|Wojtyla to be "canonised"
|Page 1 of 1|
|Author:||James Francis [ Sat Jul 06, 2013 1:50 am ]|
|Post subject:||Wojtyla to be "canonised"|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... story.html
I had a conversation with a fellow over a year ago who was arguing about the plausibility of the sedevacantist thesis. At one stage he declared "If they canonise JPII I'll have to become a sedevacantist."
I suspect this could be a similarly great grace for many others too. Lets pray fervently that it is.
|Author:||John Lane [ Sat Jul 06, 2013 4:50 am ]|
|Post subject:||Re: Wojtyla to be "canonised"|
James, let's hope so, but be prepared to be disappointed, if that isn't contradictory.
I do feel, however, that we are at a crisis point on this matter, with so many articles being published which touch upon the essential problem of this era - ecclesiology. "Where is the Church?"
It's an odd problem, precisely because we all know exactly where she is, in the sense that we know she is where we go to Mass, and we know that we ourselves are her parts and members. But still, we don't have a generally agreed theory which will deal with the major difficulties that the whole situation presents. And that's what all the ferment is about. That is, the ferment between Bishop Williamson and his satellites and the SSPX; the one between sedevacantists and the SSPX; the one between Guerardians and the rest of us; the one between people like me and Fr. Cekada and anybody (is there anybody?) who agrees with him, etc. Then-Father Sanborn outlined it (tendentiously) in his article, The Crux of the Matter back in the mid-1980s: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles ... catname=12
Read this, for example:
Father Sanborn wrote:
Archbishop Lefebvre had gathered together a certain number of priests and seminarians in Europe who constituted, respectively, the faculty and student body of early Ecône. They had sought out the Archbishop, and not vice-versa. I think that His Excellency at the time was looking forward to a quiet and sanctified retirement after his recent resignation from being Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers. Because, however, these traditionally-minded clerics had asked him for ordination, he found it necessary to establish a recognized form of religious life according to the norms of the law. Ecône and the International Fraternity of Saint Pius X were thus born, and, surprisingly, this body of clergy received the approbation of the Bishop of Fribourg, Lausanne, and Geneva, and of the Bishop of Sion, Switzerland. Although both bishops were aware that the traditional Mass was being used at Ecône, it still retained their official permission to operate.
Although this approbation seemed like a good thing at the time, it nevertheless caused confusion. What were we? How can we have the blessing of the local bishop when we are against virtually everything he is doing? Are we seeking a niche in the New Church, or are we at war with it?
These questions were never really answered. Instead, the principle of adherence to tradition was constantly reiterated.
What is being touched upon here is the mystery of the crisis itself. Unfortunately, this article was written in a manner that implied that there was no mystery, that the theological problems presented by the crisis had been solved. This implicit assumption is present throughout. For example, this sentence: “Although this approbation seemed like a good thing at the time, it nevertheless caused confusion.” Did the episcopal approbation itself “cause” confusion? Really? Or did the actual situation in the Church cause the confusion? Surely the latter. For in order to arrive at the conclusion that the approbation of the local bishops was problematical, surely one would have to demonstrate at least that these bishops were open heretics who therefore did not truly possess the episcopal offices that they claimed, and that therefore their approbation was not merely unnecessary, but a cause of confusion. Unless their non-Catholic status was demonstrated, surely any Catholic would agree that their approbation for public ecclesiastical activity in their dioceses was absolutely required!
Likewise, this question, “Are we seeking a niche in the New Church, or are we at war with it?” which is great rhetoric, but very poor theology and canon law. Fr. Sanborn himself, earlier in the article, had admitted that it was unclear who was Catholic and who wasn’t, and to that same extent it was therefore unclear where the New Church was and where the true Church remained.
Nevertheless, the question, is the hierarchy still the hierarchy of the Catholic Church? – which was really a way of asking, where is the Church? – is at the heart of Fr. Sanborn’s analysis. Fr. Sanborn alleges that the real dividing line within the SSPX was between those whose primary loyalty was to the Archbishop, and those whose primary loyalty was to Tradition. This may have been true in individual cases, but I think that it should at least be stated for the sake of justice that Archbishop Lefebvre saw the essential dividing line as lying between those like himself who were reluctant to judge persons, and those who formed firm judgements about persons and then made those private judgements the shibboleth for everything else. As Fr. Sanborn himself puts it, “Archbishop Lefebvre never really answered the fundamental question — whether the modernists were Catholic or not.” (This is richly ironic, of course, since Bishop Guerard des Lauriers’ Cassiciacum Thesis was developed precisely because des Lauriers came to the view that whether the Modernists remained Catholics could not be settled!)
Anyway, the fundamental questions still have not been answered – at least, in a way which all informed Catholics can agree upon – so the same arguments keep recurring. But what I do think is happening is that of the two possible pictures of the Church which ultimately may present themselves before the mind’s eye, one is becoming more and more impossible to take seriously as the crisis rolls on. The two alternatives are, that the latest Modernist claimant is really pope, and therefore the Church is hierarchically intact and yet almost exclusively practises a New Religion; or, the See of Rome being vacant, the Church is in the kind of crippled state she is always in during an interregnum, in which her active infallibility is unable to be exercised, etc. And therefore whatever the case may be with individuals, including bishops, the Church herself is not responsible for the New Religion.
