Thu 24th Jul 2014 | Last updated: Thu 24th Jul 2014 at 16:14pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

If you really think you’re more Catholic than the pope, you’re on your way to the funny farm

The interfaith pilgrimage to Assisi doesn’t compromise a single Catholic belief

By on Thursday, 13 January 2011

John Paul II prays at Santa Maria degli Angeli in Assisi with representatives of 12 world religions (AP Photo)

John Paul II prays at Santa Maria degli Angeli in Assisi with representatives of 12 world religions (AP Photo)

As my readers will have gathered by now, I worry about Catholics who think that the Magisterium of the Church is just one opinion among many, and that it is up to them to decide what a Catholic may or may not believe. But at least their view is comprehensible, if defective. To put it crudely, they may be Catholic; they’re just not Catholic enough.
 
I am much more puzzled by those who think that the Pope himself is open to criticism on the ground that he isn’t Catholic enough, and certainly much less Catholic than they are. Predictably, perhaps, the present Pope’s decision to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Pope John Paul II’s meeting with leaders of other world religions to pray for peace has drawn fire from the SSPX, who have recalled Archbishop Lefebvre’s attack on that event: the Church, he pronounced, had never before been “humiliated to such an extent in the course of her history” and that “the scandal given to Catholic souls cannot be measured”. “The Church,” said the archbishop, “is shaken to its very foundations”.
 
Well, it was rubbish then and it‘s rubbish now. The Church wasn’t shaken to its foundations. On the contrary, John Paul II was the pope who, more than any other in this century, strengthened those foundations. I have to admit that I’m not particularly keen on what I have heard called “interfaith interface”. I think other religions are just wrong. But if those who adhere to them are sincerely praying for peace within their own religious traditions, however they may understand what the word “God” may mean, who am I to say that He, the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, won’t listen to their prayers? I don’t know what good the Assisi meeting did, who can? But it can surely hardly be argued that it did any harm.
 
The fact is that Pope John Paul did more to defend Catholic orthodoxy than Lefebvre could have in a thousand years: for, the fact is that Lefebvre, in separating himself from the successor of Peter in the name of orthodox Catholic belief and practice, did nothing but encourage the notion that orthodoxy, far from being the same thing as ultimate sanity, is on the contrary the mark of the extremist and the nutter.
 
What is the Pope risking by praying with those whose beliefs he does not share? This isn’t an interfaith doctrinal negotiation: he won’t compromise a single Catholic teaching. This isn’t like inviting a Muslim to contribute a prayer in the context of the Mass (as has been done in Westminster Cathedral) on the ground that “we all worship the same God”, when clearly we don’t.

This is the way Pope Benedict understands this event: “I will make a pilgrimage to the town of St Francis,” he said, “inviting my Christian brethren of different confessions, leaders of the world’s religious traditions and, in their hearts, all men and women of good will, to join me on this journey in order to commemorate that important historical gesture of my predecessor, and solemnly to renew the commitment of believers of all religions to live their religious faith as a service to the cause of peace.”
 
Well? And how is that a betrayal of the Catholic faith? You may think I’m taking the SSPX too seriously. But there are plenty of people in communion with the Holy See who think they’re more Catholic than the pope on this and other issues; if you doubt that, just look at some of the half-crazed comments to be found under the Herald’s online story headlined “SSPX leader criticises Pope’s plan to hold inter-religious meeting”.
 
Being a Catholic means believing many things, some of them more important than others. But one core principle is surely indispensable. Quite simply, you trust the pope. For, once you start thinking you are a better and more faithful Catholic than he is, you are well on your way to the funny farm.

  • Anonymous

    …In other words, they do not understand the Pope, the Council, they do not understand the “Sacred Magisterium” either, still less what the infallibility is all about, apart from believing that Pius IX Syllabus is infallible – a nonsense by all standards.”

    Believe me when I say that I do understand infallibility and the Sacred Magisterium that spoke in the Syllabus of Pius IX. Perhaps you reject Pius IX’s Syllabus as Magisterial teaching. Or perhaps you think that God changes His mind every now and then and has His Popes alter previous doctrinal teaching to suit the times, as though Catholic doctrine were little more than a political manifesto.

    Magisterial teaching is in its clearest form when a Pope issues a Syllabus. It is a solemn Papal act against particular errors threatening the Faith and endangering Catholic souls. A child could tell you that. Well maybe not a child educated in today’s nominal Catholic schools, who would struggle even to recite the Hail Mary, but someone who was raised a Catholic before the Council.

    The problem for me is that you have not yet made any assertions that I can pass judgement on. All you’ve done is dance around the subject of infallibility without actually countering anything I’ve written with contrary data. Accusations against, and bad mouthing of, your opponent does not count as objective debate.

    I’ll be honest and say that in comparison with the clarity of pre-conciliar Church teaching I frankly do not understand Vatican II or the Popes who have promoted it. But, then, even the conciliar Popes recognise how difficult the task is of making sense of conciliar teaching. Pope John Paul II had to explain that Catholics should read Vatican II “in the light of tradition,” thereby admitting that there was another way to read it, while Pope Benedict XVI had to invent his own key to helping Catholics understand conciliar ambiguity, which he calls “the hermenutic of continuity,” which, sadly, cannot be applied to the new Mass, communion in the hand, eucharistic ministers, ecumenical and interfaith initiatives, etc., unless we’re talking about continuity with the Protestant Reformation. So yes, I’m confused as are many millions of other Catholics.

  • Anonymous

    Let’s begin with your last sentence.

    Papolatry was a product of defective teaching of Vatican I. (I do not mean that the latter was erroneous; it was interrupted before it has accomplished its agenda.)”

    Completed or not, Vatican I is recognised by the Magisterial authority, by all Catholic theologians and by all lay Catholics who wish to remain Catholic, as a dogmatic (infallible) Council of the Church whose solemn decrees are beyond question and debate.

    On what grounds, then, do you claim that Vatican I was “defective?” I accept that it was interupted. But defective? You are seriously in error, my friend. As for Vatican I engendering, as you claim, “Papolatry,” I take it that you refer to the dogma of papal infallibility? If not, then can you explain further what you mean by this?

    Remember, Vatican II was a PASTORAL, not a dogmatic Council. Even Pope Benedict XVI has said that some have made of Vatican II a kind of “super dogma,” which it was never intended to be. A dogmatic decree of the Church, by its very wording, is not something that one cannot miss. It carries with it a solemn declaration to the universal Church with very grave penalties attached for those who dare dissent. Compare the documents of Vatican II with those of Vatican I, or any preceding Council, and you’ll see what I mean.

