SSPX-Rome: Important – Father Schmidberger speaks on conditions and current status of negotiations with Rome
Updated: video with subtitles
Posted by New Catholic at 9/20/2012
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/09/sspx-rome-important-father-schmidberger.html
Fr. Andreas Steiner, spokesman of the German District of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), interviewed Germany’s current District Superior and former Superior General of the Society Fr. Schmidberger on the most recent General Chapter, the current situation of affairs between Rome and the SSPX and on the relationship with Abp. Müller (head of the CDF).
Posted on Youtube on September 18, 2012.
[Click on "captions" for English subtitles]
Following is an adapted, but reasonably accurate, summary of the 17:21 minutes long video.
On the first question, dealing with the General Chapter, Fr. Schmidberger remarks about the gain for the SSPX itself: “the General Chapter has provided us with a new unity within our own ranks, [a unity] which had suffered a bit in recent times; and that is a big grace of God, I would say”. Concerning the external aspect of the General Chapter, Father remarks that there are three points which must be demanded from the authorities if a visible union with Rome will be established. These are: firstly, that the SSPX will be given the freedom to expose the errors of Vatican II; secondly, that the SSPX will be allowed to only use the liturgical books of 1962; and thirdly, that there must always be a bishop in the Fraternity from within its own ranks.
The second question deals with the situation between Rome and the SSPX. Around Pentecost (of this year) people thought that a visible union was close, but, as Father remarks, the meeting of Cardinal Levada and Bishop Fellay changed this. The proposal that was presented by the Cardinal contained not only the proposal [translator's note: for a doctrinal preamble] that Bishop Fellay had sent to Rome earlier, but it added to that proposal new requirements to be fulfilled by the SSPX, but which the Bishop deemed unacceptable for the Fraternity.
These additional requirements consist, according to Fr., of the recognition of the “licitness” [in German: Lizeität - translator's note: see also the foreword to the SSPX’s German District’s Mitteilungsblatt nr. 404 of September 2012, in which the same word is used, strengthening the belief that this words stems directly from the proposal of Cardinal Levada] of the new liturgy [translator's note: Father firstly presents the term Lizeität as “permissiveness”, but he then immediately interprets it as meaning “rightfulness”]; and also of the recognition of the uninterrupted continuity between Vatican II and all former councils and doctrinal statements of the Church. And that is impossible, according to Father, as there undeniably are ruptures with Vatican II and “we therefore cannot accept the hermeutic of continuity as such” [emphasis added by translator].
Following on that meeting, Bishop Fellay sent a letter to the Pope, asking him whether these additional requirements were wished for by His Holiness, or that they were his co-workers’s demands. The Pope assured Bishop Fellay that he really wishes these requirements to be fulfilled.
The SSPX will send its concerns about these additional requirements to Rome in the hope that they can be resolved. Already with the doctrinal discussions it became clear that there are big differences between the teaching of the Church during the last centuries (represented by the SSPX) and the doctrinal concepts of the representatives of the current authorities in the church. As long as these are not resolved, Father says he believes that there will be no real exodus of the Church out of the current problems.
The third question, then, deals with the relation between Archbishop Müller, the current prefect of the CDF, and the SSPX. The Archbishop has not been very favourable of the SSPX when he was the local ordinary of the diocese in which the SSPX has its German seminary; however, what worries Father much more is the heterodoxy of the Archbishop in certain points of the Faith [translator's note: see this Rorate post, at number 2], whereas the head of the CDF is supposed to watch over the Faith and protect her.
Father Steiner then asked whether Fr. Schmidberger expects new excommunications if the SSPX does not fulfil the two abovementioned requirements. Father Schmidberger, however, thinks that that is very unlikely. He sees the Fraternity not only as a community of about 570 priests, some sisters and some Catholic schools, but – without wanting to come across as pretentious – he also believes that the SSPX is in a certain way the backbone of all those who want to keep the Tradition of the Church alive. For all those, the SSPX is in a certain way a point of reference. If this point of reference would be discredited in such a way, this would mean a huge “demoralisation” of the traditional and conservative forces in the Church. It would therefore be a tremendous catastrophe, not so much for the Fraternity, but for the Church itself.
