Eastern rites or the more obscure historic Western rites are invalid.

I only meant to say that the Mass is more than an aesthetic aid to worship, which is an argument I've heard for the NO many times.

If by that you mean that the NO is meant to place a greater focus on the congregation, I agree. I think that is the opposite of what the liturgy should be.

As I said, the SSPX and traditionalists more broadly aren't just focused on preserving the liturgy, they're focused on preserving the faith in general. So yes, my statement pertains to the faith in general, not the liturgy specifically.

Let's not equivocate what were obviously two very different processes. The TLM, like the Eastern and other Western rites, developed organically over many centuries. While it was not a static thing during that time, it underwent changes only gradually, with each change affecting a small part of the liturgy. The NO, in contrast, was designed by committee in a very short span of time with a distinctly unorthodox motivation: to turn the focus from God to man.

I think I agree with nearly everything you have said here.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I love Pope Benedict and cheered his support for the TLM. Our current Pope is not as supportive; but there is a practical question here. As time goes by, fewer and fewer young people are learning Latin. This leads to a decline in priests that know how to do the TLM. That need is what Bishop LeFebvre was trying to fill. I don't see this as extra-ecclesial or even a division in the church. It is to me a love of the older liturgy, that causes a dedication to its preservation. To be doubly redundant, I have no problem with supporting the TLM within the church. It is at the point where the SSPX starts pulling themselves away from the magisterium and the Pope where I start having problems.

Latin is an easy language. Those motivated to learn it can do pretty well in a year of seminary classes. Those willing to master the language still can with a decent linguistics degree.

And the SSPX are currently in union with Rome, albeit a bit strained. It's the Sedevacantists who have gone beyond.

 

[discombobulated1]

I love Pope Benedict and cheered his support for the TLM. Our current Pope is not as supportive; but there is a practical question here. As time goes by, fewer and fewer young people are learning Latin. This leads to a decline in priests that know how to do the TLM. That need is what Bishop LeFebvre was trying to fill. I don't see this as extra-ecclesial or even a division in the church. It is to me a love of the older liturgy, that causes a dedication to its preservation. To be doubly redundant, I have no problem with supporting the TLM within the church. It is at the point where the SSPX starts pulling themselves away from the magisterium and the Pope where I start having problems.

Why?

Heresy is bad. No pope can be a heretic. That is DOGMATIC Catholic teaching.

So it looks like we indeed have not had a valid pope since Pius XII

I seek logic

 

[discombobulated1]

Latin is an easy language. Those motivated to learn it can do pretty well in a year of seminary classes. Those willing to master the language still can with a decent linguistics degree.

And the SSPX are currently in union with Rome, albeit a bit strained. It's the Sedevacantists who have gone beyond.

If no pope can be a heretic, no heretic can be pope, then how to explain Francis who speaks so much heretical nonsense? He blesses same sex marriages when Jesus spoke of marriage btwn a man and a woman only, and taught that divorce and remarriage is NOT God's will.

I have read up on the modern history of the Church. I say JP the first was murdered by people who had for centuries planned to take over the Catholic Church. The evidence of that (alleged) crime has apparently been well covered up (destroyed) but theologians even more immersed in this information than yours truly have said thesame thing: he was murdered by secret society types.

It is sickening. It's also interesting that nearly all Protestants I talk to about Catholicism hate the Faith for reasons that are rather... uh... I'll just say: unimportant/trivial (to me anyhow). If they knew the modern history of the Church, & most people, C or P do not... they'd actually have a valid reason to be against it. I myself am against the novus ordo nonsense (but not necessarily against attending Mass).

It is indeed complicated... Again, Jesus watches over his messed up Church... doesn't abandon it like Luther did just because of all the sin and problems and corruption

 

[chevyontheriver]

Why?

Heresy is bad. No pope can be a heretic. That is DOGMATIC Catholic teaching.

So it looks like we indeed have not had a valid pope since Pius XII

I seek logic

I do not follow your logic.

Heresy IS bad. No contest there.

No pope can be a heretic? You need to look at that more closely. No pope can infallibly teach heresy. They may be heretics in their personal belief but the distinction is that they are prevented from teaching that heresy as official Church teaching. That is actually a huge difference.