    I’ll ignore the paragraph that refers to “williamson” because I take issue with the impudence of lay people who deprive consecrated souls of God of their due title, no matter what they think of the cleric or prelate in question. I will always give Popes, Cardinals, bishops and priests the honour of addressing them with the respect and charity their sacred office deserves.

    Apart from that, the notion of the Magisterium includes the Pope, and opposition between the two cannot be made, unless one changes the definition of the Magisterium.”

    Not so. As I said before, there is a difference between occasional Papal infallibility and permanent impeccability. No Pope is divine, therefore a Pope only exercises his Magisterial authority when he speaks, writes or acts in line with what has always been taught. You should read up on Popes Liberius and Honorius I in order to rid yourself of the notion that Popes cannot err.

    If one were to limit papal teaching to mere repetition or paraphrasing of the previous teaching we would end up, by going so back, with no teaching at all.”

    Isn’t that precisely what happened with Vatican II? We were told that we had to return to the early Church to rediscover the Apostolic spirit. Pope Pius XII condemned the error as “Antiquarianism,” warning that it was great folly to attempt to lay the axe to two thousand years of the “great tree” of the Gospels in order to rediscover the mustard seed.

    If you follow Magisterial teaching throughout the ages you will find that neither dogmas nor doctrines were ever obscured or changed. Organic development certainly occured. There were pastoral, disciplinary and liturgical alterations, certainly. But no revolutionary changes of any kind. For example, not until 1969 had a single prayer ever been removed from the Mass from the time of the Apostles. Prayers had been added, but none had ever been removed.

    What is most tragic is that those that were removed in 1969 were mostly those which had been removed by the Protestants of the XVI century, and these were almost exclusively the prayers that referred to the Holy Mass as Christ’s oblation and Sacrifice on the Cross. That’s also why almost all priestly genuflections and the purification of the priest’s fingers after Communion were taken away. It was to please Protestants for the furtherance of ecumenical dialogue. Both the Sacrifice of Calvary and Transubstantiation were seriously undermined at the same time.

    Here’s what Archbishop, Bugnini, the chief architect of the new Mass, had to say about the agenda back in 1965: “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants.” (Annibale Bugnini, L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.)

  • Profidebookstore

    Everyone who knows that a particular proposition is an “infallible dogma” (a bit confusing misnomer, because there are no fallible dogmas, you – I presume – mean infallible proposition) can, of course, quote it with 100% certainty – this is what, I presume, you mean by “with infallibility”.

    But what is an “infallible dogma” is by no means self-evident and if one insists that his view about it is “theologically certain”, it doesn’t follow that it is so to the Church. Everybody can claim that it is not theologically certain, and if one insists that it is, and that all others are in error, including the Pope, there is no difference between his theological certainty and his claim of infallibility, and this is what I call theological dilettantism. He has locked himself in the cage of self-defeating argument, and anyone who tries to unlock him by using the same argument is bound to lock himself too.

    And then about quoting. If nothing more is implied but quoting a proposition in its entirety, it is ok. But another thing is to quote part of it and claim that his selection is essential, yet another to put the whole or selected part in a context in which it was not originally proposed, yet another to insist that what is quoted means this or that etc. – all this constitutes the quoter-s interpretation. Everybody can do that, and if one insists….the rest you can fill yourself (see above).

    I can now fill pages applying this to all that you had earlier reproduced in italics and qualified as verbosity, without, on your own admission, trying to understand it, and without realizing at the time, that it is a concise and general reply to all covered by the “countering anything I’ve written with contrary data” . I am perfectly familiar with all these, because I was for some 15 years attending the Mass Centres, having heard it or read in publications over and over again – all nothing but parrot like repetition of the same staff. All those with whom I tried to establish reasonable conversation were almost as if programmed to switch off as soon as they “smelt” that it is about something that would make them think if they are really Catholics, and not Neo-Protestants, who have replaced the “sola scriptura” with the “sola traditio”; and worse than the Neo-Protestants, because the Protestants at least accept the NT and the most of the OT as scripture, while their Neo-s, do not accept Tradition itself as the Church understand it, but as they conceived it.

  • Anonymous

    Everyone who knows that a particular proposition is an “infallible dogma” (a bit confusing misnomer, because there are no fallible dogmas, you – I presume – mean infallible proposition) can, of course, quote it with 100% certainty – this is what, I presume, you mean by “with infallibility”.”

    Since a “proposition” is understood generally to be a matter put forward for debate, it follows that propositions can never be considered to be infallible dogmas. Infallible dogmas are certainties clearly expressed by the Church under pain of sin for dissent. They are never proposed to us as possibilities that we are free to debate.

    But what is an “infallible dogma” is by no means self-evident and if one insists that his view about it is “theologically certain”, it doesn’t follow that it is so to the Church. Everybody can claim that it is not theologically certain, and if one insists that it is, and that all others are in error, including the Pope, there is no difference between his theological certainty and his claim of infallibility, and this is what I call theological dilettantism.”

    Infallible dogmas, for the reasons stated above, are very self evident. All are expressed clearly as theological certainies by the Church with, as I said, clear penalties for those who dissent from them. If this were not the case then the Church would never be able to claim inerrancy. It is a Protestant belief to hold that the Church’s dogma’s are either obscure or based on uncertain truths.

    And then about quoting. If nothing more is implied but quoting a proposition in its entirety, it is ok. But another thing is to quote part of it and claim that his selection is essential, yet another to put the whole or selected part in a context in which it was not originally proposed, yet another to insist that what is quoted means this or that etc. – all this constitutes the quoter-s interpretation. Everybody can do that, and if one insists….the rest you can fill yourself (see above).”

    You respond to your own failing. This is precisely what happens when people start doubting established dogma. There is only one valid interpretation on dogma, and that is the Church’s intepretation. That’s why the only safe guide we have to save our souls is to weigh everything against dogmatic teaching and leave our own opinions aside.

    Finally, speaking of your experience with Traditional Catholics, you write: “ I am perfectly familiar with all these, because I was for some 15 years attending the Mass Centres, having heard it or read in publications over and over again – all nothing but parrot like repetition of the same staff. All those with whom I tried to establish reasonable conversation were almost as if programmed to switch off as soon as they “smelt” that it is about something that would make them think if they are really Catholics, and not Neo-Protestants, who have replaced the “sola scriptura” with the “sola traditio”; and worse than the Neo-Protestants, because the Protestants at least accept the NT and the most of the OT as scripture, while their Neo-s, do not accept Tradition itself as the Church understand it, but as they conceived it.”

