Change, fast change without thought for the implications of the change are not new, they are part of human nature.A crowd one day cries, "Hosanna, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord", within a week it is replaced by another crowd shouting "Crucify him, crucify him".
A school friend of mine told me about how his grandfather, a much decorated Austrian war hero, a respected lawyer, living well in middleclass Vienna within a year ended up being starved and worked to death in a concentration camp. Human nature is fickle, a happy gathering can easily turn into a violent fist fight. A struggle for democracy and freedom can so easily turn into a fascist rout.
We have witnessed this in the Church, I remember my first encounter with the Traditional Mass, offered on the plinth of Nelson' Column in Trafalgar Square, during an anti-abortion rally in 1974. That which had sustained the Church for a millennium and a half, was suddenly regarded as profane, even dangerous, I remember being told by a good, holy priest not have anything to do with it, he seemed to think of it as more dangerous than the women who screamed, "Women should decide their fate, not the Church and not the State".
On Sunday I offered Mass for a sick old lady in her 90s, who under Stalin had risked imprisonment daily, she had run a secret catechetical school for children in the the Ukraine. The place of Christianity in the former Soviet bloc has changed dramatically. A friend who worked until recently as a priest in Albania, tells of older priests still working in his former diocese who were imprisoned and tortured for years, who worked secretly giving the sacraments to people who could have their children taken away for making the sign of the Cross or being absent from school on Christmas day.
We live in a fickle changing world, what was 'good' yesterday becomes 'bad' today, there is an interesting article: Gay Marriage: the fastest orthodoxy ever? Society changes and has always changed, there is something about 'prevailing orthodoxies', coercion through fear and perceived public opinion. A German I knew, now dead, said, "before the First World War we were all convinced Monarchist/Imperialists, during the War we were convinced Militarists, after the War we were depressed, then we became convinced Communists, then Nationalists, then Fascists, we knew Hitler was our saviour, then in East Germany we were absolutely convinced Soviet Communists, we were proud to be workers, then all of a sudden we became Capitalists". At each stage this man was strongly convinced by each ideology that was in power, without demur put in the uniform or waived the flag of whoever was in power, persecuted whoever was supposed to be persecuted,
It is human nature - at least fallen human nature. It is a Christian duty to question these new 'orthodoxies' both within and outside the Church, we do so from the certain knowledge that Christ, not Satan, has triumphed.
9 comments:
Yes, Father! Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat.
-
I'm ollllld. I had to go through the 'inconveniance' of conversion when pretty old anyway 'cause my forebears thought, hmmmmmmmm, cthlc, sigh. my mum remembers being assigned a 'special friend' in the late 40s to a girl who had been displaced by the war. the girl was German and had no English. still, St Joseph's was part of the work to make whole in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ..
After some 70 years could we accept that a factual error approved by a pope could be responsible for the non traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents.Could we accept this change?
This would be a major change in are understanding of Catholic theology and doctrine. It would be a return to the past, before the 1940's.
In two theological papers of the International Theological Commission it is assumed that a possibility for salvation is a known reality in the present times and so an exception to Tradtion.
Something invisible for us ( being saved in invincible ignorance , LG 16) is assumed to be visible for us and so an exception to all needing to enter the Church with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7). With this irrationality AG 7 is contradicted by LG 16. This irrationality was approved in the two ITC papers by Pope Benedict XVI.
It is a fact that we cannot see the dead. It is a fact of life that we cannot physically see the dead-saved and now in Heaven. So how could they be exceptions?
I have provided the details on my blog Eucharist and Mission. It would be nice to know if you agree with me, Fr. Ray Blake.
We do indeed seem to be living in a fickle changing world. Only a few months back I read that a large number of French mayors had insisted that they would refuse to marry same-sex couples when this became law in France.
It now appears that most have finally conceded presumably under pressure and perhaps the risk of three years imprisonment and a very heavy fine helped them decide.
However what has also shocked me is the reply by a Priest, professor of moral theology to the question 'Is marrying same-sex couples a sin for mayors?' He has stated 'No - a mayor can personally disapprove of the law but as an elected official he must carry out his duties respecting the law.' He adds that 'in Catholic tradition the civil law comes first because this is what preserves public order and serves the common good. Once one section starts calling for exceptions others will follow which will lead to a marginalisation of Christians and a fragmentation of social life.' I would have hoped that a Priest would defend the Natural law over and above the secular law. All very confusing.
@Catholic Mission,
Perhaps the Church could demonstrate herself and her faith to be the stable alternative to the vicissitudes of the world if certain special interest groups—like say the Feeneyites (*cough cough*)—stopped sowing discord and instead contributed something?
In a changing world would you accept a 'Feeneyite' as a Catholic who holds the traditional and literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with implicit for us baptism of desire and without explicit for us baptism of desire.
