The Evangelical Reform of the Church
February 27, 2013
George Weigel
Hans Kung, out there on the far left fringes of Catholicism, has ideas about the reform of the Catholic Church; so does Bernard Fellay, the schismatic bishop and leader of the hard-right Lefebvrists. The National Catholic Reporter has its notions of Catholic reform; so does the National Catholic Register; neither is likely to agree with the other about the proper reform agenda. Calls for Catholic reform are ubiquitous, across the landscape of Catholic opinion. But how often do we stop and think about what distinguishes authentic Catholic reform from ersatz Catholic reform? Are there criteria that help us understand what’s true and false, in this matter of Catholic reform?
All serious thinking about Catholic reform begins with the fact that Christ the Lord gave a “form” to his Church. The Church didn’t just happen; the Church has a constitution (in the British sense of the term) and that constitution is of the will of Christ, manifest through the work of the Holy Spirit in forming the Church throughout history. So all truly Catholic reform is in reference to that “form.” All truly Catholic reform is re-form: a recovery of an element of the Church’s “form” that has been lost, or an extension of that “form” into new terrain (although always in essential continuity with the originating “form”).
Sometimes the reform process in the Church works in both directions. At the Second Vatican Council, for example, the Church recovered an element of its constituting “form” that had gotten a bit lost over the centuries—the idea of a clear distinction between religious and political authority, which goes back to the Lord Jesus’s own distinction between the things that are God’s and the things that are Caesar’s. At the same time, Catholicism stretched its thinking about Church-and-state in response to the dynamics of modern history. The result of this two-fold process—recovery (the move back) and extension (the move ahead)—was Vatican II’s teaching that religious freedom is a fundamental human right that a just society should recognize in law as a civil right.
In Evangelical Catholicism: Deep Reform in the 21st-Century Church (Basic Books), I suggest two criteria by which to distinguish true from false reform in the Church: the criterion of truth and the criterion of mission.
The criterion of truth tells us that authentic Catholic reform is always reform based on the truths the Church knows through Scripture and tradition, as those truths have been expounded by the Church’s authoritative teachers, the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome. If a proposed “reform” contradicts a truth of Catholic faith, it can’t be an authentically Catholic reform.
Indeed, the criterion of truth is Christ himself, for the One who declared himself the way, the truth, and the life is always the measure of authentic Catholic reform.
Then there is the criterion of mission. All true Catholic reform is mission-driven and mission-driving. All authentically Catholic reform contributes to the Church’s mission, which is the proclamation of the Gospel for the salvation of the world. The mission, in other words, is nothing less than the fulfillment of the Great Commission of Matthew 28.19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
What can be changed in the Church must be changed, if mission-effectiveness demands it. What cannot be changed in the Church, because it is of the constitutional “form” of the Church (like the episcopate and the priesthood), must be purified and reformed so that it may make its proper contribution to the mission. Because every territory is mission territory in the Evangelical Catholicism of the future, mission-effectiveness measures everyone and everything in the Church.
Catholic reform is not deconstruction; proposed reforms that discard truths of the faith because they make the neighbors nervous are not authentically Catholic reforms. But neither is authentic Catholic reform a return to some imaginary, perfect past. The Church, the Bride of Christ, always strives to be joined more perfectly to her divine spouse. That is the essential dynamic of all true Catholic reform.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
2.27.2013 | 9:52am
Patrick says:
A good essay, and too short to do justice to the subject. Nevertheless, Weigel could have kept this from sounding like a thinly-disguised plug for his new book by examining his criteria for authentic reform in the light of John Henry Cardinal Newman's justly famous essay on the development of Christian doctrine, which comes, I think, from a similar foundation.
2.27.2013 | 10:29am
George Weigel writes:
"If a proposed 'reform' contradicts a truth of Catholic faith, it can’t be an authentically Catholic reform."
But then he fails to mention the principal source of knowledge of these immutable truth-claims of the Catholic faith: The doctrinal decrees of the 21 ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church. Among the more important ones are Chalcedon, Lateran IV, Florence, Trent, and Vatican I - but, as historical events that define immutable Catholic truth, they are ALL important.
That being so, why are they not even mentioned by Weigel, especially since his principal concern is that reform be grounded on doctrinal orthodoxy, and since he also places emphasis on the importance of discerning the "will of Christ, [as] manifest through the work of the Holy Spirit in forming the Church throughout history."