    Quite the contrary is true. It is Neo-Protestant to reject tradition for sola scriptura precisely because it eliminates the Magisterial teaching authority of the Church through the ages. The Protestant Reformers of the XVI century were condemned as heretics by the Popes for exactly this reason. Also, since all of the Sacred Scriptures, both New and Old Testaments, are held to be divinely inspired, and therefore free from error, by the Church, it is inconceivable that you ever met with a Traditional Catholic who rejected any part of Sacred Scripture. Once again, you must look to Protestantism and Neo-Modernism to find Scripture being questioned. It’s certainly not questioned by Traditional Catholics.

    My advice to you is to read the declarations of the Church against Protestantism, and also St. Pius X’s Encyclical on Modernism, in which you will discover that a reliance on sola scriptura on the one hand, and denial of certain uncomfortable sections of it on the other, is without doubt a Protestant/Modernist heresy. It is precisely this kind of heresy that gained ground among certain theologians during and after Vatican II and was later used to undermine divinely revealed truths of the Catholic religion. So you’ve hit on the cause of the crisis in the Church, but you’re blaming the wrong people for it. I’m not at all surprised that Traditional Catholics gave you the rubber ear if that’s the kind of uninformed nonsense you were trying to throw at them.

    You don’t seem to know much about Church teaching. I take it you are a Catholic? It’s just that you don’t write like one, at least not one who has ever taken time to study his faith in any depth. Without meaning to offend you, I have to say that you write more in a Protestant spirit than a Catholic one. You do not appear to know anything about the Council or Popes of the Church, what they taught infallibly. In fact, you don’t even seem to have a proper understanding of infallibilty and you actually believe that a rejection of sola scriptura is a sign of Protestantism. It beggars belief!

  • Anonymous

    One does not have to be a traffic policeman to know that someone who goes through a red traffic light is breaking the law. It requires no authority to say so, and not a great deal of competence to recognise the transgression.

    It does not matter what “everybody” expects. The Church does not run on consensus lines, much as the Modernists would like that to be the case – it runs according to Tradition, Holy Scripture and the Sacred Magisterium under the watchful eye of the Holy Ghost. As long as the one making the criticism is making it along those lines, he has every right to expect the faithful to agree with him since to disagree is to be in dissent. Which is how we recognise Protestants. If the Pope is advocating a course, or is setting an example, which is contrary to what has gone before, then a layman not only can, but has a duty to, try to impose his expectation on the Pope.

    You say that it is total and utter nonsense that the Pope has implied that all religions are of equal value: Have a look at Lumen Gentium about the Catholic Church subsisting within the overall Christian Church. Agreed it was the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council who wrote it but the Pope would hardly have signed it off if he disagreed.

    As for there being no evidence that only the Catholic Church can provide the Graces necessary for salvation, what about the doctrine: Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salis? You then go on to quote from UR5 and UR6 both of which seem to support what I am saying about the Catholic Church providing the only path to Salvation. Is your logic mixed up or is it mixed up, please?

    As for your final paragraph, the Second Vatican Council is not recognised as a teaching council. It did not have the authority to change any of the teachings of the Catholic Church and none of its conclusions have been declared as infallible, despite your statement: ” . . and are therefore proposed infallibly in spite of not being so defined”. If something is not defined as infallible then it is not infallible no matter who proposed what otherwise. End of.

    It is nonsense for you to accuse me of attributing infallibility to myself when all I am doing is stating the facts according to what has gone before.

  • Profidebookstore

    “A simple understanding of how the Magisterial works is all one requires in order to assess whether or not something is contrary to Church teaching” COMMENT: This is a DIY product never heard of in my life, and certainly not in any manual of fundamental or moral theology. Sounds copied from Williamson’s bulletin before he was side promoted to Argentina.

    “Papolatry is a modern error”. Yes, if by the “modern” one takes the Church between the two last councils. The pope’s position was rightly reiterated – every Catholic accepts it, except the clergy of the schismatic society and their slaves, although nominally they too accept it. But as it was formulated in terms that definitely had to be balanced by corresponding doctrine on bishops, and this was impossible because of the war, it all turned out to be a doctrine on primacy of the curia, and the bishops turned into its slaves. It was exactly because the conciliar and early post-conciliar hierarchy, brought up in that slavish mentality, blindly followed Bugnini’s directives, and even hints, and we now have an unholy mess of what is supposed to be the Holy Mass. Even more, the bishops themselves, not yet used to grasp what they are according to Divine Revelation, handed their authority to their bireaucracies, composed predominantly of liberal semi-intellectuals.

    Vatican II had to put an end to this sad state of affairs but the unhealthy situation created by Pius IX’s Council – I do not mean deliberately, but just clumsily and under the pressure of political situation – had boiled under lid too long, so that we have to thank to the magnificent work of Vatican II that the things did not get worse.

  • Profidebokstore

    “On what grounds, then, do you claim that Vatican I was “defective?” COMMENT: It is a simple statement of fact, but necessary to bring to attention the idolaters of Vatican I and Trent. All ecumenical councils were defective in one way or another and their defects realized only subsequently when heresies broke out as result. The present Apostles Creed, being more primitive, is defective compared with Niceno-Constanopolian Creed, and the latter is still recited although its articulation of the doctrine on the Holy Ghost is defective.

    Another defect of Vatican I was that while it explicitly articulated dogma of infallibility of the pope, it did not articulate so explicitly, if at all, the dogma of infallibility of the Church at large, of ecumenical council and of the UOM, and has left only in draft the doctrine about the Church.

    “Vatican II was a PASTORAL, not a dogmatic Council.” COMMENT: All councils were pastoral, in one way or another. Even if someone in a high place says that it is “pastoral” no one has said yet that its doctrinal assertions do not command at least religious assent, and that its strictly pastoral directives do not command obedience. The output of Trent was predominantly strictly pastoral, for example. And even strictly pastoral directives frequently contain moral implications. The large body of Catholic moral doctrine has never been formulated by the Magisterium in terms of strictly moral doctrine, but it was worked out by theologians from pastoral practice.

    “Benedict XVI has said that some have made of Vatican II a kind of “super dogma” “.
    COMMENT: He is perfectly right: he referred to elements who used their privileged position to promote their own dissenting agenda, in their attempt to dispose with what had been handed down to us. Vatican II is neither super- nor under-council but one of the many, and as the most recent, it articulates, in continuity with others, the same faith in terms more appropriate to the present situation. It is a living interpretation of Tradition, as it was the case with others: all of them were a living interpretations of what the Church had received by the time they were summoned.

    ”A dogmatic decree carries with it a solemn declaration to the universal Church with very grave penalties attached for those who dare dissent.” COMMENT: I presume you mean “dogmatic definition”. A decree is dogmatic by the mere fact that deals with subjects pertinent to dogmatic theology. Vatican II promulgated two Constitutions explicitly referred to as “dogmatic”, and all the other documents have some dogmatic content.