Finally, the last question sought the opinion of Fr. Schmidberger as to whether the talks with Rome have had any benefit. Father believes that the talks have had huge benefits. Firstly, they have proven that the SSPX really does search a normalisation; that the SSPX regards its current situation in light of the current crisis, as being not normal; and every abnormality lingers for a normalisation. The current abnormal situation is, however, not the fault of the Fraternity; it is a necessity in the current crisis if one wants to keep the ancient liturgy, the ancient doctrine, the ancient discipline integrally and if one wants to live homogeneously as a Catholic on this fullness.
On the other hand, the discussions have shown that there exist doctrinal differences; and the deviations do not exist on the side of the Fraternity, but on the side of – one has to, sadly, admit this – those representatives of the Church that organise the Assisi meetings, that practise that which has been explicitly condemned in the past by the Church, by the Popes, by the councils.
And thirdly, the talks have led to a process of clarification within the Society. The Society does not agree with those that, out of principle, reject talks with Rome. Father ends the interview by saying: “The Fraternity has never worked for itself; it has never regarded itself as an end in itself, but it has always striven to serve the Church; to serve the Popes. Archbishop Lefebvre has always said this: we want to be at the disposal of the Bishops, of the Popes; we want to serve them, we want to help them lead the Church out of this crisis, to restore the Church in all her beauty, in all her holiness; but this can, of course, only happen outside of any compromise, of any false compromise. That is of great importance to us and we have in truth tried to resettle this treasure in the Church, to give it right of residence again. And maybe one or another has worked out in a certain way. The Fraternity has also, through these doctrinal discussions which I have mentioned, certainly made people think about the Second Vatican Council and about certain statements of this Council.”
[Translation: IM. Source: Pius.info]
…and also of the recognition of the uninterrupted continuity between Vatican II and all former councils and doctrinal statements of the Church. And that is impossible, according to Father, as there undeniably are ruptures with Vatican II and “we therefore cannot accept the hermeutic of continuity as such” [emphasis added by translator].
Following on that meeting, Bishop Fellay sent a letter to the Pope, asking him whether these additional requirements were wished for by His Holiness, or that they were his co-workers’s demands. The Pope assured Bishop Fellay that he really wishes these requirements to be fulfilled.
Turn out the lights; the party’s over.
It certainly seems that way. Perhaps the Society’s refusal of these conditions will make Pope Benedict pause and consider the validity of our position.
Hey, one can always hope.
Luke, check out the thread about the Chief Warlock of London pontificating to the assmebled mitres INSIDE THE VATICAN. Pope Benedict, dear, sweet and totally well-intentioned as I am certain he truly is, is a deeply, deeply confused man.
And the problem is, he doesn’t see it that way at all.
And the even worse problem is, he’s inviting heretics and infidels to address the Vatican on “what the TRUE ‘church’ IS!!!!!!!!!!!! ”
That Fr. Schmidberger, despite my own wise*** remarks ( intended for comic relief, by the way ) about him and his Swiss boss, is no doubt just as sincere as the day is long and, Deo gratias, is NOT as confused as the pope.
I will even look the other way and simply roll my eyes about his “enthusiasm” for the results, to date, of the confab the SSPX has had with sunny Nova Roma. I see those as an indictment of both sides’ positions: Rome’s for reminding us all of just how bad things are there and the Society’s for letting it go on and on after that had already been made plain. Fr. Schmidberger, I suppose, does have to engage in some amount of diplo-speak when talking to the gasbags in the media. Even the pope feels he has to do likewise.
But all the diplomacy and happy intentions in the world are not going to pull the Church out of its own self-imposed tailspin. Nor will they help the Society fulfill its own unique role in the Church, which Fr. Schmidberger did put well.
Land of the Irish, If “the party’s over,” then check out your Missal and say an “Act of Hope.” As long as we have Peter, the Church endures. That said, Rorate does have a pretty good discussion on its comment thread with the gist being that, at minimum, VII cannot be declared heretical. What one pope declares, another cannot undeclare. Driven by the prevailing winds, the language of VII is mush. Its wordings can be pressed into service to claim support for heretical positions AND the same wordings can support a position not antithetical to the faith. The Apostles Creed was historically used to support an Arian position by way of comparison. The language used is capable of supporting that religion. For the Holy Father, and for the Society for that matter, the issue is this: How to support a bare minimum of the council’s existence while not condoning modern errors? For the Society, “The council contains no heresies per se, but the entirety of Tradition is the only standard for intrepreting doctrine” might be a formula that would work. It will be good to see what the next six months turns up to see how things proceed.