A Feeneyite is someone who accepts being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire as a possibility but not a known exception in specific cases, to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, on the dogma.
So there are no known exceptions in 2014 to the 'riggorist', literal and traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
And if you are willing to accept this CHANGE then could you concede that there is nothing in Vatican Council II to reject the 'rigorist' interpretation on extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
And if you are still with me would you be willing to say that Vatican Council II is pro-Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
Vatican Council II in 2014 is Feeneyite?
There have been some interesting comments (on Riposte-Catholique) after the post on the advice from a priest that a French mayor must obey the law of the land even if it is against the natural law. One of them asks whether Jesus was then wrong to cure on the Sabbath....
There is no text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Feeneyism.
Feeneyism is the official teaching of the Catholic Church unless one assumes implicit for us baptism of desire is explicit for us.
According to Feeneyism every one needs to enter the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism' and there are no exceptions.
According to Feeneyism the baptism of desire is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
According to Cushingism every one does not need to enter the Catholic Church with faith and baptism in 2014 and there are exceptions.
According to Cushingism the baptism of desire is an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
According to Feeneyism Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) is not an exception to Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism) and the dogma on exclusive salvation. Vatican Council II is not confusing.
According to Cushingism Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception.Vatican Council II contradicts itself.
Feeneyism says there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Cushingism says there are exceptions. Cushingism is heresy.
The Society of St.Pius X, Fischer More College and other traditionalists have been using Cushingism. For liberals Cushingism is the basis for liberalism and dissent with reference to Vatican Council II.
Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 of Pope Pius XII, in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission, are interpreted according to Cushingism. The ITC papers were approved by Pope Benedict XVI.
Pope Francis expects the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate to accept Vatican Council II according to Cushingism, only then will they be allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass in Rome.
The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate could end the dead lock by announcing that they interpret Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents according to Feeneyism. So they affirm Vatican Council II and Tradition ( the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Catechism of Pope Pius X, the Syllabus of Errors etc).
Similarly Michael King, the President of Fischer-More College, USA could announce that they affirm Vatican Council II according to Feeneyism . He can ask Bishop Michael Olson, the bishop of Fort Worth, and the FSSP priests there, to also do the same.
The SSPX could clarify that in a discussion on the subject of the baptism of desire, there could be confusion over invisible for us baptism of desire and visible to us baptism of desire and that invisible for us baptism of desire, is their rational choice.
They also need to point out the factual error on the website of the International Theological Commission. The same error is there on the SSPX website under the subject Feeneyism. The SSPX is critical of Feeneyism since for the SSPX, Feeneyism refers to the rejection of explicit for us baptism of desire.
-Lionel Andrades
Very thought provoking, Father. May I be so bold as to recommend a book to those who want one man's perspective on this present malaise?
I suggest Rev. Romano Guardini's 'The End of the Modern World', Sheed & Ward (1957).
I gather he was an author profoundly respected by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.
It's a tough slog in parts but well worth the effort.
April 4, 2014
Bishop Michael Olson has faculties to offer Holy Mass while denying the Catholic Faith in public
Bishop Michael Olson, the bishop of Fort Worth, Texas on a televised talk (1) has not affirmed Vatican Council II (AG 7), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846), the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Nicene Creed. Neither has he proclaimed these magisterial documents with accompanying teaching, at any public forum. Yet he has faculties to offer Holy Mass and has used his office to ban the Traditional Latin Mass at the Fischer More College.
For example, I discern in the bishop’s second point, the one about his granting faculties, the possibility that the priest who had been saying Mass at Fisher More on a regular basis may not have had any faculties at all, from any bishop or religious superior. I suspect that there is more to that poorly phrased second point than meets the eye.-Fr.John Zuhlsdorf (2)
According to Canon Law how can a bishop who denies teachings of the Catholic Church, which is obligatory to affirm, hold his office ? So how does the bishop still have faculties to offer Holy Mass?
Was the Traditional Latin Mass prohibited because the Fischer More College faculty did not affirm the heresies of Bishop Michael Olson?
Fr.Zuhlsdorf writes:
•In May a prof of FMC (Fisher More College) gave a talk and denied aspects of Vatican II
Bishop Michael Olson in the video distributed by a former board member of the FMC denies Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need to enter the Church for salvation. All would include the members sitting at the Town Hall meeting with the bishop. He also did not affirm the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 which states all need to enter the Church as through a door. There are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II or the Catechism of the Catholic Church to AG 7 and CCC 846 or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Fr.Zuhlsdorf writes:
Canon 1225 states that “All sacred celebrations can be performed in legitimately established oratories except those which the law or a prescript of the local ordinary excludes or the liturgical norms prohibit.”
How can a sacred celebration be performed by a bishop who in public denies the Catholic faith and has never affirmed it in the media ?-Lionel Andrades
CONTINUED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/bishop-michael-olson-has-faculties-to.html#links
Post a Comment