    But these facts apart, it is better not to keep playing back, like tape recorder, conditions required of a decree to be a definition, because these conditions themselves have never been defined. So, it is a bit of a paradox to bring non-defined criteria as evidence that a particular decree constitutes a definition.

    On the other hand, one must never forget the doctrine on Infallibility of the OM. Probably much of what the Vatican II declared comes under this heading, because nobody can dispute that the bishops were in communion with themselves and with the pope, that they taught authentically (officially, not as private individuals), that they taught doctrine of faith and morals, that they taught in moral unity, and expected their doctrine to be held definitely as it is evident from the concluding formula of each document – the five conditions they outlined in LG25. Theologians have to investigate what of it has been also taught earlier and how long. To rule out any possibility of infallible teaching would be insane.

    “No Pope is divine, therefore a Pope only exercises his Magisterial authority when he speaks, writes or acts in line with what has always been taught.” COMMENT: Misunderstanding between what you call “Magisterium” and what I use the same word for. My definition is: the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him. It is to this Magisterium exclusively that Our Lord entrusted the interpretation of the Word of God, whether scriptural or traditional (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum 10). You by the “Magisterium” mean the teaching of the Magisterium (the latter as understood by me), or even only infallible teaching. It is not usual, or forbidden; but it did cause misunderstanding between us, and your reply was not to what I had asserted.

    “We were told that we had to return to the early Church to rediscover the Apostolic spirit” QUESTION: Can you explain how to understand it, and bring a specific example in any Vatican II decree. Let’s not change the subject to liturgy: I presume that we agree that the current liturgy is post- VII fabrication, although I can easily demolish your challenge to it.

  • Anonymous

    Completely wrong! Pope Paul VI was himself responsible for the new Mass. Archbishop Bugnini was the architect, but Pope Paul was from first to last the driving force and the determined promulgator.

    The Ottaviani intervention and the overwhelming rejection of the Novus Ordo Missae by the Synod of Bishops in Rome in 1967 should have been sufficient for this Pope to re-think his position, but he pushed ahead with this Protestant-friendly liturgy against all advice and entirely on his own initiative.

    Compare the Tridentine Mass with the New Mass, and then compare the New Mass with the Anglican meal service to see just how greatly has been the theological shift from Catholic belief to Protestant. It’s absolutely astounding. I recommend Michael Davies’ book ‘Cranmer’s Godly Order.’ It describes the alterations in terrifying detail.

    Pope Paul VI made a monumental error with the New Mass and that’s why Pope Benedict is having parts of it re-written in more Catholic terms, although even this initiative is insufficient to stop the rot now. There will be a full return one day to the Mass of the ages, the Mass which in its essentials goes right back to Apostolic times, has never had a single prayer removed from it and has remained in its present format for over 1000 years.

    “By their fruits ye shall know them,” said Our Lord. Well, the fruits of the new Mass are clear enough, i.e., a decimated priesthood, closed seminaries and religious houses, a generally ignorant and indifferent laity, and millions of apostasies from the faith. The very opposite was true just prior to the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae.

  • Anonymous

    I think the time has come for us to end our exchange. Little in your previous posts is even remotely Comprehensible. I have tried to correct some of your errors, things I have been able to make sense of, but you just keep responding with obscure and lengthy scripts essentially claiming that Vatican I was a defective Council and throwing the relatively straightforward issues of dogma and infallibility into complete confusion.

    I do note, however, that you have since dropped your assertion that faith based on sola scriptura is Catholic when, in fact, it is Protestant. So there has been some progress. As for all your other beliefs, I can only say that you are quite unique in those.

    By the way, Magisterial teaching includes both the Ordinary and Extraordinary teaching of the Church. I think most people know that this encompasses both the Pope teaching authoritively on his own, or with the bishops in union with him.

  • Torkay

    All Councils were defective? The Apostles Creed is defective? “The large body of Catholic moral doctrine has never been formulated by the Magisterium in terms of strictly moral doctrine, but it was worked out by theologians from pastoral practice.” etc, etc.?? Profidebokstore (sic), it appears you are making up your own religion as you go. Where did you get the idea that you were Catholic?

  • Anonymous

    Profidebookstore or Profidebokstore: Have you taken out a second registration for the blog or has someone else taken out a registration closely resembling your own for mischievous or other motives?

    I think we should be told for clarification.

  • Profidebookstore

    Somebody else must have used the name Profidebookstore: at the end of my comment to you I explicitly said (to the effect): let’s not change subject to liturgy, although I can demolish what you say. But once you posted what is above, one must distinguish the Mass as it is actually celebrated, which varies from the Clown sacrilege to the almost impeccably orthodox mass in London Oratory to which one can only object communion in the hand which they cannot refuse, the EPII which they use very rarely, “for all” (for the tim being), and “Christ has died…risen…will come again” (for the time being) as if He were not on the altar, and “let us proclaim” (for the time being) as if the Mystery refers to what is proclaimed and not to what is on the altar.
    I agree with some of your comments, do not with others, but my main point is that if we really want the Church to survive without formal division (the material one is already there) the only reasonable solution is to press for improvement of the New Mass alongside the promotion of the Tridentine Mass, and once the latter has stabilized in its Latin form, vernacularize all those parts which change from Mass to Mass, and use them alonside the fully Latin version. When that is stabilized, start with gradual development of the Tridentine Mass by removing ambiguous phrases like “for us”, reformulation of the Offertory in order to make clear that it is not the Sacrifice at that stage which shouldn’t require much. But, as I said, I wouldn’t start with changes before the Mass has stabilized in its historical form. To insist on abolition of the New Mass, would be the same as to insist on destruction of the Church. No Pope can risk that hazzard. The hardline Modernists will die sooner or later, but if pushed to breakaway their children will remain in the breakaway state, as it happened in the past.

  • Profidebookstore

    Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I have no clue what has happened. God bless.

  • Profidebookstore

    I still do not know what happened with my posts; a friend advised me to carry on and see if it will happen again.

    RE: traffic policeman etc. The original question was: “Does it need authority to establish that someone is in error?” If one doesn’t know mathematics he needs authority of a mathematician. If he doesn’t know medicine he needs a doctor. So, if he doesn’t know traffic law he needs a legislator’s text.

    YOU SAY: “The Church … runs according to Tradition, Holy Scripture and the Sacred Magisterium under the watchful eye of the Holy Ghost.”
    COMMENT: Yes, thank God. And in any particular moment of the Church history it is only the living Magisterium of that moment that is guided by the Holy Spirit in determining whether, in the light of this trippleTradition, a particular doctrinal proposition is true or false, whether a particular course of action is prudent or not, legitimate or not. As the DV 10 puts it: “The interpretation of the word of God whether scriptural or traditional is entrusted exclusively to the living voice of the Church’s Magisterium whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ”, with reference to Vatican I on Catholic Faith and Pius XII Humani generis.

