Some Of The Biggest Traditionalist Whoppers...
And other myths concerning everything Traditional
1. By it's very nature, the TLM prohibits lay participation in the Mass. Wrong. To quote Pope John Paul II; "silent prayer is active participation".
2. Traditionalists believe that you have to be a baptized Catholic to even hope of attaining salvation. All non-Catholics are going straight to hell. Wrong. That particular heresy (Feenyism) has been rejected by the vast majority of Traditionalists. In fact, some of the more strident supporters of Invincible Ignorance are Traditionalists, probably because they actually understand what I.I. really teaches.
3. During the TLM, the priest turns his back to the people. Wrong. The priest joins with the people in facing God physically present in the Tabernacle. It really is all about God, and not all about us.
4. The SSPX is sedevacantist (believes that there is currently no valid pope). Wrong. The SSPX has always looked upon our pope as the valid, legitimate Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church.
5. Traditionalist reject ecumenism. Wrong. Traditionalists wholeheartedly accept and embrace ecumenism. That is if you define true ecumenism as converting heretics and pagans to the One True Church.
6. The Latin Mass didn't even exist until the Council of Trent (the mid-1500's). Wrong. The Latin Mass dates back to the time of Pope Saint Gregory the Great in the 6th century. Even before that, the Canon of the Mass dates to the 4th century, and the Latin Mass itself was in it's infancy in the 1st century. The Consecration has remained unchanged since Saints Peter and Paul first preached in Rome.
7. Traditionalists reject Vatican II. Wrong. The vast majority of Traditionalists recognize V2 for what it really is... a valid Council that essentially said "let's talk about this" rather than "this is the way it's going to be".
8. Mel Gibson is "an SSPXer". Wrong. Mel Gibson attends Mass as celebrated by a so-called independent priest.
9. Traditionalists expect you to wear expensive clothing to Mass. Wrong. Traditionalists expect everyone to wear their best... even if their best is a pair of overalls and a pull-over shirt. No one should ever purposfully dress-down to attend Mass. After all, we're going to The Lord's House, not a barbecue at the beach.
10. No one understands what's going on at a TLM. That would be true only if you're;
a. Illiterate.
b. Too lazy to ask "hey, could someone explain to me what's going on"?
c. Too lazy to learn some of the more basic prayers in Latin.
d. Irreversibly stupid.
Understanding what's going on at a TLM isn't really all that difficult. Just don't expect everything to be dumb-downed and spoon-fed to you. Yes, we're expected to put forth at least some effort.
And other myths concerning everything Traditional
1. By it's very nature, the TLM prohibits lay participation in the Mass. Wrong. To quote Pope John Paul II; "silent prayer is active participation".
2. Traditionalists believe that you have to be a baptized Catholic to even hope of attaining salvation. All non-Catholics are going straight to hell. Wrong. That particular heresy (Feenyism) has been rejected by the vast majority of Traditionalists. In fact, some of the more strident supporters of Invincible Ignorance are Traditionalists, probably because they actually understand what I.I. really teaches.
3. During the TLM, the priest turns his back to the people. Wrong. The priest joins with the people in facing God physically present in the Tabernacle. It really is all about God, and not all about us.
4. The SSPX is sedevacantist (believes that there is currently no valid pope). Wrong. The SSPX has always looked upon our pope as the valid, legitimate Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church.
5. Traditionalist reject ecumenism. Wrong. Traditionalists wholeheartedly accept and embrace ecumenism. That is if you define true ecumenism as converting heretics and pagans to the One True Church.
6. The Latin Mass didn't even exist until the Council of Trent (the mid-1500's). Wrong. The Latin Mass dates back to the time of Pope Saint Gregory the Great in the 6th century. Even before that, the Canon of the Mass dates to the 4th century, and the Latin Mass itself was in it's infancy in the 1st century. The Consecration has remained unchanged since Saints Peter and Paul first preached in Rome.
7. Traditionalists reject Vatican II. Wrong. The vast majority of Traditionalists recognize V2 for what it really is... a valid Council that essentially said "let's talk about this" rather than "this is the way it's going to be".
8. Mel Gibson is "an SSPXer". Wrong. Mel Gibson attends Mass as celebrated by a so-called independent priest.
9. Traditionalists expect you to wear expensive clothing to Mass. Wrong. Traditionalists expect everyone to wear their best... even if their best is a pair of overalls and a pull-over shirt. No one should ever purposfully dress-down to attend Mass. After all, we're going to The Lord's House, not a barbecue at the beach.
10. No one understands what's going on at a TLM. That would be true only if you're;
a. Illiterate.
b. Too lazy to ask "hey, could someone explain to me what's going on"?
c. Too lazy to learn some of the more basic prayers in Latin.
d. Irreversibly stupid.