The fact is that nothing constitutes a higher expression of the will of Christ and the guiding work of the Holy Spirit in delineating the criteria between true and false reform than these 21 Ecumenical Councils. So why do conservatives such as Weigel almost uniformly follow the lead of liberals in failing to mention, let alone maintain scrupulous adherence to, the doctrinal decrees of the first 20 of these councils? Why do they effectively agree with liberals in the tacit assertion that only the 21st of these, Vatican II, is important to study closely in light of contemporary realities?
"If a proposed 'reform' contradicts a truth of Catholic faith, it can’t be an authentically Catholic reform."
But then he fails to mention the principal source of knowledge of these immutable truth-claims of the Catholic faith: The doctrinal decrees of the 21 ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church. Among the more important ones are Chalcedon, Lateran IV, Florence, Trent, and Vatican I - but, as historical events that define immutable Catholic truth, they are ALL important.
That being so, why are they not even mentioned by Weigel, especially since his principal concern is that reform be grounded on doctrinal orthodoxy, and since he also places emphasis on the importance of discerning the "will of Christ, [as] manifest through the work of the Holy Spirit in forming the Church throughout history."
The fact is that nothing constitutes a higher expression of the will of Christ and the guiding work of the Holy Spirit in delineating the criteria between true and false reform than these 21 Ecumenical Councils. So why do conservatives such as Weigel almost uniformly follow the lead of liberals in failing to mention, let alone maintain scrupulous adherence to, the doctrinal decrees of the first 20 of these councils? Why do they effectively agree with liberals in the tacit assertion that only the 21st of these, Vatican II, is important to study closely in light of contemporary realities?
2.27.2013 | 11:01am
Alan Rogers says:
I have come to hate both extremes that Mr. Weigel mentions, as I have experienced both.
Revisionist Catholicism ala Kung caused me to leave the church back in the late 70s, because I saw a "catholicism" with no power and no Evangelical mission. The Protestants did a better job of preaching and evangelism back then.
The "traditionalist" wannabe sedevacantists showed me an exclusive sectarianism that was also devoid of Evangelical mission. They were constantly criticizing each other and everyone outside their camp.
Revisionist Catholicism ala Kung caused me to leave the church back in the late 70s, because I saw a "catholicism" with no power and no Evangelical mission. The Protestants did a better job of preaching and evangelism back then.
The "traditionalist" wannabe sedevacantists showed me an exclusive sectarianism that was also devoid of Evangelical mission. They were constantly criticizing each other and everyone outside their camp.
2.27.2013 | 11:05am
Frank Morris says:
I always liked the metaphor of church as vineyard, rather than bride. A vineyard needs pruning, workers, sun and rain in proper measure, and good management. A well managed vineyard-provides.
God loved humanity so much, He gave them the freedom to manage this vineyard of Earth and human society.
Look around you. What do you see? Do you see a healthy vineyard? Do you see healthy fruits?
God loved humanity so much, He gave them the freedom to manage this vineyard of Earth and human society.
Look around you. What do you see? Do you see a healthy vineyard? Do you see healthy fruits?
2.27.2013 | 1:10pm
Michael Liccione says:
To "Church of the East":
In his brief piece, Weigel notes:
"The criterion of truth tells us that authentic Catholic reform is always reform based on the truths the Church knows through Scripture and tradition, as those truths have been expounded by the Church’s authoritative teachers, the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome."
Any informed, orthodox Catholics such as Weigel (and myself) knows perfectly well that "...those truths [which] have been expounded by the Church's authoritative teachers" includes the truths dogmatically defined by the Church's ecumenical councils. That Weigel does not make that explicit in this particular little piece is not evidence that he, like the progressives, believes only Vatican II matters. Given Weigel's rather large corpus, imagining his omission here to be such evidence is simply unfair.
In his brief piece, Weigel notes:
"The criterion of truth tells us that authentic Catholic reform is always reform based on the truths the Church knows through Scripture and tradition, as those truths have been expounded by the Church’s authoritative teachers, the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome."
Any informed, orthodox Catholics such as Weigel (and myself) knows perfectly well that "...those truths [which] have been expounded by the Church's authoritative teachers" includes the truths dogmatically defined by the Church's ecumenical councils. That Weigel does not make that explicit in this particular little piece is not evidence that he, like the progressives, believes only Vatican II matters. Given Weigel's rather large corpus, imagining his omission here to be such evidence is simply unfair.