    While a layman can have an opinion whether that living Magisterium “is advocating a course of action, or setting an example, which is contrary to what has gone before”, and he has a right, and depending on his competence duty, to articulate that opinion through ecclesiastical channels (LG 37, Can.212 – by the way, this was not granted to you by Pius IX, but by Vatican II) he has no right of dissent or disobedience, and still less the right to mobilize public along these lines, because it would be an usurpation of teaching and governing office. A dissent in matters of doctrine which is NOT proposed infallibly is severely restricted even to a competent expert who after serious scientific enquiry of all aspects arrives at conclusion that the Magisterium is in error (no need to consult a “modernist” book; L. Ott, the classic in pre-conciliar dogmatic theology, says so on p. 10 of his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma – the book I obtained in SSPX Mass Centre. For matters of ruling (liturgy, law) Epikeia may be applicable, if one is certain that the legislator himself would approve of it, but the Epikeia doesn’t apply to doctrine.

    For more detailed account, just in case if I haven’t provided it earlier: Grisez: “The Way of the Lord Jesus”, vol II, Ch.1( i ) and Ch. 3 (d). Google: the title, and add by “Germain Grisez”. He is the greatest moral theologian today, totally loyal to the Magisterium, and “pain-in-the-neck” to moral revisionists. The three volumes have a total of ca, 2800 pages. On the same site there are other data about him, list of some 400 publications, several of them on PDF file, including the famous, co-authored with Ford: Contraception and Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium on 200 pages, which provides also an account of genesis of the LG teaching on Infallibility of the OM; otherwise available only in Latin. Ford was a “minority” member of “Birth Control Commission”, and Grisez was his “peritus” behind the curtain.

    But back to your point, it implies infallibility if doesn’t allow of the possibility of error. On the other hand, if does allow it, the implication is that it does allow that the People might be right, and furthermore that if the Pope is right, the dissenter deserves nothing short of Hell. Knowing all this, every layman can only laugh at this self-over-assertive view. What he makes out of the “Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium” is not ipso facto the Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium; somebody else can make out something else, and if he insists that he is right and others wrong, as different from merely thinking that he is right and others wrong, he claims infallibility. Like your client: you can’t get out of this self-defeating cage.

    YOU SAY: “Have a look at Lumen Gentium about the Catholic Church subsisting within the overall Christian Church.”
    COMMENT: It is the other way round: “This Church (i.e. Christ – see 8/2) founded and organized in this world as a society subsists in the Catholic Church”, and then to avoid all confusion with the “Catholic” church of Protestants, mentions: Peter and bishops in communion with him. And ends: “although outside her framework there are many elements of holiness and truth, and they give an impetus to universal unity inasmuch as they are gifts which belong to Christ’s Church.” To me: all these gifts of Christ’s Church subsist in the Catholic Church, because the Christ’s Church subsist in it, but not all the rest that subsist in it is possessed by those “outside” it. The text does not say that the Church of Christ subsists outside. What is it but nonsense to claim “that the Pope has implied that all religions are of equal value”. In this particular context they are not even referred to as organized bodies, but merely something “outside”. The “overall Christian Church” is not mentioned at all: it is your fabrication

    The Archbishop, in his conversation with Cardinal Seper (vol II of Apologia), has remarked to the effect: why not put at the end “Catholic Church” instead the “Christ’s Church”. It could have been done, I think, but it wouldn’t have changed much, because the Christ’s Church has been already referred to as subsisting (i.e fully existing) it the Catholic Church.

    His Grace has also remarked to the effect: why not simply say; Christ’s Church is Catholic Church. Simple, apparently, but not really, because of the ambiguity of the “is”. It can mean full identity, like: he is John, i.e. Peter and apostles are (identical with) Paul VI with his bishops, which would be nonsense. Or it could denote species within genus, like tiger is cat, and so Christ’s Church would be one kind of Catholic Church, as tiger is one kind of cat. And what is frequently forgotten: the “is” is novelty without precedent in the history of the Church.

    YOU SAY: “As for there being no evidence that only the Catholic Church can provide the Graces necessary for salvation, what about the doctrine: Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salis?”
    COMMENT: this dogma is about the Church as such, not about the graces, and it refers to the Church, not to the Catholic Church. Besides, a Protestant minister is not merely and individual: he acts on behalf of his community. When he administers baptism to a baby, surely the Original Sin is cleansed. So, we have an example of the grace being received by baptism in the Protestant community. Endless number of examples can be adduced.

    YOU SAY: “You then go on to quote from UR5 and UR6 (I am sorry: it should be UR3/5 and UR4/6) both of which seem to support what I am saying about the Catholic Church providing the only path to Salvation. Is your logic mixed up or is it mixed up, please?”
    COMMENT: Neither, but you haven’t properly read the passages I have quoted. The central point of the whole doctrine on ecumenism, not understood by the SSPX and now discussed, is that the Christian bodies when they have separated from full communion with the Church, they did not separate fully (UR3/1). They have retained at least something, the Orthodox almost everything, all sacraments at any rate.
    So, the passage UR3/5 doesn’t mean that only through the Catholic Church the means of salvation can be reached – period, but that these means can be reached in its fullness, which admits that they can be also reached, albeit not in fullness, in non-Christian communities, which is perfectly correct statement of fact.
    Likewise, the passage UR4/6 when it asserts that the Catholic Church possesses all the means of grace, it doesn’t rule out that some of these means are possessed by the non-Catholic communities.
    From all this it is evident why “though we believe that” the non-Catholics communities “are defective. Christ’s Spirit has not refused to employ them as means of salvation” UR3/4 – the passage of which the SSPX makes so much fuss.

    YOU SAY: “the Second Vatican Council is not recognised as a teaching council” COMMENT: fabrication. THEN: “It did not have the authority to change any of the teachings of the Catholic Church” COMMENT: of course, nor did it change the teaching.
    YOU CONTINUE: “and none of its conclusions have been declared as infallible, despite your statement: “. and are therefore proposed infallibly in spite of not being so defined”. COMMENT: of course, but you confuse “declared infallible” with “proposed infallibly”
    AND END: “If something is not defined as infallible then it is not infallible no matter who proposed what otherwise.” COMMENT displays the lack of understanding of what the doctrine on infallibility of UOM is all about.
    WITH: “It is nonsense for you to accuse me of attributing infallibility to myself when all I am doing is stating the facts according to what has gone before” COMMENT: You are not stating the facts according to what has gone before, but confuse what has gone before with what you think that has gone before.