Understanding what's going on at a TLM isn't really all that difficult. Just don't expect everything to be dumb-downed and spoon-fed to you. Yes, we're expected to put forth at least some effort.
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
4:29 AM
22 Comments:
Hi there - great post. The only thing I don't agree about is point number 2 - Feeneyism was denial of baptism of blood or desire, not denial of the necessity of the Church for salvation. The Church teaches that it is absolutely necessary for salvation to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff - that does not necessarily mean that it must be visible - which is where Baptism of blood or desire comes in. But it would be wrong to presume that a person visibly outside the Church might be saved as it negates the need for conversions. We must take the whole of the Church's teachings and they do include the defined dogma Outside the Church there is no Salvation.
Having said that - it is also wrong to say that God is not able to use Baptism of blood or desire to bring a person into the membership of his Church at the time of their death (remember, the two baptisms are only for people who are dying - you cannot be baptised by desire and live a long life without seeking God's Church).
Yes, we're expected to put forth at least some effort.
That effort being what you might call "active" participation!
;-)
Hey Jamie,
Excellent points you raise, indeed. But I thought you might find this interesting. I got it from the EWTN library.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY2.TXT
1. Baptism of water absolutely needed "They Fought the Good Fight" ,p. 330 ("Reply to a Liberal", by Raymond Karam, published in "From the Housetops", Spring, 1949-- according to page 274 of "They Fought the Good Fight" : "Father Feeney supervised and gave his final approval to 'Reply to a Liberal' by Raymond Karam. '": "The only remedy against original sin is baptism, and all those whom God predestined to salvation, He draws them to this remedy. All the children who die unbaptized and all the adults who die ignorant of baptism, or who, having been drawn to it by God's Providence, refuse it, are not predestinate, but will perish eternally".
The article, "The Waters of Salvation" by Feeney himself, from 1952 seems to soften this, saying on p. 390: "Unbaptized infants who die go to Limbo. Notice, they do not go to Hell. Also notice, they do not go to Heaven.
Unbaptized adults who die go to Hell. Notice they do not go either to Limbo or to Heaven." But what he means by Limbo is not what one might think. On p. 306: "What is due in justice to original sin is punishment and not reward, but it is the punishment of loss, the loss of the beatific Vision (poena damni)." Now the poena damni is the worst feature of hell! In context he was speaking of unbaptized infants. And as we saw above, in the article by Karam, personally approved by Feeney, we saw he said that they "perish eternally". Just before this, on pp. 305-06 he had commented on the statement of Pius IX (DS 2866) that God does not "permit anyone to be punished eternally unless he had incurred the guilt of voluntary sin."
Feeney comments: "If God cannot punish eternally (italics his) a human being who has not incurred the guilt voluntary sin, how then, for example, can He punish eternally babies who die unbaptized?" He even called the statement Pius IX heresy, Pelagianism!
Dear Caveman;
I do remember that intense joy (which was even more profound during the Latin Mass) of kneeling and praying to receive Our Lord and joining other people at the Communion Rail. It was a palpable and shared feeling which isn't present waiting in line at the post Vatican II Mass.
Why does anyone care what type of Mass Mel Gibson attends? Didn't know I was looking to Mel for guidance.
SMM,
I don't seem to recall anyone asking you to look to Mel Gibson for guidance.
It is, however, incorrect for folks to state that he attends Mass as celebrated by the SSPX. That's all I'm saying.
No need for you to dig for some hidden meaning in what I posted.
10.
e. Unable to follow the English translation in the missalette.
My favorite misconception is that young people have no interest in learning even a little Latin. Don't anybody try to tell that J.K. Rowling. The Harry Potter books are full of Latin!
10. No one understands what's going on at a TLM. That would be true only if you're;
a. Illiterate.
b. Too lazy to ask "hey, could someone explain to me what's going on"?
c. Too lazy to learn some of the more basic prayers in Latin.
d. Irreversibly stupid.
Understanding what's going on at a TLM isn't really all that difficult. Just don't expect everything to be dumb-downed and spoon-fed to you. Yes, we're expected to put forth at least some effort.
You know, (a) was precisely one of the reasons that Masses in vernacular were needed. There were lots of illiterate people even in Europe, at least in Southern Europe, in the 1960's (and there are still, in other continents). Over here in Portugal, lots of people could not read nor write up until the 70's and 80's, where a great effort was made to alphabetize the illiterate adults. And I am sure you know that in Africa and Central/Southern America there are still lots of persons who cannot read.
One question: you do agree that the post V2 Mass, when celebrated without the grave errors I read about in American blogs, is a valid Mass, or don't you?
(In my experience, in Portugal there are some abuses, but much smaller and less serious than the ones you have over there in the USA. Maybe it's a cultural thing.)
Knit,
You know, (a) was precisely one of the reasons that Masses in vernacular were needed.