“What one pope declares, another cannot undeclare.”
I disagree.
It’s already been done. The current Pope, before he was pope, declared Gaudium et Spes (a Vatican II document (dogma to some) to be the counter-syllabus to Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus. The Pope, to this day, has not retracted that statement, yet he insists on people signing off on his fiction of “hermeneutic of continuity”.
Pope St. Pius V’s declaration that the Traditional Latin Mass was to be allowed everywhere in perpetuity was basically “undeclared” by both Popes Paul VI and JP II in favor of the Mason Bugnini’s Mess. And then Pope Benedict turns around and “declares” it to be permitted again, but under special conditions.
Several Popes had ruled that Holy Communion in the Hand was forbidden. Pope JP II initially agreed with them until he reversed himself. He did the same with altar girls. And he has been beatified, apparently not for his consistency but for his popularity with the secular world.
Cardinal Ratzinger refused to attend Assiss I on the grounds of pantheism; yet years later he would host Assisi III in honor of the 25th anniversay of the intital Assisi that he had boycotted.
And to reassure you, I have Hope; but not necessarily hope in the current Pope, especially after he refused to acknowledge three Rosary Crusades that have been said for him.
“land of the irish says:
“What one pope declares, another cannot undeclare.”
I disagree.”
With regard to disciplinary action, you are correct. With regard to canonization or recognition of a council as a General Council of the church, you are incorrect. Such an action, by a reigning pontiff, carries the highest level of the charism of infallibility. VII was recognized. Period. Noting “…before he was pope he…” carries no weight. N.B. Not pope then. Only the pope is infallible.
From the original Catholic Encyclopedia, www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm
“Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians.”
And…
“Papal and conciliar infallibility are correlated but not identical. A council’s decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation, because the pope is infallible also extra concilium, without the support of a council.”
Your response – he allows the practice of communion in hand, e.g. is a matter of the discipline. Approval of a General Council is rather a bit different. Not even the Society holds that VII is going to be waved away. And, indeed, Bp. Fellay was brilliant in noting he actually holds to 95 percent of VII better than the faithless hordes who pretend to sing its praises. Instead, the errors, fairly or not associated with the council, are less than a handful in number. Get a papal decree, preferably ex cathedra, of just how we are to understand them, and be done with the mess.
Recognized as a purely “pastoral council”, pronouncing no new dogma. You seem to ignore the 5% of the council that Bishop Fellay implies.
Would you drink a glass of milk with 5% ricin? Or would you pour it out and get a fresh glass? Would you accept a Communion wafer that was 5% Dorito?
“Only the pope is infallible”
Nope, he’s only infallible in matters of faith and morals pronounced ex cathedra. Please tell me the last time a Pope did that.
Land, Your statement argues both that the council was non-dogmatic and that its dogmatic side is heretical. This violates the principle of Logical Non-contradiction. You seem to hold the latter more often, so I’ll stick to that. As such, here goes — pure poison, heresy if you will, is the issue in question…don’t beg the issue. It’s a General Council given papal approbation. In answer to your question (When was the last time…), one answer is 1965, the date said approbation was given. I referenced a common, easily understood source, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and you ignored it because you are wrong, and you can’t answer it. Provide a source that shows your side or admit fault here.
So, given that we know it can’t be waved away, and you won’t find a source to say General Councils can be abrogated because no such source exists, we are left with the council’s existence.
Is it mush? Sure. Are the four lines of the council the Society finds questionable “of necessity” heretical? Not if we’re Catholics (that would involve heresy, as I documented above – still waiting on that response, by the by showing from Catholic sources that supports your version). Ergo, an orthodox reading is “possible.” What is needed is an annotated VII, one with the ambiguity removed by ex cathedra pronouncement. Nothing less seems adequate to the task. “Religious liberty must be understood as….because the whole of Tradition says….” Boom. Make it neat. Clean.
Wrong. A non-dogmatic council, which VC II was, can certainly proclaim heresy and it did.