  • Anonymous

    That was a very lengthy post. I confess to being no better informed for having read it.

    I would draw your attention to a paraphrased Jesuit quotation of yore: “No matter how much you argue to the the contrary, no matter what sources you quote, at the end of the day, a sheep has only four legs”.

    There is so much difference between our standpoints, mine based on Tradition and yours seemingly based on the outcomes of Vatican II, that I can only propose we agree to differ and await the Umpire’s decision in the next world.

  • Anonymous

    Spot – absolutely – on!

  • Profidebookstore

    Typical of a hard liner Jesuit: he reuses to admit that the shep has a head too.

    But to your proposal, I agree, if for nothing else then because I am at the moment pressed with other things.

    Thanks for the exchange, and God bless.

  • Anonymous

    There’s a line in one of our old Scottish songs, Profidebookstore, that emphatically does NOT apply to you and it is this: “….he’s no a man to throw a word away…” On the contrary, if there was a song, old or new, with the words: “he never says one word when 60 will do” that WOULD apply to you.

    So, since time is short (I saw a man the other day in town with a placard saying The End is Nigh) I’m going to correct just one of your errors. You say that the laity have Vatican II to thank for the right to speak out using ecclesiastical channels, in criticism of the clergy, but that is not true. Apart from the New Testament (see e.g. Timothy) we have the words of St Thomas Aquinas to confirm what, as Catholics, we should know by instinct, that we have a higher duty, a duty to the Faith, to the Truth, which means we have a consequent duty to correct anyone, priests, bishops and even popes, if they are endangering the Faith:

    “When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be rebuked, even publicly, by their subjects.” ~ St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II, II, q. 33, a. 4

    Now, that’s all I have time for right now and I note you have posted several other dissertations on this blog, so it is unlikely that I’ll be able to harness either the time or the will to read them, let alone respond fully,but I see martyjo and leprechaun are giving you a run for your money, so I can rest easy in my conscience.

    You are, I say in all charity, Profidebookstore,.one very mixed up guy!

    Luv ‘n stuff…

  • Profidebookstore

    Some time ago, you decided to stop; I did not come up with any new comment except completed what I was due to you on various places. So, I will now respond to the present post and propose the to stop.

    YOU SAY: “Believe me when I say that I do understand infallibility and the Sacred Magisterium that spoke in the Syllabus of Pius IX.”
    COMMENT: From what I have read thus far, I don’t think so, but you might not have expressed yourself clearly. And I am not sure that I know what you mean by the “Magisterium”. I mean: Pope with bishops who are in full communion with him; today: B VI and the present Hierarchy, and for me personally, my own Bishop.

    YOU SAY: “Perhaps you reject Pius IX’s Syllabus as Magisterial teaching.”
    COMMENT: No, Catholic can’t reject any document of the Magisterium, and I believe that I am Catholic. It is not disputable that the Syllabus articulates the Magisterial teaching of Pius IX, and that it was binding on his subjects. What, however, of his teaching was relevant at his time only and what is of permanent value and still binding is not up to me to judge. His documents are now part of Tradition, and interpretation of Tradition is entrusted exclusively to the living voice of the Magisterium (DV 10), for me here and now Pope Benedict and my Bishop. I can’t ask Pius IX for guide, and a venture of DIY interpretation of his document would be incompatible with my Faith.

    Once he has left to the Church his teaching that teaching is incorporated into the whole body of the teaching before and after him. In each moment of the Church history she teaches mainly through the living Pope and bishops who are in full communion with him, theologians help them with their expertize. It consists in interpretation of the whole body of the teaching received by that time and its articulation in terms most appropriate to their own time. And this interpretation and articulation is incorporated into what has been received. Thus the whole body of the teaching is enriched.

    This enriched body of teaching is then interpreted and articulated by the next generation of he Magisterium and so on: it is open ended. This is what the Pope means by “Hermeneutic of Continuity”, and JP II refers to as “in the light of tradition”. It is always traditional, because it depends on what is received; essentially the same: God makes it sure that it be so; and new because the new situation and deeper understanding makes it necessary for it to be kept alive: otherwise it would turn into a meaningless play-back of a recorded tape. It so goes on and on. This process is Tradition – the continuous handing on of what has been received and developed.

    In the same way as one interprets the meaning of a word in the context of a sentence, the meaning of the sentence in the context of a paragraph, the meaning of the paragraph in the context of letter, the meaning of the letter in a context of all letters one receives from a friend; so Pius IX interpreted what he had received in the context of his situation, and his teaching was thus incorporated into Tradition up to and including his time, Leo XII interpreted all that in the context of his own time, etc. The teaching never stops, nor does it stop developing, each pope both receiving and adding to it, not inventing as if he were to receive new revelation, but unfolding the received message and articulating it in a language most appropriate to his own time.

    YOU SAY: “Or perhaps you think that God changes His mind every now and then and has His Popes alter previous doctrinal teaching to suit the times, as though Catholic doctrine were little more than a political manifesto.”
    COMMENT: I don’t. God can’t change His mind, but his Message cannot be fully understood at once, but gradually with time: it is the situation that changes, and the man that finds himself in the new situation and needs help in living his Christian life in that new context.

    If God says to Pope one day: “Teach my people that today is lovely whether”, the Pope would do Him bad service if he repeated literally the same words next day. To convey the same message he must say: “Yesterday was lovely day”. What he has changed was not God’s message, but its articulation because the situation has changed.

    In St.Thomas’ time it was quite sound to say: “The existence of God can be proved in a scientific way”; but to convey this today by repeating it verbally would be a nonsense, because the meaning of the word “science” has changed. In St. Thomas days philosophy was referred to as science; today the science means empirical science.

    So, God does not make “his Popes alter previous doctrinal teaching to suit the times”, but to suit the time He makes them deeper understand and more clearly articulate the same teaching.

    YOU SAY: “Magisterial teaching is in its clearest form when a Pope issues a Syllabus.”
    COMMENT: No. That is your own opinion, which would be easily to dismiss by an experiment: select ten friends, give them one item from the Syllabus, and ask them to articulate it in their own words, and explain you how they understand it, and you will see.

    YOU SAY: “It is a solemn Papal act against particular errors threatening the Faith and endangering Catholic souls”
    COMMENT: True, but if one doesn’t know the errors to which the teaching refers he cannot understand the teaching. Furthermore, it the errors condemned are no longer in fashion the teaching itself has nothing to refer to, i.e. it is meaningless.