Invalidating popes John XXIII, Paul VII, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI is interesting. Is it because the first called Vatican II, the second bungled things after Vatican II, the third what in 30 days, the fourth and fifth thought Vatican II was a valid council? It is very convenient to say someone isn't a valid pope. Francis? I long for the day we can have a better pope. But how is he invalid merely for appointing terrible bishops and cardinals and making a mess and talking out of both sides of his mouth like a Peronist? What has he done that is infallible and yet heresy? Nothing yet. Granted many of his opinions sound heretical and probably are. But they are his OPINIONS. He HAS done a lot of damage but so have other valid and bad popes in history.

Basically it does not follow that we have not had a valid pope since Pius XII. Because 'No pope can be a heretic' is way too simplistic. Popes can be damned, and some may well have been. Not all of them are saint material. They are ALL sinners. Some are bad people. Some are dangerous people. If you require all popes to be of a higher standard than that perhaps being Catholic is not going to be your cup of tea.

 

[chevyontheriver]

If no pope can be a heretic, no heretic can be pope,

Not a valid statement. See above.

then how to explain Francis who speaks so much heretical nonsense? He blesses same sex marriages when Jesus spoke of marriage btwn a man and a woman only, and taught that divorce and remarriage is NOT God's will.

Francis is a bad pope. Worst in a long long while. Dreadful.

I have read up on the modern history of the Church. I say JP the first was murdered by people who had for centuries planned to take over the Catholic Church. The evidence of that (alleged) crime has apparently been well covered up (destroyed) but theologians even more immersed in this information than yours truly have said the same thing: he was murdered by secret society types.

'Murder in the 33rd Degree' by Fr Murr backs that up. If not a direct murder the shouting match between pope John Paul I and a Masonic cardinal the night he died was probably enough. We lost a good pope that night. Cardinal Gagnon had the dossier on the Masonic infiltration and it's not lost even now.

It is sickening. It's also interesting that nearly all Protestants I talk to about Catholicism hate the Faith for reasons that are rather... uh... I'll just say: unimportant/trivial (to me anyhow). If they knew the modern history of the Church, & most people, C or P do not... they'd actually have a valid reason to be against it.

They usually hate what they don't know anything about. I've seen that over and over.

I myself am against the novus ordo nonsense (but not necessarily against attending Mass).

The Novus Ordo has one advantage in being in the language we understand instead of Latin. I took three years of high school Latin so I sort of understand it, but still it is an advantage to hear it in English. That's just a language issue. The bigger problem is that so much was re-composed and poorly recomposed at that. Sometimes sloppy, sometimes misleading, lacking in the richness and precision of the historical Roman Rite. That alone means the Novus Ordo needs correcting. It is VALID but it is a low pass. And it didn't help at all to have clown masses and Fr. Showoff grandstanding and self-promoting through the mass. THAT is nonsense. Do the Red. Say the Black. That's what Fr. Z says. You know who he is?

It is indeed complicated... Again, Jesus watches over his messed up Church... doesn't abandon it like Luther did just because of all the sin and problems and corruption

That is essentially it. I WANT to abandon it for the mess it has become but Jesus sticks with it. So I don't abandon it but grieve over it and pray for it and do what little I can to cooperate in fixing it.

 

[The Liturgist]

This surprises me that you said this since liturgy literally means "work of the people".

Yes indeed, I am aware of that. I am not making the Lutheran Gottesdienst argument or arguing that our worship is “theurgy.” Rather I sam saying that the forms of the liturgy are of apostolic origin, and are therefore divine, and should be protected from the kind of unwarranted meddling of Annibale Bugnini and the rest of the Concilium, and the subsequent abuses that have characterized much RC worship since.

Believe me, I see your point and appreciate your deep love of ancient liturgies; but you must admit that each culture and to a lesser degree each time had their own ways of worship and formed their own liturgies. To say that any one liturgy is the only valid form or is the one given to us by God is divisive. Of course, it can be argued that some liturgy is better than others. That is a valid discussion and I think one that is ripe for cross pollination.

