A Tale Of Two Headlines
There they were, hiding in plain sight
I went to the Catholic World News site and two stories literally jumped off the monitor at me.
The first one was concerning the modern day Judas, "Father" Iggy O'Donovan, as he defended his decision to "concelebrate" Mass with a heretical Church of Ireland minister.
The second one concerns the Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop Fellay, asking that The Holy Father "re-examine the Vatican II teachings".
First things first... the 'concelebration' in Ireland simply wasn't illicit (as CWS stated). It was invalid. It's simply impossible for someone who denies transubstantiation to transubstantiate (concelebrate). Sheesh... this really isn't that hard to figure out. Think about it, can someone who denies Sacramental Confession, validly hear your Confession? Of course not. Denying Sacramental Confession is a heresy. Just like denying transubstantiation.
Now we come to the statement of Bishop Fellay. There is nothing wrong with asking to re-examine the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. Especially in light that precious little from V2 is dogma (just the Dogmatic Constitution of The Church, that's it). Everything else within V2 is wide open for debate, discussion, even nullification.
And you don't have to be a Traditional Catholic to realize that... every Catholic should know this. But for almost 40 years, we have had the 'Spirit of Vatican II' shoved down our throats as if it was binding upon pain of sin. And it just ain't so.
Here's the bottom line; Bishop Fellay defends centuries upon centuries of Catholic teaching, whereas "Father Iggy" and his ilk reject centuries upon centuries of Catholic teaching.
A smaller, purer Catholicism? Works for me.
There they were, hiding in plain sight
I went to the Catholic World News site and two stories literally jumped off the monitor at me.
The first one was concerning the modern day Judas, "Father" Iggy O'Donovan, as he defended his decision to "concelebrate" Mass with a heretical Church of Ireland minister.
The second one concerns the Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop Fellay, asking that The Holy Father "re-examine the Vatican II teachings".
First things first... the 'concelebration' in Ireland simply wasn't illicit (as CWS stated). It was invalid. It's simply impossible for someone who denies transubstantiation to transubstantiate (concelebrate). Sheesh... this really isn't that hard to figure out. Think about it, can someone who denies Sacramental Confession, validly hear your Confession? Of course not. Denying Sacramental Confession is a heresy. Just like denying transubstantiation.
Now we come to the statement of Bishop Fellay. There is nothing wrong with asking to re-examine the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. Especially in light that precious little from V2 is dogma (just the Dogmatic Constitution of The Church, that's it). Everything else within V2 is wide open for debate, discussion, even nullification.
And you don't have to be a Traditional Catholic to realize that... every Catholic should know this. But for almost 40 years, we have had the 'Spirit of Vatican II' shoved down our throats as if it was binding upon pain of sin. And it just ain't so.
Here's the bottom line; Bishop Fellay defends centuries upon centuries of Catholic teaching, whereas "Father Iggy" and his ilk reject centuries upon centuries of Catholic teaching.
A smaller, purer Catholicism? Works for me.
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
4:46 PM
7 Comments:
It is true that there are a few poorly worded graphs midst all the docs of VatII, and they should be clarified.
However, purity and clarity of Church teaching has NEVER stood in the way of those "who will not see."
And it won't no matter how many 'clarifications' are issued on these documents, either.
What surprises me is the number of folks who seem to think that nothing ever went wrong in the Church before (e.g.) 1960--or 1900--or 1800...
This isn't simply a case of "a few poorly worded graphs" as you put it. The non dogmatic documents of V2 are rife with ambiguity and loop-holes so big you can drive a Mack truck through them.
Also, it suprizes me the number of folks who fail to realize that there WERE errors in The Church prior to V2... it's just that back then, folks didn't try to disguise error, scandal and flat-out heresy as correct theology.
Well, we did have those folks. They're now called Protestants.
The "smaller purer Cahtolicism" may be attractive to those of use who are simply tired of coping with the liberals, dissenters, and heretics in the Church, but I don't think we have much hope of that. Jesus taught that the weeds will continue to grow up with the grain, and will only be seperated come the harvest.
Fencing with the nominal Catholics may just be the cross we have to bear.
I think the actual case is that the priest has to do what he thinks the Church does when it comes to confecting the sacraments. Even if his understanding is wrong it is still valid.
Paul, this isn't just a case of "coping" with liberals, dissenters and heretics.
Said individuals have every intention of destroying Holy Mother The Church. In doing so, sould will be lost to hell.
In the name of Christian Charity, they must either be converted back to The One True Church, or 'have thier dust shaken from our sandals'.
Nominal Catholics I can deal with. They're normally just ignorant of their own Faith. Dissenters, liberals and heretics, on the other hand....
JEFF, good point. But what I was getting at was an individual who DENIES such, not simply misunderstands.
Caveman:
The documents of VatII are to be read as PART OF the documentation of the Church from year 1 (or thereabouts...), not as separate and superior entries.
It always amazes me that this understanding is missing 'midst many...
E.G., reading VatII's comments on sacred music (paras. 37 & 54 of the DOL) is virtually meaningless unless one is familiar with PiusX's (and XII's)documents on the topic.
But "meaningless" is the choice of the pink-tutu-wearing LitWonks (I know them well--one was my Archbishop for more than 20 years.)
Petrus,
I agree with everything you wrote. I think where you misunderstand me, is when I pojnted out that good ol' Presider Iggy obviously denies transubstantiation. But that's just my take on his actions.
After all, did luther validly consecrate the Eucharist?
DAD,
Don't know if I can disagree with much you wrote!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home