2.27.2013 | 3:24pm
Don Roberto Hill says:
I have a simple idea for reform, one that I think fits in nicely with the Year of Evangelization: Bishops should tell their priests to require penitents (few though they be, even during Lent) as part of their penance to read sections of the Catechism that pertain to the sins they confess (i.e., in addition to the usual couple minutes of prayer). If accountants can pass the CPA exam and lawyers the bar, surely they—and all people with any significant intelligence—must be considered inexcusably ignorant when they can't recite the Ten Commandments or explain to their kids why provocative dress and missing mass are bad things. When we fail to do our best to learn God's will, we offend Him greatly. When we do learn His holy will, our lives and the portion of the world we have influence over will be forever changed. †
2.27.2013 | 3:43pm
Ninth Centurion says:
"But neither is authentic Catholic reform a return to some imaginary, perfect past."
True. But neither is it found in modernist progress to some imaginary, perfect future.
Many walked away from Christ and the Apostle. Christ did not call out to those who walked away calling Him crazy for His "eat of my body" teaching.
The fundamental problem with post-Vatican II "reform" obsession lies in the idolatry of "relevance" to the modern world and measure of the Church's Evangelical state by the numbers in the pews and how many feel good about the message.
Christ was not crucified by the world because His message was relevant and resonated with the "modern world" of that time or by people who felt good about what He said.
Christ's commandment was to preach His teachings, and never once did He say worry about sounding relevant or how those without ears to hear might feel or worry about needing to reform it to meet the perceived needs of the world.
"All true Catholic reform is mission-driven and mission-driving." is NOT true.
All true Catholic reform is continually returning to obedience and abiding in Christ's Laws and those of the Father.
All true Catholic reform returns the Mass to its true state; that bloodless moment where faithful realize they are beneath the Crucifix and The Lord is hanging above them torn and dying for our sin.
Everything else is no different than the selfishness that led the Jews to where they were when Christ came.
True. But neither is it found in modernist progress to some imaginary, perfect future.
Many walked away from Christ and the Apostle. Christ did not call out to those who walked away calling Him crazy for His "eat of my body" teaching.
The fundamental problem with post-Vatican II "reform" obsession lies in the idolatry of "relevance" to the modern world and measure of the Church's Evangelical state by the numbers in the pews and how many feel good about the message.
Christ was not crucified by the world because His message was relevant and resonated with the "modern world" of that time or by people who felt good about what He said.
Christ's commandment was to preach His teachings, and never once did He say worry about sounding relevant or how those without ears to hear might feel or worry about needing to reform it to meet the perceived needs of the world.
"All true Catholic reform is mission-driven and mission-driving." is NOT true.
All true Catholic reform is continually returning to obedience and abiding in Christ's Laws and those of the Father.
All true Catholic reform returns the Mass to its true state; that bloodless moment where faithful realize they are beneath the Crucifix and The Lord is hanging above them torn and dying for our sin.
Everything else is no different than the selfishness that led the Jews to where they were when Christ came.
2.27.2013 | 4:15pm
Anthony Ercolano says:
"The criterion of truth tells us that authentic Catholic reform is always reform based on the truths the Church knows through Scripture and tradition, as those truths have been expounded by the Church’s authoritative teachers, the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome."
What if the Bishop of Rome is not in communion with the Church?
What if the Bishop of Rome is not in communion with the Church?
2.27.2013 | 5:00pm
D. Morgan says:
I'm with "Church of the East" in as much as the over-emphasis on Vatican Council II has contributed greatly to the crisis in the Church Today. Want to reform? I suggest a hard, thoughtful look at the Council of Trent. And this drivel of "But neither is authentic Catholic reform a return to some imaginary, perfect past" is a con. This is the smokescreen used to insure no one looks back beyond 1962. Pope St. Pius X warned us of modernism in "Pascendi Domenici Gregis", and His warnings have proven correct.
2.27.2013 | 5:04pm
Stewart says:
Can we really reform without first ridding the Church of the Homosexual Mafia which has been bent on destroying her for their own sick purposes. The horror of the last few decades due to these predators has to be addressed and it won't be with nice speak.
2.27.2013 | 9:06pm
Don ROberto says:
Mr. Ercolano, then the Bible is opened to question, i.e., this is not possible because Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would be with us always and that the jaws of death would not prevail against us. WIthout a Vicar, the faithful may have no final arbiter in the event of disputes, and in every significant dispute, someone is right and someone is wrong, and the party that is wrong falls into error. With the Pope and Magisterium, there is one eternal anchor of morality. ( The Pope may err in matters other than faith and morals.)
2.27.2013 | 10:49pm
Sween says:
Mr. Weigel,
You said that Bishop Fellay is schismatic.
Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos, who dealt with the Society for years as head of the PCED, disagrees with you:
"The Bishops, Priests, and Faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics."--Cardinal Castrillon
A schismatic is defined as someone who rejects papal authority IN PRINCIPLE, not merely in this or that specific case. Thus someone who disobeys a papal order, or even multiple papal orders, is not necessarily a schismatic. Mr. Weigel himself cites St. Paul's resistance against St. Peter (Galatians 2:11), but no one is so foolish as to accuse St. Paul of being schismatic. A schismatic rejects not just this or that specific papal command, but the very idea of popes issuing commands at all. He rejects papal authority at its root; THAT is what makes someone a schismatic, and anyone familiar with Bishop Fellay and his element of the Society, and who is fair-minded, knows that such a definition does not apply to them.
It is notable that Mr. Weigel's points on matters of cultural import to Catholics, like the pro-life cause, may very often contain much of well-argued merit.
But his tendency to take swipes at traditionalists is revealing insofar as these jabs generally seem not to feature any real argument, but rather question-begging insults (like "schismatic") with no attempt at proof.
You said that Bishop Fellay is schismatic.
Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos, who dealt with the Society for years as head of the PCED, disagrees with you:
"The Bishops, Priests, and Faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics."--Cardinal Castrillon
A schismatic is defined as someone who rejects papal authority IN PRINCIPLE, not merely in this or that specific case. Thus someone who disobeys a papal order, or even multiple papal orders, is not necessarily a schismatic. Mr. Weigel himself cites St. Paul's resistance against St. Peter (Galatians 2:11), but no one is so foolish as to accuse St. Paul of being schismatic. A schismatic rejects not just this or that specific papal command, but the very idea of popes issuing commands at all. He rejects papal authority at its root; THAT is what makes someone a schismatic, and anyone familiar with Bishop Fellay and his element of the Society, and who is fair-minded, knows that such a definition does not apply to them.
It is notable that Mr. Weigel's points on matters of cultural import to Catholics, like the pro-life cause, may very often contain much of well-argued merit.
But his tendency to take swipes at traditionalists is revealing insofar as these jabs generally seem not to feature any real argument, but rather question-begging insults (like "schismatic") with no attempt at proof.
2.27.2013 | 11:46pm
Leo says:
"I suggest two criteria by which to distinguish true from false reform in the Church: the criterion of truth and the criterion of mission."
2) The missions are dead. The Church gave them up a long time ago - which is (IMO) a major reason that it is now so inward-looking and so miserable & joyless. JP2 contributed to this - the SSPX have rejected this, and are as missionary as their size allows. Kudos to them.
1) As for truth: STM that is even more confused. I think the CC has some, but that the SSPX has more. The mere presence of the Pope, as a material fact, guarantees nothing - certainly not the perpetuity of the Faith in the CC. "Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia" is a catchy slogan, but too ambiguous to be a good argument for the validity of the CC; & it leaves out far too much. The SSPX are more Catholic than the CC, in faith, discipline, practice. The burden of proof is not on them, but on those who have made all three things hard to recognise as Catholic.
If Benedict XVI knows of a "hermeneutic of continuity", why, in the Name of God, does he not tell the Church in what it consists ? Popes are supposed to teach the Church, surely ? One can only conclude that he is as baffled as the rest of us. :(
2) The missions are dead. The Church gave them up a long time ago - which is (IMO) a major reason that it is now so inward-looking and so miserable & joyless. JP2 contributed to this - the SSPX have rejected this, and are as missionary as their size allows. Kudos to them.
1) As for truth: STM that is even more confused. I think the CC has some, but that the SSPX has more. The mere presence of the Pope, as a material fact, guarantees nothing - certainly not the perpetuity of the Faith in the CC. "Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia" is a catchy slogan, but too ambiguous to be a good argument for the validity of the CC; & it leaves out far too much. The SSPX are more Catholic than the CC, in faith, discipline, practice. The burden of proof is not on them, but on those who have made all three things hard to recognise as Catholic.
If Benedict XVI knows of a "hermeneutic of continuity", why, in the Name of God, does he not tell the Church in what it consists ? Popes are supposed to teach the Church, surely ? One can only conclude that he is as baffled as the rest of us. :(
2.28.2013 | 3:18am
Andrew K. says:
What an absurd little article.
Comparing what Bp. Fellay proposes and what Kung proposes is absurd!
One is what the Catholic Church did for centuries, another is the ramblings of a heretic!
Comparing what Bp. Fellay proposes and what Kung proposes is absurd!
One is what the Catholic Church did for centuries, another is the ramblings of a heretic!