Oh on this point I highly agree. Much of the reason for my Orthodox status is my belief that the Byzantine Rite, Syriac Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox liturgies are vastly superior to any others, even the Vetus Ordo of the Roman Rite, which nonetheless was good, beautiful and solemn. However, it has its flaws, compared to the Byzantine, for example: it is excessively morose on Great and Holy Friday, it does not celebrate the Pasch with enough joy, it lacks the richness of the Byzantine Divine Office, and in particular the form of the Divine Office used in the Roman Rite has been a problem even before the Council of Trent, with various attempts at correcting it by Trent, Pope Pius X and Vatican II all, in my opinion, proving less than entirely successful, the most severe problem being the devotionalization of the Office, whereby it became the private prayers of the priests, which unfortunately was a negative development “Cross-polinated” to the Maronite Catholics.

Indeed, I regard the idea of “Liturgical accretion” as being mostly mythological, but the Roman Divine Office (but not the Benedicitine Office or the Dominican Office) did contain actual accretions, as did the Ordo itself, before the reforms of Pius X. However, these reforms caused other problems, for example, with the Psalter. But I do agree with Pope Pius X on the issue of liturgical music with his epic instruction “Tra la solecitudine”

 

[The Liturgist]

Why?

Heresy is bad. No pope can be a heretic. That is DOGMATIC Catholic teaching.

So it looks like we indeed have not had a valid pope since Pius XII

I seek logic

The difficulty with your argument is that, aside from what my pious friend @chevyontheriver said, there is also the significant problem that if you stick to that point literally, the Roman Church has not had a legitimate Pope since Honorius I, who was anathematized post mortem, for he either taught (o permitted) Monothelitism, which was anathematized by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches at the Sixth Ecumenical Synod. Indeed this was such a notorious incident that in the Renaissance, a grimoire was psuedepigraphically attributed to Pope Honorius I.

Actually, the incident with Pope Honorius I and the morbid incident a few centuries later of the Cadaver Synod make me suspect that the Roman Church actually could depose a living Pope if it really wanted to.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The difficulty with your argument is that, aside from what my pious friend @chevyontheriver said, there is also the significant problem that if you stick to that point literally, the Roman Church has not had a legitimate Pope since Honorius I, who was anathematized post mortem, for he either taught (o permitted) Monothelitism, which was anathematized by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches at the Sixth Ecumenical Synod. Indeed this was such a notorious incident that in the Renaissance, a grimoire was psuedepigraphically attributed to Pope Honorius I.

Actually, the incident with Pope Honorius I and the morbid incident a few centuries later of the Cadaver Synod make me suspect that the Roman Church actually could depose a living Pope if it really wanted to.

The ‘times’ will not allow that. For the most part bad bishops and cardinals are allowed to retire. A rare one is promoted to some harmless post. Or left to be a bishop without diocese. Pope Francis? The best our cardinals and bishops will do is wait until pope Francis dies of natural causes. They could do better. Even the boldest won’t. Pity.

In other news Fr Murr, who was an assistant to cardinal Gagnon, has basically confirmed the whole Masonic infiltration of the Church and subversion of the liturgy and episcopacy. He wrote a book called ‘Murder in the 33rd Degree’ and detailed the shouting match between pope John Paul I and a certain Masonic cardinal I high places on the night JPI died.

 

[JSRG]

Why?

Heresy is bad. No pope can be a heretic. That is DOGMATIC Catholic teaching.

So it looks like we indeed have not had a valid pope since Pius XII

I seek logic

The claim that it's dogma a pope cannot be a heretic is questionable--it is true Vatican I did declare that the pope was under certain circumstances infallible, it made no pronouncement that a pope could never be a heretic. There has been disagreement on the question by various writers, even among those who hold it does cause them to lose it (e.g. what kind of heresy is actually required for them to lose their office, and how it is determined).

But even if we were to agree with this logic that a heretical pope loses office, a major problem emerges, which is the way in which those who advance this claim determine it. They don't do it on the basis of any formal judgment of the church, but simply on their own private judgment. Such a method of determining whether someone is pope has far more in common with Protestantism than anything Catholic (after all, what did the early Protestants do other than concluding the pope--and the other bishops--were teaching heresy and therefore had no authority?).