Ohio,
“…The pope is not an oracle, he is infallible on the rarest of occasions, as we know…” -Pope Benedict XVI
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Land, I don’t smoke. Nor do I try to swear or berate. I’ll leave these to you. We rarely change minds when we preach to the choir. By acting boorishly, though, I suspect you are doing yourself less of a favor than you think.
[Point 1] Ad rem, though, you have repeatedly ignored what I said about the act of validating a General Council in that it constitutes an act of infallibility. Perhaps you missed it. As I pointed out, Catholics agree that the action itself is an exercise of papal infallibility. You have denied it. I’m asking about the papal acceptance of a General Council being fallible or infallible. It’s a simple response, one that you can answer with a “yes” or “no.” Which is it? Unless you actually respond, we’re left to conclude you may hold a heretical stance. That, my good sir, is poison of which you spoke.
Pretending that the solution is just undo VII isn’t going to happen. The Society knows this. The FSSP, the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, ICK, the monks, all admit this. The Holy Father knows this, a good man, even despite what we say about him. You insist, based on some office we haven’t quite heard of, that you hold the gift of “knowing” it’s heretical. As a practical matter, I challenge you to show me one thing up to and including the date on the documents that isn’t gibberish. I have college sophomores this term who write more clearly in their essays citing “Wikipedia” and the like.
Do I “know” anything about the documents? Well, hard to say. [Point 2] I noted – and, per your style, you ignored – that no less than the Apostles Creed was once pressed into service for an Arian religion – not schismatics, but fully apostate, a different god as you like to talk about. Is the Apostles Creed “heresy.”Again, “There is much in scripture that the foolish and unlearned twist to their own destruction.” No less than Holy Scripture is capable of being used for both “orthodox” purposes AND for “heresy.” Abusus non tollit usum. Do you, Land, follow your own argument consistently? If so, anything misused is gone, caput, out the window. Help us out – admit we need to throw out the Bible.
Two points. I suspect no answer will be forthcoming, but here is your chance.
Point 1: Yes, I believe the Second Vatican council, even though approved by a pope, was fallible because it pronounced no new dogma and it declared itself to be a purely pastoral council.
I recommend you read the full series. Here’s a link to Part I:
The Errors of Vatican II
Point 2: Common knowledge. I have nothing to add to it.
Land, Whether it pronounced doctrine in an extraordinary method or not, a General Council is part of the Teaching Office of the whole church. To your surprise, I’ll actually grant you a point with your statement on “pronouncing no new dogma.” Agreed. Little in what the council said or did will likely be of import in a few centuries. Too much of the language of the time was imbibed for it to function well. Yet, this undercuts your argument.
If it’s not “new dogma,” rather stating what exists already, then heresy is hard to prove. To make a heresey charge stick, you need the corpus delicti. If however, you want the heresy charge, you admit a papally-aprobated General Council introduced it. A good discussion, and accessible to the layman, is that of Ott’s, “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” as to levels of authority.
For our purposes, I’ll refer back to the Catholic Encyclopedia as a source to which you have immediate access: www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm
“Papal and conciliar infallibility are correlated but not identical. A council’s decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation, because the pope is infallible also extra concilium, without the support of a council. The infallibility proper to the pope is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council’s infallibility. The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope’s infallibility: a fallible pope supporting, and supported by, a council, would still pronounce infallible decisions.”
N.B. Whether “new” dogma or not, the decrees of any General Council carry the weight of infallibility. You start with a premise that is wrong – VII must contain heresy – and try to argue from thence. Hence, you begin in error and move further into error.
As a Catholic, I start with the Catholic belief that decrees of a General Council are infallible – I have cited evidence showing this is the Catholic belief. You deny this in the face the evidence produced, a serious fault. When asked to produce evidence, you resort to name-calling, a failing of this liberal, modernist era.
