+
JMJ
There are a number of topics that have been bumping around in my head for a while ... so I thought I'd just put them into one article as a way-point in my ponderings.
Vatican vs Traditionalists
With the denial of entry into the St. Peters of a pilgrimage of Traditional Catholics, the public persecution of Traditional Catholics has reached a new level.
The question is now whether or not things will carry on the same, get better or worse.
Having been in this 'game' for decades, I can safely say that it has been a rollercoaster ride of ups and downs, followed by more ups and downs.
I think that the decision to openly attack the Traditionalists in this manner shows either a degree of desperation, fear or hatred.
Desperation: The Second Vatican Council didn't open just a window, with its ambiguities I believe it blew a sizable hole through which poured into the Catholic Church all sorts of errors, heresies and other nonsense ... like Liturgical Danse and Puppets.
The Breached Mohne Dam, a perfect metaphor for the breach created by Vatican II
Summorum Pontificum (link) and Universae Ecclesiae (link) inserted a partial plug of the gap in hole created by the revolt of the Second Vatican Council.
It was, in effect, the 'Experiment of Tradition' (link) requested by Archbishop Lefebvre:
Pope John Paul II has neither confirmed nor quashed the sanction pronounced against me. During the audience which he granted me in November 1979, he seemed after a long conversation quite disposed to allow freedom of choice in the liturgy, in short to let me do what I asked from the beginning, to carry on the “Experiment of Tradition” among all the other experiments that are carried on in the Church. The moment had come when perhaps everything could have been settled; no more outlawing of the Mass and no more problems. But Cardinal Seper, who was present, saw the danger. “But, Holy Father,” he exclaimed, “they make this Mass into a banner!”The heavy curtain which had lifted for a moment fell back. We must still wait. (SSPXasia: link) (SSPX.org: 1988 Reference)
The problem is that the results of the Experiment of Tradition that was Summorum Pontificum was an overwhelming success.
That was something that seemed to concern some elements in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Then Pope Benedict XIV ran from the wolves and we ended up with Pope Francis the First. There were some points in his pontificate that it seemed that Pope Francis would be the most generous towards the SSPX of all the previous popes.
Then Traditiones Custodes arrived and the knives came out.
So the question is what happens next?
The recent actions seem to be ones of desperation trying to stop the rebuilding of the 'dam' of doctrine that was protecting the Catholic Church from the floods.
So I foresee that this is going to get worse before it gets better.
Eventually the crisis of the Catholic Church will drag on the world to the point that even today's poor situation (ie wars etc) will degrade to the point that Russia will be identified as the major threat and (it will be late) the Pope will order the Bishops to join him in consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Then Russia will be converted and a lot of other stuff will probably happen before things get to a stable point. The Church and World have been steadily heading into a nose dive for decades. It will take time to pull out of the death spiral.
We'll have to be patient to wait and see what comes next.
This is my personal thoughts ... not some private revelation etc.
SchismIt is a little weird that some one actually believes that the SSPX is in Schism while the Orthodox are just not in full communion (National Catholic Register - EWTN: Why Does the Vatican Recognize Orthodox Marriages but Not Those of the SSPX? link)
As he explained to ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News, although the Orthodox churches are not in full communion with Rome, they are not currently in a state of formal schism comparable to that of the Society of St. Pius X.
Yep, you read correctly. The Orthodox, who deny the primacy of the Bishop of Rome (ie The Pope) aren't in Schism.
Don't believe me ... here's what we find in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The Orthodox, then, are the Christians in the East of Europe, in Egypt and Asia, who accept the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon (are therefore neither Nestorians nor Monophysites), but who, as the result of the schisms of Photius (ninth cent.) and Cerularius (eleventh cent.), are not in communion with the Catholic Church. There is no common authority obeyed by all, or rather it is only the authority of "Christ and the seven Ecumenical Synods" (from Nicæa I in 325, to Nicæa II in 787). Catholic Encyclopedia: Orthodox Church.(link)
So what is schism??? Following Canon law's definition we have:
Can. 751 ... schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
So to be clear - the Orthodox Churches continue to refuse submission to the Supreme Pontiff (Vicar of Christ / Bishop of Rome). Then we have this statement by Father Davide Cito:
“These are two different situations. The Orthodox are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, but they are not excommunicated. In contrast, the fraternity has committed a formal act of breaking ecclesial communion,” he explained.
This is quite incredible. The First Vatican Council defined that:
the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole church and father and teacher of all christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal church. (Papal Encyclicals: Decress of the First Vatican Council link)
The Orthodox refuse this ... they are objectively in a continual and material state of schism.
The canon lawyer noted that, prior to the recent declaration of schism, the situation of the SSPX was different. Although there were serious doctrinal and disciplinary tensions with Rome, it was not juridically in its current situation.
So this is so warped it hurts my brain. The declaration of schism was basically lifted from the 1988 text ... so if the SSPX was in 'schism' after 1988 and somehow its weddings were valid before 2026???
Here's the truth, in 2014 we know (not believe but know) that the SSPX was in a state of 'not full communion' (Tradicat: Who Is A Catholic link).
What do I think? I think that this is a farce and that Father Cito is as incompetent as the others in Rome.
TithingI've periodically wondered about the requirement for Tithing. My research revealed that the requirement for Tithing is no longer a requirement of the Catholic Church - meaning now specific amount or portion is required. However, there continues a requirement to contribute to the support of the Church and its ministers.
UsuryThe application of interest to a loan has long been regarded as usury (link). Given the expanse of loans within the world, I wondered if there was a distinction that has been missed.
In the Christian era, the New Testament is silent on the subject; the passage in St. Luke (vi, 34, 35), which some persons interpret as a condemnation of interest, is only an exhortation to general and disinterested benevolence. A certain number of authors, among them Benedict XIV (De synodo diocesana, X., iv, n. 6), believed in the existence of a Patristic tradition which regarded the prohibitory passages of Holy Scripture as of universal application. Examination of the texts, however, leads us to the following conclusions: Until the fourth century all that can be inferred from the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers is that it is contrary to mercy and humanity to demand interest from a poor and needy man. The vehement denunciation of the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries were called forth by the moral decadence and avarice of the time, and we cannot find in them any expression of a general doctrine on this point; nor do the Fathers of the following centuries say anything remarkable on usury; they simply protest against the exploitation of misfortune, and such transactions as, under the pretence of rendering service to the borrower, really threw him into great distress. (Catholic Encyclopedia: Usury link)
In the end it appears that the action of Loan Sharks who prey upon the needy and desperate is forbidden. The action of banks that offer 'reasonable' rates of interest to people is not.
What is reasonable is a something that is up for debate.
Personally, I have taken a number of loans for home and vehicles. In each case, my goal was to pay off the loan within a short period of time - the target was 5 years and I was comfortable with a repayment term as long as 10 years.
The key item was that I worked to ensure that I could pay off the loan within a short period of time in order to manage my cash-flow. This required sacrifices and control. As they say there is no gain without pain.
It isn't impossible, just difficult and requires sacrifices.
So ... that is my ideas at this point in time.
P^3
Vatican Declares War on Traditional Catholics (Summorum Pontificum RIP)
FSSPX.UK: Matters Arising: On Schism
FSSPX.UK: Matters Arising: On Tithing
LMS Chairman: Articles on the Rome Pilgrimage
Comments
Post a Comment