Indeed, this ends up leading to what Catholics often criticize Protestants for, namely when you rely on private judgment, you end up with contradictory opinions. Some, as you say, use this argument to assert that all popes after Pius XII aren't valid popes. But others have used this exact same argument to say that prior popes, including Pius XII, weren't valid popes either. Some assert that every pope starting with Benedict XV (early 20th century) hasn't been valid. Some go even further than that, such as those that claim starting with Pius IX (mid 19th century), none of the popes are valid, again for the same reason,their supposed heresy. I thought I had seen the most extreme version when I saw people that claimed all popes starting with Celestine II (12th century) were invalid, but then I found a few people who asserted Sergius III (10th century) onward were invalid. And then you find people who go in the opposite direction and allow for valid popes after Pius XII (e.g. to say it was only after John XXIII that they were all invalid, or that they were valid up through Benedict XVI). Because it's all their own private judgment, people end up with totally different conclusions as to who were popes, and there isn't consistency.

There are other issues (at least from a Catholic perspective) with the idea that someone can just declare they aren't true popes, but the practical difficulties in determining which ones were the "real" ones under the paradigm you refer to is already a big issue.

 

[JSRG]

Latin is an easy language. Those motivated to learn it can do pretty well in a year of seminary classes. Those willing to master the language still can with a decent linguistics degree.

I've been working on learning Latin. I think it is anything but easy. There's too many conjugations, too many tenses, too many cases, and too many genders. This results in absurdities like there being more than 10 different words for this/these (hic, haec, hoc, hi, hae, huius, horum, harum, huic, his, and still more!) and even more words for that/those.

I have a bit of an advantage in that I know Spanish fairly well, which gives a bit of an advantage in some areas... which would of course only mean it's even worse for someone without that. Actually, Latin kind of feels like someone took most of the things I disliked the most about Spanish, made them worse, and then added in new difficulties.

Latin might not be as hard as some languages, but I'd definitely not say it's easy, even by the standards of language learning.

 

[fhansen]

I say Churches (whereas I once said Church, singular) because the CC is divided into 3 parts at this time in history. You have the novus ordo Church, which is the one you see in your local area, the one most people attend. Then you have the SSPX (Society of St Pius X) Churches who agree with the late archbishop Lefebvre who defied the NO Church (novus ordo) because it was beginning to teach heresy, beginning at Vatican II (one was the heresy of: All religions can lead you to God/Heaven, but that's not what Jesus said).

I have always had a lot of respect for Archbishp Lefebvre, have read a few books on him. I think I liked the one called Horn of the Unicorn best.

So anyway, then you have the Sedevacantists who say that we haven't had a valid pope since Pius XII, which I say is true (it means the Seat [of St Peter, first pope] is Vacant). Their position explains why we have an alleged pope who teaches un-Christian, un-Catholic things, who blesses same sex marriages, so called, and etc.

But there are few Sedevacantist Churches in the US or anywhere else. Most people cannot afford to drive to one every Sunday. Then there's this:

I may not be able to put my finger on this and articulate about it so tht everyone understands (catholic or otherwise) but there just seems to be something missing in the Sede Churches, something that the NO Churches (some anyway) do have. It has to do with the Real Presence of Christ, apparently. I just FEEL that something is lacking in the Sede Churches. On top of that, people are required to dress a certain way. Women have to have veils on and that kind of thing. I wouldn't mind if it were not mandatory but it kind of is or appears to be. What if someone just came in from a labor job and doesn't have time to dress up or whatever? I just think the Church should be welcoming to all. Anyway, I wonder what other Catholics have to say about all this. It is bewildering.... on some level. Jesus prayed for UNITY (John 17?)

Wherever you have more than one person in a room, you will have some degree of disunity. In fact, even one person can have divisions-fueled by ignorance-within himself on various matters of truth. The truths as taught by the Catholic Church are said to be guaranteed by God to be free from error. We can find those truths especially in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Now, anyone, whether they began as a Catholic or not, can say that they are Catholic and that they represent true Catholicism regardless of how much their teachings may actually stray from those of the Church. There’s no division within Catholicism, but there are “Catholics” who divide from Catholicism. Pray, and study. Know the faith for yourself and then it becomes much easier to discern what’s actually happening out there.

 

[The Liturgist]

I've been working on learning Latin. I think it is anything but easy. There's too many conjugations, too many tenses, too many cases, and too many genders. This results in absurdities like there being more than 10 different words for this/these (hic, haec, hoc, hi, hae, huius, horum, harum, huic, his, and still more!) and even more words for that/those.