[Primary Issue Here - answer or admit defeat] Because, we know a General Council’s decrees are infallible, we must hold to the following — As with Holy Scripture, if we read the decrees of a General Council and the result is not orthodox, we have read them wrong. I note you referenced no Catholic sources on Point 2. As Newman would say, “Blot 1.” You simply refused to answer, claiming “Well, everybody knows….” In formal debate, this is an admission of defeat. Thank you. I like winning so easily. My point stands – VII’s decrees are mush, based on a lack of proper Thomistic language. As such, and like the Bible, it can be read in multiple ways, though not rightly, and the weight of Tradition can and must be the only judge of VII’s contents. When in doubt on a statement, I am free to hold to the entirety of Tradition. Non-catholic religions must accept Christ or risk damnation. Christ is the only way to salvation. Religious indifferentism is to be condemned, etc.
Land, am I wrong to believe “Christ is the only way to salvation”?
NWOhio Trad said, “Nor do I try to swear or berate. I’ll leave these to you.”
Please point out where I have done either or apologize.
NWOhio Trad said, “When asked to produce evidence, you resort to name-calling, a failing of this liberal, modernist era.”
Again, please point it out, Elsewise apologize.
NWOhio Trad said, “I like winning so easily.”
Yawn. So does Charlie Sheen.
NWOhio Trad said, “Land, am I wrong to believe “Christ is the only way to salvation”?”
What’s with all your goofy questions?
NWOhio Trad, ” I am I wrong to believe that you have stopped beating your wife?” Yes or no?
NWOhio Trad said, If it’s not “new dogma,” rather stating what exists already, then heresy is hard to prove. To make a heresey charge stick, you need the corpus delicti.”
You apparently did not read my link to the SSPX criticism of VC II which concerned the errors of VC II. Here’s another link where those same errors have led some to the empty chair crowd; and it does address supposed “heresies”:
The Principal Heresies and Other Errors of Vatican II
land of the irish says: September 22, 2012 at 2:51 PM
NWOhio Trad said, “Nor do I try to swear or berate. I’ll leave these to you.”
Please point out where I have done either or apologize.
land of the irish says: September 21, 2012 at 9:10 PM….
“Ohio, Put that in your pipe and smoke it.”
Still waiting for a real response, Land. Do we ditch the Holy Bible? And the creeds? All because heretics try to insert themselves? Take your time and find me proof that we as Catholics have ever done so. It won’t happen. It can’t happen. Abusus non tollit usum. Grab a dictionary and look it up. We invented the phrase.
Land, “Somebody else posted something and it’s kind of relevant” is not a response. Perhaps you did not read my post (likely). Here it is again:
[Primary Issue Here - answer or admit defeat] Because, we know a General Council’s decrees are infallible, we must hold to the following — As with Holy Scripture, if we read the decrees of a General Council and the result is not orthodox, we have read them wrong. I note you referenced no Catholic sources on Point 2. As Newman would say, “Blot 1.” You simply refused to answer, claiming “Well, everybody knows….” In formal debate, this is an admission of defeat. Thank you. I like winning so easily. My point stands – VII’s decrees are mush, based on a lack of proper Thomistic language. As such, and like the Bible, it can be read in multiple ways, though not rightly, and the weight of Tradition can and must be the only judge of VII’s contents. When in doubt on a statement, I am free to hold to the entirety of Tradition. Non-catholic religions must accept Christ or risk damnation. Christ is the only way to salvation. Religious indifferentism is to be condemned, etc.
I’m still awaiting the barely likely chance you will respond to the issue at hand – can we see instances where orthodoxy was misread, exempla gratia the Holy Bible and, if “yes,” is the Bible at fault or men. It’s only two questions Land…you can do this. 1.) Has something orthodox ever been misread, “yes” or “no” and 2.) Was it the fault of the Bible, Creed, etc. or was it the fault of men, again “yes” or “no.”
“I, Land, don’t have to answer because I found something on the Internet….” rather lacks as a response. Two simple, direct questions, Land. You can do this. No vulgarity, no animosity. Try to answer two questions.
put that in your pipe and smoke it
(idiomatic, colloquial, pejorative) Used after stating something surprising or undesired, to emphasize its truth. Also used after refuting an argument. Sometimes an adjective is inserted before pipe.
I quoted the current pope, prior to that statement. Grow up. That phase is neither swearing nor berating.
Here comes your first berating: I think your crazier than Charlie Sheen; you both are delusional and think your “winning”
Land says:
“I think [sic] your crazier than Charlie Sheen; you both are delusional…”
And I think you are, wait for it, mistaken. You don’t like me. You see discussion as a fight, one to wave a club and beat your chest.