I think that this latter view is becoming more irresistible as the situation deteriorates, so that we should expect to see two things – more individuals adopting our view, and more violent denunciations of it by others.
|Author:||Cam [ Sat Oct 12, 2013 12:36 am ]|
|Post subject:||Re: Wojtyla to be "canonised"|
John Lane wrote:
the Church herself is not responsible for the New Religion.
How would you define the New Religion - it seems that it's not easily recognisable.
|Author:||John Lane [ Sat Oct 12, 2013 3:48 am ]|
|Post subject:||Re: Wojtyla to be "canonised"|
Yes, I agree, it's a fact that many men of good will were taken in by the new religion. These were especially numerous when it was first formulated and imposed. So it must be objectively a highly deceptive thing.
A religion and a church are distinct notions, of course. A church is a body of men who practice a religion. I would define the New Church as that body of men who subscribe to the doctrines of the New Religion, and engage in the practices of the New Religion, to the exclusion of, or despite, the true faith and the true religion.
A religion is a set of beliefs accompanied by corresponding practices. So, the texts of Vatican II (and the official interpretation of them) constitute the formal cause of the New Religion, its proper beliefs, and the New Mass (and especially Communion in the hand) and sacramental rites, as well as various signal practices such as joint religious meetings, joint worship, the refusal to condemn sin under the guise of loving the sinner (if there's no sin, as there isn't in the New Religion, then there cannot be any sinners, so it condemns itself as irreparably stupid anyway), collegiality, etc. constitute the corresponding practices which demonstrate and reinforce the New Religion's beliefs.
The true religion is the faith of all time as expressed in the Creeds, the official catechisms, the decrees of the Councils, the encyclical letters of the popes, etc. And its practices are the true Mass and all the rest of those signal Catholic practices that we know and love so well.
The thing that seems to confuse so many people is that they do not think in terms of principles, that is, in terms of causality. What are the respective causes at work? By looking into this question we can notice something new from Vatican II on, something that simply was not present in the Church before, ever. Worldliness has always been present, at times rife, affecting even the papacy. That isn't new - although it is astonishingly prevalent today. No, there is something else, entirely novel, and that is a set of texts expressing notions which are not merely new but actually incompatible with the teachings of the Church. Religious liberty is the classic example, but not the only one. And all of the debates about interpretation only serve to disguise the fundamental reality that to each of the new doctrines has corresponded a set of new practices. For example, the doctrine of religious liberty - whatever interpretation one gives it - resulted actually in the uncrowning of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the removal of His sacred Name from the constitutions of hitherto Catholic states. Likewise, the notion that the Holy Ghost employs false religions as means of salvation resulted in countless novel practices and approaches, most spectacularly and symbolically in the joint worship of Catholics and non-Catholics, visits to synagogues by Wojtyla and Ratzinger, etc.
One can argue about the natural meaning of the texts of Vatican II until the cows come home, but what even the most obstinate "conservative" must necessarily concede are two points: 1. The texts were capable of bearing the liberal interpretation, and 2. The official interpretation, as revealed by actions in particular, has not been energetically and clearly Catholic. Once these two points are established, we are in the presence of the new thing I mentioned above, face to face with it in fact. We have a set of false principles given official status in the Church, resulting in new beliefs, new actions, new religious rites, etc. I repeat, this is so even on the most "conservative" understanding of the Council, for the Church has never permitted ambiguity to remain in her official texts, even if it has ever crept in on occasion by some accident of circumstances. The battles waged over the homoiousios and homoousios illustrate this well. So even on the hypothesis that the only fault in the texts is ambiguity, this very ambiguity is alien to the true religion. Historically, ambiguity has always resulted in vigorous effort by the hierarchy to eliminate it, to bring clarity to the profession of faith, at any cost. This has not been the case in the Conciliar era.
Anyway, I’m rambling now, but the point is that in order to avoid a great deal of unnecessary debate and confusion, we ought to express ourselves in terms of causality. The New Religion is a set of principles and practices, and insofar as men accept those ideas and engage in those practices, they are practicing a new religion. It may be – indeed it very often is – difficult to say whether a given individual remains a Catholic or not. This is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether there is a new religion or not. The same realities carry through – indeed, they must by the nature of the case – to the question of the two churches. Yes, there is a New Church, and yes, it has a hierarchy and a concrete membership. Yes, it’s also true that the membership of this new church is mixed up to some degree, physically, with the membership of the true Church. Some of those who assist at the New Mass remain Catholics. Indeed, some of the priests who offer the New Mass remain Catholics. I don’t think we can even say – I have never seen anybody prove it, anyway – that all of the ordinaries are non-Catholics today. But even if there were no new church, there would still be a new religion. That is, even if no one individual could be said to be practicing the new religion to the exclusion of the true religion, so that we could not say that there is a new body, a false new church, in existence, this would not alter the reality that any set of false principles and practices in relation to the divine, constitute a religion.
Does that make sense?
|Page 1 of 1||All times are UTC|
|Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group