    YOU SAY: “I’ll be honest and say that in comparison with the clarity of pre-conciliar Church teaching I frankly do not understand Vatican II or the Popes who have promoted it.”
    COMMNENT: Also honestly, I am fairly sure, but might be mistaken, that if you listed to me ten such clear teachings I would be able to show that they are far from clear. I respect your honesty. I only wonder why it is necessary and prudent to look for the way out by rejecting what might be valuable, merely because you do not understand it.

    All the more because, there is a way out, but not without effort and willingness to correct oneself as soon as one realizes that he is mistaken. For what is worth, I personally have no problem in seeing Vatican II as I understand it, in continuity with what the Church prior to Vatican II has taught as I understand it. And I say it sincerely, not to win the argument.

    YOU SAY: “But, then, even the conciliar Popes recognise how difficult the task is of making sense of conciliar teaching.”
    COMMENT: Of course, human language is ambiguous – have a look at Oxford multi-volume dictionary – and whatever effort one makes to make things clear he can’t be sure that what he says would be clear to others in the sense he expects. The Holy Scripture is full of ambiguities: that is the reason why there are so many Christian denominations, particularly those who adhere to the “sola scriptura” principle, and why we need Magisterium to interpret it for us. Even when it does so, there is no guarantee that its explanation would be understood, and that the next Magisterium would not have to come to rescue not by playing back the previous teaching, but by producing another record.

    YOU SAY: “Pope John Paul II had to explain that Catholics should read Vatican II ‘in the light of tradition’ thereby admitting that there was another way to read it, while Pope Benedict XVI had to invent his own key to helping Catholics understand conciliar ambiguity, which he calls ‘the hermeneutic of continuity’ “
    COMMENT: To me, as I said, what the two Popes say means the same thing, but they put it differently. It is always necessary to distinguish between an assertion, i.e. what one means to convey, and its expression in language.

    There is frequently “another way to read” any text, currently for Vatican II: understanding by modernists, another by “traditionalists”. Neither is compatible with the Hermeneutic of Continuity or the light of tradition. Both are incompatible with the meaning intended by the Church as articulated by the living Magisterium, because the true reading is that which is in conformity with what the author of the text has in mind, not what a reader makes out of the text in his own mind and then attributes to the text, because “it says so”. And, as I said, the author is the Church as expressed by the current, living Magisterium. Otherwise, if one merely uses the author’s words to construe in his mind something different, he cannot claim that what is in his mind reflects the author’s mind. The author is a supreme authority when it comes to the meaning of his own text.

    To repeat, the author of ecclesiastical documents is, in the last analysis, the Church, more precisely those who are appointed by Christ to interpret the mind of the Church. So, any way of understanding the documents that is other or contrary to the understanding by the Church, i.e. of her God appointed teachers, is false understanding. As it is for the scripture so it is for the Tradition: the interpretation of it is entrusted exclusively to the living voice of the Church’s Magisterium (DV10).

  • Profidebookstore

    Three days ago, I thought I had buried you, and gave you a final blessing; today, you have risen like Sherlock Holmes; so I have to bury you again.

    YOU SAY: “proposition” is understood generally to be a matter put forward for debate”
    COMMENT: It isn’t generally, and I used it in the meaning as the Church means it (D 1792); i.e. as Grisez puts it: “something thought that can be true or false” (he is a philosopher with PhD in logic). You may agree and disagree, but if you want to know what I mean, that is what I mean, and the rest of what I said last time is to be understood accordingly. If you disagree with what I am saying about the meaning of the word “proposition”, fair enough; but you can’t claim that I don’t mean it when I say that I mean it.

    But I am afraid that you don’t understand the difference, in the same way as you don’t understand the difference between what the Church teaches and your understanding of what the Church teaches, but think that it is the same thing. Another example follows later, in addition to many in previous comments:

    YOU USE PHRASE: “infallible dogma”
    COMMENT: It is analogous to the “female woman”; in other words: nonsense. A dogma is, by definition, infallible; there are no fallible dogmas, as I tried to explain before.

    So, you miss the meaning of what you criticize, because the meaning of what I have put down in writing is an expression of what I had in mind, and not the meaning you construe from what you read, unless what you construe is what I had in mind, and I have said to you what I had in mind.

    YOU SAY: “Infallible dogmas, for the reasons stated above, are very self evident”
    COMMENT: The “infallible dogma” is a misnomer, as I said above. In any case, could you provide one example of a “self-evident dogma”?

    YOU SAY: “This is precisely what happens when people start doubting established dogma.”
    COMMENT: After all that you said above and before, you now accuse me that I doubt established dogmas!!! Which one?

    YOU SAY: “There is only one valid interpretation on dogma, and that is the Church’s interpretation”
    COMMENT: At last, you have said something true – as it stands. But I suspect from what you said above and on previous comments, that by the “Church’s interpretation” you mean your interpretation for what you believe to be the interpretation of the Church; i.e. your interpretation of the Church’s interpretation = Church’s interpretation; or to put it in another way: you identify the Church’s interpretation with your understanding of it, and do not see the difference; from which follows that you imlicitly claim infallibility. So, we are back to where we had started.

    YOU SAY: “That’s why the only safe guide we have to save our souls is to weigh everything against dogmatic teaching and leave our own opinions aside.”
    QUESTION: Easy said, but difficult to make sense of it. What do you mean (if anything) by: “to weigh everything against dogmatic teaching”; could you illustrate with an example of “dogmatic teaching” and that famous “everything” that you “weigh” against it?

    YOU SAY: “It is Neo-Protestant to reject tradition for sola scriptura precisely because it eliminates the Magisterial teaching authority of the Church through the ages”
    COMMENT: I agree, and I am sorry for having had, last time, in mind one thing and put on paper another; but I am also glad, in a way, that it happened, because you can see the difference between what one has in mind and what one articulates in words.

    What I wanted to say was that in similar way as the Protestants reject interpretation of the Scripture by the living Magisterium and rely on Scripture alone and interpret it in their own way (I presume you will not dispute this), so the Neo-Protestants, i.e. “traditionalists”, reject interpretation of Tradition by the living Magisterium, and rely on Tradition alone and interpret it in their own way. So, by “Tradition alone” I did not mean to exclude the Scripture.

    So, while I sincerely apologize for carelessness that misled you to attribute to me the falsity, I am sure you will accept what I said above is an accurate statement of fact.