That's what martin luther said, also. Even if someone can't read and write, does that mean they can't simply ask what's going on? And also, out anscestors may not have been Latin linguists, but they understoon enough to understand the Mass. And you know, those like yourself (and my Spanish anscestors) from Southern Europe really didn't have all that tough a time understanding Latin. After all, the Romance Languages are the children of Latin.
And to answer your question about The New Mass... yes, I consider it to be valid. But I also think that the possibility for error is built in. After all, "live" languages change meanings all the time. Can the same be said of "dead" Latin? I don't know about Portugal, but here in The States, people have actually argued about the definition of "is".
With that said, can the meaning of "This IS My body" eventually mean different things to different people? Should we really play fast and loos with The Consecration?
I'm not at all opposed to people learning Latin, but the idea that Catholics must know Latin in order to celebrate the Tridentine Mass is absurd.
I grew up with the old Mass and back then everyone used the Latin-English missal to silently pray the English version of the prayers. The only time we used Latin was for some of the responses.
Besides, Knit...
If it is truly and only a matter of "understanding," then how do you "understand" Transubstantiation? Or the Blessed Trinity?
Nope. Understanding is a good, but not the supreme good.
Maureen,
I don't think anyone is advocating all Catholics adhere to the absurd notion that we all learn Latin.
I do recall however, advocating that we "learn some of the more basic prayers in Latin".
Vir speluncae catholicus,
The TRANSLATION of Pius IX is heresy. But of course the translation you use is faulty. The correct translation is "eternal TORMENTS". The Church has defined that those who die with only original sin (which is a non voluntary sin) on their souls go to hell. (Second Council of Lyon) The article you quote also gets Reply to a Liberal completely wrong. Reply to a Liberal allows for both Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire. It was only after this came out that Fr. Feeney further developed his teachings. The author of the article has been corrected on numerous occasions, and even if a person does not agree with the Feeneyite interpretation, that does not give the person the right to misrepresent their beliefs. As a matter of fact it is objectively grave matter to do so. May our Lady keep you forever in the blue shadow of her mantle.
Christopher Sarsfield
Vir Speluncae Catholicus
I think that I might have misrepresented myself.
Personally, I think that the suggestion of learning some Latin prayers is a great one.
I even think that learning some conversational Latin would be cool, particularly in areas like my own. In my current parish, mass is said in five vernaculars. I'd love to be able to do more than smile and nod at fellow non-English-speaking parishioners.
I do however think that the claim "We'd all have to learn Latin" is being deliberately propagated by the opponents of the Latin Mass to intimidate people who might otherwise be open to attending a Tridentine Mass.
Maureen,
My misunderstanding. My deepest and most sincere apologies!
__________________________________
Christopher,
You're long on generalities, short on specifics. In reference to the 2d Council of Lyon, have you read the encyclical Singulari Quidem by Pope Pius IX (dated 1856) in which he clarifies specifically, the Catholic teaching on Invincible Ignorance?
Invincible ignorance, of the true Church or of anything else, is not considered by God as a sin. The dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church in no way implies that invincible ignorance is sinful.
By the way... 2d Lyon never said anyone with OS on their soul would "go to hell". Eternal seperation from The Lord could be looked upon as an "eternal torment". But I do believe that Pope Pius IX already cleared all that up.
And you must admit, Pope Piux IX was hardly a "Spirit of Vatican II" kinda guy.
And who exactly was it that found all these faults you mention in Reply to a Liberal? Who are these folks you speak of?
Vir Speluncae Catholicus,
Forgive me for the lack of specifics. I will try to more precise. From the 2nd Council of Lyons:
"The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments." (Denz. 464)
As I said your "translation" is heretical in its common understanding, just as Fr. Feeney said. However, Bl. Pius IX did not say that. The latin is: "aeternis puniri supplicis" Roy Deferrari correctly translates it in his version of Denzinger as "suffer eternal torments." Of course he had to, because Pius IX was obviously not contradicting a defined dogma.
With regard to Pius IX lets look at his teaching in context. Here is Quanto Conficamur:
"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal torments.
8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;"[5] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;"[6] "He who does not believe will be condemned;"[7] "He who does not believe is already condemned;"[8] "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;"[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."[11]
Basically, when read in context Pius is saying, yes he has heard the arguments about invincible ignorance, however the dogma of the Church is that there is no salvation outside of the Church. To pretend that Pius IX was condemning feeneyism in this encyclical is ridiculous. He was condemning people that believed there was salvation outside of the Catholic Church and that invincible ignorance could replace faith for justification. An opinion which would be sub Pelagian, because Pelagius at least believed you need natural virtue to be saved. Of course invincible ignorance is not a virtue. With regard to invincible ignorance he was only restating the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas:
"If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief. Hence Our Lord said (Jo. 15:22): "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin;= which Augustine expounds (Tract. 89 in Joan.) as "referring to the sin whereby they believed not in Christ." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Q.10, a.3.)