I have a bit of an advantage in that I know Spanish fairly well, which gives a bit of an advantage in some areas... which would of course only mean it's even worse for someone without that. Actually, Latin kind of feels like someone took most of the things I disliked the most about Spanish, made them worse, and then added in new difficulties.

Latin might not be as hard as some languages, but I'd definitely not say it's easy, even by the standards of language learning.

Well come back to me once you’ve studied Syriac or Ge’ez or Classical Armenian or even Koine Greek and tell me if you still think Latin is difficult.

Oh as an amusing aside, in ancient Rome, we know from the literature that non-native speakers routinely used the wrong declensions.

 

[fhansen]

Well come back to me once you’ve studied Syriac or Ge’ez or Classical Armenian or even Koine Greek and tell me if you still think Latin is difficult.

Oh as an amusing aside, in ancient Rome, we know from the literature that non-native speakers routinely used the wrong declensions.

Only you would know that here, Liturgist . Bravo!

 

[discombobulated1]

I do not follow your logic.

Heresy IS bad. No contest there.

No pope can be a heretic? You need to look at that more closely. No pope can infallibly teach heresy. They may be heretics in their personal belief but the distinction is that they are prevented from teaching that heresy as official Church teaching. That is actually a huge difference.

Invalidating popes John XXIII, Paul VII, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI is interesting. Is it because the first called Vatican II, the second bungled things after Vatican II, the third what in 30 days, the fourth and fifth thought Vatican II was a valid council?

I will refrain from commenting because I was following you and understanding all you said UNTIL

this last sentence or 2.

 

[discombobulated1]

Wherever you have more than one person in a room, you will have some degree of disunity. In fact, even one person can have divisions-fueled by ignorance-within himself on various matters of truth. The truths as taught by the Catholic Church are said to be guaranteed by God to be free from error. We can find those truths especially in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Now, anyone, whether they began as a Catholic or not, can say that they are Catholic and that they represent true Catholicism regardless of how much their teachings may actually stray from those of the Church. There’s no division within Catholicism, but there are “Catholics” who divide from Catholicism. Pray, and study. Know the faith for yourself and then it becomes much easier to discern what’s actually happening out there.

I have studied it. And I already knew all you say here. It' just common sense (available to all).

When I state facts on history of the modern Church, this is about what I get: what you have said here and similar stuff. But no one can dispute historical FACTS

which lead me to conclude that the last valid pope was Pius XII.

A heretic cannot be pope. That is Catholic DOGMA.

 

[discombobulated1]

The claim that it's dogma a pope cannot be a heretic is questionable--it is true Vatican I did declare that the pope was under certain circumstances infallible, it made no pronouncement that a pope could never be a heretic.

There have been Councils in the Church history that are not Vatican I or II. I don't know where I heard that no pope can be heretic, but it only makes sense.. Actually, I went to novus ordo watch website and may go there again, even though I got rather bored with the Francis is BAD stuff. I mean, tell me something about how we can get all the 3 Catholic sects together... I don't want to just talk about problems but solutions..

 

[fhansen]

Unity with the temporal church of the last four decades, maybe. Unity with the eternal Church, no. The Latin Mass is highly important to them, but what they preserve is not just a ritual, it's traditional Catholic theology in general. Between a group that says blessings of same-sex couples are always immoral and one that says they aren't, it's clear that the former is the one using a "hermeneutic of continuity," while the latter has embraced a "hermeneutic of rupture."

It is more than that, it is the primary means of expressing the orthodox faith and a meeting between the particular church and the eternal Church.

What? What is "all of this"? How does it show that liturgy needs to be "organic"? This statement makes no sense. It also ignores that the Eastern Catholic Churches have apparently not gotten the memo that their liturgies need to be "updated."

That is never how the liturgy, any liturgy, has developed in the past, especially not in the Roman Church.

If so, then the liturgy can never be expected to transform the people and call them to something higher than themselves.

There's nothing eternal about the Latin Mass, or the Mass in Hebrew, or Mandarin. They are all convention, traditions of men: matters of practice. We don't worship liturgy. That concept would be divisive-and has been so.