    What the “traditionalists” are doing? They have their own ill-defined notion of tradition, which differs from what the Holy Church means by Tradition (see later down), and reject the interpretation of that Tradition by the living Magisterium. So, they are “Neo-Protestants” that differ from the Protestants only in the object of their protest. The latter protest against the living Magisterium’s interpretation of Scripture, while the “traditionalists” protest against the living Magisterium’s interpretation of Tradition. The Protestants maintain that all they need is the Scripture, so “Scripture alone”, i.e. “sola Scriptura”; the “traditionalists” maintain that (the Scripture apart for which they, of course, believe is to be understood as it is interpreted by the Church, and not by any individual) all they need (when it comes to the meaning of Tradition as such) is Tradition, “alone” in the sense: individual interpretation, without living Magisterium; and it is in this sense that I used the phrase “Tradition alone”, “sola Traditio”; for them there is no need for the Tradition as such, i.e. itself, to be interpreted by the living Magisterium.

    According to the Dogmatic Constitution of the Holy Ecumenical Council of Vatican II, Tradition is what the Apostles received from Christ and what the Church hands on in her “doctrine, life and worship” (DV 8) and interprets by the living Magisterium (DV 10). Each such interpretation, in any period of history of the Church who is a continuous, living body, is then incorporated into this same Tradition, to be interpreted by the next living Magisterium, and so on, as I have already demonstrated in previous comments. This is what the Churh means by Tradition.

    On the other hand, ask a “traditionalist” what he means by “tradition”, and in which document it is so proposed by the Magisterium, he will not be able to tell you, because his notion of tradition is ill-defined. He will only list you a few 19th cent. encyclicals and “infallible dogmas” which he has never read, and call it – “tradition”. This would, of course, include Pius IX Syllabus, for which there is no support in Tradition at all: there is nothing resembling it in the history of the Church prior to it.

    So, YOUR THREE LAST PARAGRAPHS are to be buried with you, because you have misunderstood not only what I had misleadingly said on one occasion and apologized for, but almost everything else, on this occasion and before; as it is typical of “traditionalists” generally, in relation to the teaching of our Holy Mother Church.

    It is both pity and sad that their justified and dedicated effort to preserve the Tridentine Mass, for which the Church cannot be but grateful in the future to Archbishop Lefebvre, has to be associated with their theological dilettantism for which only the Father of Lies is grateful.

  • Profidebookstore

    TORKAY
    You ask me: “Where did you get the idea that you were Catholic?” – I think I am; can’t claim I am because it would be tantamount of claiming infallibility. I was brought up in Catholic family, I accept the teaching of the Church, as in so far as know it, in its entirety; I am prepared to accept the teaching I don’t know as soon as I learn that it is the teaching of the Church. Likewise, if I think that a particular statement is the teaching and later establish that it was only by fallible view and not the teaching of the Church, then I change my position and accept the teaching. What else can I do? Sinner, yes, but I am trying to live the faith as far as I manage it.

    “it appears you are making up your own religion as you go” – Well, I am glad to learn that it appears to you; another commenter is sure of everything. If you are interested what I had in mind when making statements that intrigue you I will be glad to explain; although I think you should be able to guess from my correspondence with Martyo (that one who knows everything and is sure of everything).

    But to put your mind at rest, by using the word “defective” I did not mean “in error”.

  • RJ

    You probably won’t read this, but the reason it is difficult to understand is that it comes from someone who has a philosophical training – at least it appears so to me. It’s very witty if you understand it. I hope that this comment will not tempt Profide into pride. God forbid. Profide: may you remain God’s faithful servant.

  • Anonymous

    You probably won’t read this, but the reason it is difficult to understand is that it comes from someone who has a philosophical training – at least it appears so to me. It’s very witty if you understand it. I hope that this comment will not tempt Profide into pride. God forbid. Profide: may you remain God’s faithful servant.”

    I’m delighted to learn that someone understood the above post. And here was I, a seasoned Catholic writer, assessing it as religious illiteracy. Silly old un-philisophical me! Maybe I’ll down a few glasses of the hard stuff and then try reading it again.

  • Tiger2010

    More catholic than the pope – yeah I’d say that’s quite a leap considering das pope is so in tune with times – I’m sure all the contenders will try to be more catholic by trying to out-best him on the cover-up of sex abuses, fully support a womens’ right to choose, allow women to be priests and maybe even a pope, recognize gay marriage and admit that men cannot be celibate because its a big case of blue balls ergo sex abuse.

  • Ed

    I’m certainly not more Catholic than the Pope. Nor is he any more or less fallible than me.
    There was only one man who was infallible, as far as I can make out, and look what they did to him…..

  • Aaron L

    Praise the Lord Jesus Christ for this article. These SSPX fanatics really are something. Those comments are not half crazed thy are crazy! When you feel that you are better, holier, wiser, more righteous than the Pope, a large majority of bishops, and all the Church militant then you are definitely on your way to funny farm. A little reflection, humility pill for the SSPX?

  • Aaron (Philippines)

    True I am sick of these two guys posting here as if they are the only ones knoweldgeable about theology or how the church acts as a church. If and when God will it his whole Church will be moved into action. In the chaos that may appear the flagpost Jesus gave us is the successor of St. Peter!

  • Aaron (Philippines)

    Was that comment given ex cathedral? As part of a general council or synod? No. What’s the problem is you seem to confuse every utterance as infallible, which Catholics know the Pope is no God he is not perfect. But in a general council and acting clearly from
    His Chair of St. Peter with the whole church militant he pronounce dogma. What is up with you and what are you trying to prove? Go to the Pope in Rome, you are cluttering the minds of faithful will false obedience.

  • AJ

    What Profidebokstore is saying that Vatican I was “defective” is actually in sense it was not perfect or say incomplete.

  • http://www.pandorauksale.net/ Pandora UK

    However, just like any other specific type of business today, each of them teachers’ inevitable wear. Despite the charms of Pandora will be able to move forward (or even equals or exceeds) a long, customers should be repeated often take good care of their own piece of art of Pandora.
     

  • Pdudek

    we would like to inform you, that the famous polish bestseller
    “He liked Tuesdays best. The story of everyday life of John Paul II”
    is now available in english version on the bookstore Amazon.com and website
    http://jp2books.com
     

  • Paul Flynn

    Do me a favour William.  Take a look at Chapter 13 of Deuteronomy, then take a look at Sections 2 and 3 of Nostra Aetate, the papal pronouncement on which the interreligious dialogue is based.
       If you are honest, you will admit that these two teachings, the biblical and the papal, are diametrically opposed to each other.  The Bible is like that.  You either believe it or you don’t.  If you do, you walk in the power of the Holy Spirit.  If you don’t, you lose your spiritual authority over the demon kingdom. 
       Our Church has been in informal or practical heresy since 1965, when Nostra Aetate was published.  I say ‘informal’ because Nostra Aetate is not a definitive statement on doctrine.  That informal or practical heresy is the spiritual root cause of the serious troubles in which our Church finds itself.