With regard to Reply to a Liberal and BOD; it says in answer to the question "Is There Any Case When Baptism of the Holy Spirit Without Actual Reception of Baptism of Water Can Be Sufficient for Salvation?" The answer is:
"In answer to our third question, therefore, we shall say that, according to the majority of the Fathers and Doctors, baptism of the Holy Spirit, without the actual reception of Baptism of water, can be sufficient for salvation..."
To find the faults all you have to do is read the article. I have actually read the document in question.
I did not want to get into a fight about EENS with you. I was only attempting to correct some errors in your post, so you would not perpetuate the grave sin of the author of the article. Having read some of your blog and the high opinion you have of the virtue of honesty, I was sure you would want to be informed. May our Lady keep you forever in the shadow of her blue mantle.
Christopher Sarsfield
You know, (a) was precisely one of the reasons that Masses in vernacular were needed. There were lots of illiterate people even in Europe, at least in Southern Europe, in the 1960's (and there are still, in other continents). Over here in Portugal, lots of people could not read nor write up until the 70's and 80's, where a great effort was made to alphabetize the illiterate adults. And I am sure you know that in Africa and Central/Southern America there are still lots of persons who cannot read.
Illiteracy has always been common throughout history, and yet somehow, people who couldn't read managed to get along with the Mass in Latin.
Instead of worrying about accommodating illiteracy, why not contribute to remedying it?
Knit,
I echo what Vir Speluncae said about the illiertate needing the vernacular to understand the Mass. Even as a child attending the classical Latin Mass, I knew from the ornate decorations, the gold chalice and ciborium, the rich vestments, the reverence of the priest and altar boys, that I was in the House of God and something special was taking place. The epistle and gospel then and centuries before were read first in Latin, then in the vernacular. Stain glass windows were developed to help catechize those who could not read.
Christopher,
Thank you for your offer to "correct some of the errors", but that won't be necessary. You see, there are no errors in my post.
From a Doctor of The Church (St. Thomas Aquainas) to Pope Pius IX, to many other learned theologians throughout the many centuries since the 2d Council of Lyon, Holy Mother The Church has consistently taught that those who die in a state of Invincible Ignorance do not automatically descend into hell, and that the possibility for salvation, albeit, not guarenteed, is just that... possible.
Again, thank you for your time and thoughts.
Vir Speluncae Catholicus,
You, sir, are a man without honor. The only thing I can think is that you are so "obstinate in sin or irreversibly stupid," that you can not see the Truth. Your comments above were full of errors. Mine comments contained no errors, that you or I are aware of. I would advise you to delete my posts, because you seem to be under the delusion that others that read your blog are as "obstinate in sin or irreversibly stupid," as you are. I have warned you. On the day of judgement you will not be able to claim invincible ignorance, though invincible pride might be a truthful confession.
In the Heart of Jesus and Mary,
Christopher Sarsfield
Vir Speluncae Catholicus said:
"Christopher,
Thank you for your offer to "correct some of the errors", but that won't be necessary. You see, there are no errors in my post."
Wow...you were able to figure all that out, without even reading what he posted! That's what I call "armchair theology" at it's very best....I have a blog, and therefore I know ALL without ever having to look to Holy Mother Church to guide me! I especially loved the part where you didn't back up one iota of your claims. You should pat yourself on the back, Vir Speluncae "Catholicus"....I'm sure that anyone else here with half a brain won't be doing it for you. I'll be sure to let everyone I know about how heretical this blog is. Not that you care. I have rarely seen anyone of your ilk that do.
GG
Christopher,
If the sources you cited were the only teachings The Church has on the subject... then we would all have no chioce whatsoever but to agree with you.
But like a Protestant, you pick and choose what teachings you care to adhere to. As I've stated before, from St Thomas Aquainas to Pope Pius IX to numerous other theologians... they've all clearly stated the Church Teaching on EENS and II.
But if me pointing out CORRECT Church Teaching in it's totality makes me a "man without honor", then so be it.
If it bothers you all that much that I've pointed out the errors of your thinking process... it's real simple. Go somewhere else to spread your vile heresy. Your opinion of me really isn't all that important.
BTW, your trolling days are over on this blog. Know that any and all posts you submit will be auto-deleted without even so much as being read.
Have a happy day.
__________________________________
Grace,
I guess me pointing out Singulari Quidem and ref'ing to St. Thomas Aquainas qualifies as me "not backing up one iota of [my] claims".
If you think you're little hissy-fit is suppose to impress me or make a difference in my life... you're wrong. You really aren't all that important to me.
Your melt-down can commennnnnnnnnnnnce......... NOW!!!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home