What I’ve done is note, based on Catholic belief and Catholic sources, that General Councils are always infallible – de fide – and as such I challenged your a priori assumption [in other words, you need to check your first principles] that “VII is heresy.” I showed Catholics don’t believe this.
Instead, I gave a plausible defense – the Council tried to avoid Thomistic language and goofed by doing so, but the result can be read in a Catholic sense.
I will read VII by only Tradition. As a result, I hold the Church is a necessity for salvation, etc.
NWOhio Trad said, “And I think you are, wait for it, mistaken. You don’t like me. You see discussion as a fight, one to wave a club and beat your chest.”.
Yes, I don’t like you. You accused me on a public forum of swearing; yet you refuse to document it or apologize for the lie. This can get ugly and I encourage you to pray before you post again to me. Again, please grow up.
land of the irish says:
“Yes, I don’t like you.”
Whereas, I don’t dislike you. I just think you’re wrong on individual points. I gave evidence that you were wrong. You ignored it. Your beliefs contradict established doctrines of the faith. I corrected you out of fraternal charity. “Dislike” me if you will. At most, I’m wrong, not your enemy.
“You accused me on a public forum of swearing; yet you refuse to document it…”
A falsehood. This was done at 2:51 p.m. ““Ohio, Put that in your pipe and smoke it.” And again at 3:32 p.m. when I pointed out the legally actionable libel of calling your fellow man “crazy” and “delusional.” What did our Blessed Lord say about calling anyone “raca” or “fool” etc.?
“..apologize for the lie.”
An accusation of mortal sin. I showed where I have documented your actions. You respond by accusing me of gravely sinful action.
And just what did our Lord say about those who throw out terms of abuse such as “fool”? Would “crazy” be a synonym?
But wasn’t the Council infallible? Oh no, Ohio!
Not by reason of the extraordinary magisterium, for it refused to define anything. Pope Paul VI himself, in an audience on January 12, 1966, said that it “had avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility.” (cf. the declaration of the Theological Commission of March 6, 1964, and repeated by the Council’s General Secretary on November 16, 1964: “In view of conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.” It never did.)
Nor by reason of the ordinary universal magisterium, because this is not a defining power, but one of passing on what was always believed. The “universality” in question is not just one of place (all bishops) but also of time (always) (cf., Vatican I and principle 6).
Nor even by reason of the simply authentic magisterium, because the object of all magisterium is the deposit of faith to be guarded sacredly and expounded faithfully (Vatican I, Dz 1836), and not to adopt as Catholic doctrine the “best expressed values of two centuries of ‘liberal culture,’” even if they are “purified” (Cardinal Ratzinger, Gesu, November 1984, p. 72; cf. Gaudium et Spes, §§11, 44).
LOTI,
Well said.
Also Cardinal Ratzinger repeated in essence the statement of Paul VI in 1988 after the episcopal consecrations by ++Lefebvre. I think it was to the Chilean Bishops.
Can I jump in here?
Source: “They Have Uncrouned Him: From Liberalism to Apostasy The Conciliar Tragedy” Author: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Published by Angelus Press
Chapter 31, page 223: “Indeed, to the extent that these Popes and the Council neglected or refused to make use of their infallibility, to appeal to that charism which is guaranteed to them by the Holy Ghost provided that they indeed intend to use it, well, they were able to commit doctrinal errors …”
“Doctrinal errors”, or errors in doctrine, if you wish.
I strongly recomend “They Have Uncrouned Him” for a thorough understanding of the Council, and of the liberalism which invaded it. Archbishop Lefebvre was was an eyewitness of this sad event. I’m sure everyone on this site admits him as a reliable authority of the historical events of the time and of traditional doctrine.
“And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.” [1 Corinthians 13:13]
Do you believe muslims and jews worship the same God that you do? Lumen Gentium says you do. However the jews and muslims are the first to claim that they do not worship the God of the Catholics; they both deny the Son of God and the Holy Trinity.
Hi LOTI,
Before you have a coronary on this one, have a look at the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X about the Jews and Muslims on this issue:
11 Q. Who are they who are outside the true Church? A. Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews, heretics, apostates, schismatics, and the excommunicated.
12 Q. Who are infidels? A. Infidels are those who have not been baptized and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like.
So while they offer false worship to God (the truth) they do not believe in the Messiah etc … (also the truth).
Hey trad,
Tell me, please, why Lumen Gentium states we (catholics and muslims) together worship the same god.
Keyword is “together”!
trad,
What do you think about the popes worshipping “god” together with all types of heretics and infidels at the Assisi Love Feasts?
And I agree with Pope St. Pius. You need to read that last statement backwards, however. If the infidels and heretics don’t believe in the Truth, they obviously offer false worship to the Truth.
Do I need to give you my pictorial lesson with the Coke bottle?
You know LOTI,
I don’t think you wrote my entire post … let’s try again.
You wrote: Do you believe muslims and jews worship the same God that you do?
I quoted a Catechism that indicates the complete truth that they do worship / admit the one true God (note that the Catechism capitalizes that word)
For further clarification I added in the word “false worship” in this context:
So while they offer false worship to God (the truth) they do not believe in the Messiah etc … (also the truth).
My point:
It is important to know and understand the whole doctrine of the Church, not just one side.
A similar problem arises with the next question is who is responsible for the crucifixion?
LOTI,
Let’s make the correct (although ignored) distinctions.
Assisi was not what I was discussing. I was discussing a specific point of whether or not the infidels could be offering worship to the one true God.
I did not state they were offering true worship, I was specific – they were offering false worship.
LOTI,
though I’m mid thread, I’ll be please to discuss this specfic point with you and leave you and Ohio to discuss the rest.
First where in Lumen Gentium does it state “together worship the same god”
A mistaken interpretation of Lumen Gentrium 16:
… and also of Nostra Aetate 3:
A lengthy article Deacon Robert of Jihad Watch explains this:
Thanks Tom!
My mistake, trad. I didn’t take the time to look up the exact wording last night. Here it is, and I still think it wrong.
In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” (Lumen Gentium 16) my emphasis
My thought is that (as usual) the documents in V2 are ambiguous
whereas
12 Q. Who are infidels? A. Infidels are those who have not been baptized and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like.”
Is pretty clear the other V2 docs left too much up to interpretation, no real surprise because of the explicit intentions of the authors . Think of it this way, the Jews (nominally) believe in the God of the Old Testament. So they are offering false worship to God, but still to God (capital G).
The emphasis would be on ‘false’ worship from their liturgical and organized religion.
However, aside from that it is possible for them to offer prayers to God that are beneficial to obtain the graces necessary for conversion. Whether they take hold of those graces is another thing.
Gotta go and be nice…
Not to get in between two gents in a fight but:
“Pope St. Pius V’s declaration that the Traditional Latin Mass was to be allowed everywhere in perpetuity was basically “undeclared” by both Popes Paul VI and JP II in favor of the Mason Bugnini’s Mess. And then Pope Benedict turns around and “declares” it to be permitted again, but under special conditions.”
Is not quite on the spot.
SP vindicates the Catholics who have argued for umpteen years that the TLM was never abrogated. So B16 didn’t ‘undeclare’ the previous declaration of Paul VI, he simply stated that the TLM was never was abrogated in the first place. ie P6 didn’t do it, everyone who said so in the intervening years was lying.
Lord love a duck, what an era to live in.
Trad, I do like your argument that everyone was lying. And I’m aware of two popes who never corrected the lie and let if fester.
Why do you think they did so? Do you think it may have been than mischievous spirit of VC II?
The sad thing is I came across a notification from the Vatican stating explicitly that the TLM was abrogated.
Why did they do so … here’s my speculation:
I think, in the case noted above, it was well beyond the mischievous ill-formed spirit of VC II.
For example, my brother-in-law after his ordination by Archbishop Lefebvre went to Rome. By a circuitous route managed to obtain permission to say Mass at the Tomb of St. Pius X. When he arrived, vested for Mass he quickly replaced the NO Missal with that of Pius V and proceeded to say Mass. Fortunately, there is a rule that once Mass is started, you are not allowed to interfere. The sacristan stood on the side, my impression is that he was not very pleased (understatement). When my brother-in-law finished saying Mass the sacristan approached him and stated: “You cannot say that Mass here, if you say the Novus Ordo you can say it at any altar you want but not that Mass.” Perhaps not an exact quote but close enough.
That there was such a hatred of the TLM I can only ascribe to two reasons:
1. It is counter-cultural to just about everything that the Church holds or tries to hold true.
2. Demonic.
LOTI, you’re holidin’ your own, indeed, lad!
I’ll be offline most of the time the next two weeks ( hosannas rising from Ohio to wherever it is that Tradical – “Ned” – lives ) so I won’t be able to break a whisky bottle off on the bar and join you in a good, clean brawl until my new internet service is set up.
In the meantime, give ‘em the cold steel!
Nothing heals like cold steel.
BTW: I’m also traveling this week so, I wish you good travels!
oops – just noticed that you aren’t travelling – you’re just going to be dark for a while.
As to this question of whether Muslims, and Jews for that matter, worship the same God as Christians, I have always wondered how this idea fits with the teaching of St. John that he who denies the Son, neither has he the Father:
1 Jn 2:22: “Who is a liar, but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denies the Son, the same has not the Father. He that confesses the Son has the Father also.”
Is it possible to deny 2 persons of the Blessed Trinity while worshipping the same God as Catholics? I think this is one area where the pre-Conciliar and post-Conciliar Magisterium have both been, at times, ambiguous. Perhaps it is possible to deny the nature of God as He Himself has revealed it, and yet still worship Him. But then, would we not just be worshipping our own idea of God rather than God Himself?
I think the distinction of false vs true worship is probably more helpful in this case.
For example, the Jews worship God, in the light of the Old Testament (leaving aside the other talmudic issues).
In this light they ‘worship’ the same God. However, their worship is false worship in that it is no longer what God wants.
Ultimately, this comes back to the classification of infidels since they were never baptised at all.
tradical says:
“I think the distinction of false vs true worship is probably more helpful in this case.”
You may be right, and the situation of the Samaritan woman referred to by Cyprian now prevails for Jews and Muslims as it did for the Samaritans back then: they worship what they do not know and hence it is false worship rather than “non-worship” of a false idea of a “god” who does not exist in reality.
However, the situation is somewhat different. Christ came specifically to the Jews in order to bring them the full revelation of God. In His words, those who rejected Him also rejected the Father who sent Him. If they have rejected the Father, as well as the Son and the Holy Ghost, can they really be said to be worshipping the same God as we do – albeit with false worship?
I do believe that this is where invincible ignorance could also have a part to play.
Maybe the average, somewhat observant, Jew might be in the same state as was the Samaritan woman. But not the orthodox, knowledgeable ones. The contradiction between the talmud and torah requires a mind split, I think. Maybe someone more knowledgeable than I could comment.
With Muslims, however, there is no excuse. A man who sees suicide bombers knows it is not of God. Likewise, a mother who sees her daughter’s genitalia mutilated knows it is not of God. Ignorance can never excuse barbaric crimes. The “peaceful” Muslims are well aware of barbaric FGM, and can’t escape it by saying that their “allah” is a different “allah.” Where is there a dominant authoritative body of Muslims that reject the barbaric practices?
Unfortunately, as with non-traditional Catholics, Muslims are not a homogeneous group.
Denial of the Holy Trinity should be enough to know that neither Muslims nor Jews worship the true God. It could be said of Jews that they hold to revelation prior to the revelation of the Trinity. Hence, maybe we could say of them, as Our Lord said to the Samaritan woman, that they do not know Whom they worship.
I don’t see it. Another test is to look at what these creeds hold as holy, and as divinely revealed. The Koran’s hideous teachings clearly reveal a monster of a god. But the Jews have embraced the talmud, a demonic book that reviles Our Lord and speaks in hideous terms about His Virgin Mother. No, the Jews have abandoned any semblance of the faith of David, and hence, they worship a false god.
As for V-II, why is the teaching unclear after nearly 50 years? Either the council fathers failed to take care that they be clearly understood, or they took care to be unclear in what they wrote. I suspect the latter. But, in any case, they failed to live up to the duty of the Magisterium to speak clearly, as the good God speaks. To regard a faulty exercise of their office as “infallible” does not do service to the Holy Magisterium of the past that took great pains to lead the faithful in the clear Light of the Faith.