2.28.2013 | 5:38am
Reese says:
The Catholic Church's conversation on the matter of evangelization is a good one, though I do have concern for the church's ability to carry out such a mission. Having been a member of a charismatic church, where mission work - local, national, and international - was and is the very fabric that the congregation involved themselves on a personal basis, I see that the Catholics separate the congregation away from such activities as a natural process of daily faith. If Christ had emailed his teachings to his apostles rather than asking them to follow Him, no one would have ever heard of Jesus. His church was out beyond the four walls of a building or a technology or a liturgy. His church was a mission in the field.
2.28.2013 | 10:23am
jz says:
If anyone wants to argue that all unorthodox beliefs lie on the left, just let them read the comments to this article. The complaints against Weigel range from flat wrong (defending the schismatic SSPX...really?) to unfair (accusing him of omission in an article so brief) to bizarre (suggesting that somehow evangelization isn't important or that less people in the pews isn't a tragedy).
The truth is George is spot on. We must never step away from revealed truth and must strive to embrace it more fully. And we must work to evangelize by engaging the culture (NOT adopting the culture). True reform accomplishes both of these goals.
The truth is George is spot on. We must never step away from revealed truth and must strive to embrace it more fully. And we must work to evangelize by engaging the culture (NOT adopting the culture). True reform accomplishes both of these goals.
2.28.2013 | 11:49am
Michael says:
I'm pretty sure that the SSPX, for all its faults, is not "schismatic."
I'm also pretty sure that the SSPX, for all its faults, tends to produce priests who believe in the Real Presence. This cannot be said of many priests nowadays.
I'm also pretty sure that the SSPX, for all its faults, tends to produce priests who believe in the Real Presence. This cannot be said of many priests nowadays.
2.28.2013 | 11:59am
Gabriel says:
If you call a duck a cow 1,000 times, it's still a duck. But apparently that logic doesn't apply when it comes to dropping "schismatic" in the same sentence as "Society of St. Pius X."
The SSPX are not schismatics. No official organ of the Catholic Church which Weigel claims to speak for has declared the Society schismatic. The contentious excommunications from 1988 were officially repealed by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009. These are facts. The dialogue which took place over the last several years between the Society and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has centered on the Society's canonical irregularity. The SSPX were not treated as non-Catholics, i.e., outside of the Church. So why do individuals who are supposed to be well-informed Catholic "intellectuals" insist on making false charges against the Society? If they are loyal to the Pope, why use a word against the Society even the Pope would not use?
Whatever the merits of Weigel's analysis (or, really, book advertisement), it is unfortunately sullied by his ideological potshot.
The SSPX are not schismatics. No official organ of the Catholic Church which Weigel claims to speak for has declared the Society schismatic. The contentious excommunications from 1988 were officially repealed by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009. These are facts. The dialogue which took place over the last several years between the Society and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has centered on the Society's canonical irregularity. The SSPX were not treated as non-Catholics, i.e., outside of the Church. So why do individuals who are supposed to be well-informed Catholic "intellectuals" insist on making false charges against the Society? If they are loyal to the Pope, why use a word against the Society even the Pope would not use?
Whatever the merits of Weigel's analysis (or, really, book advertisement), it is unfortunately sullied by his ideological potshot.
2.28.2013 | 12:03pm
Ivan K says:
The SSPX are "schismatic" only according to Pope Weigel and his Church of the False Middle Ground. While this false Pope pontificates, the SSPX pray for the conclave and the future Pope. Though I'm not a member, I find their gesture inspiring. Mr. Weigel's willful ignorance about the canonical status of the SSPX, on the other hand, is far less inspiring, though it does fit the middle-of-the road-is best cliche, an ancient Weigelian chestnut.
2.28.2013 | 12:48pm
JAK says:
D. Morgan is exactly right. Don't look behind the curtain; forstall any debate if possible.
Even more, Weigel's notion that it's the "middle" that represents authentic Catholicism doesn't really grapple with the questions that the SSPX, among many others, have raised. The "middle" doesn't represent anything except a denatured, attenuated version of Catholicism, with few, if any, links to authentic tradition.
Even more, Weigel's notion that it's the "middle" that represents authentic Catholicism doesn't really grapple with the questions that the SSPX, among many others, have raised. The "middle" doesn't represent anything except a denatured, attenuated version of Catholicism, with few, if any, links to authentic tradition.
2.28.2013 | 1:10pm
Alphonsus Jr. says:
A few years ago, I would have swallowed Weigel's pontifications here. Then I began to study. I read books like The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the Twentieth Century, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Time Bombs of Vatican II, Work of Human Hands, One Hundred Years of Modernism: A Genealogy of the Second Vatican Council, and The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church. I also - get ready! - actually read many of the articles and essays on the SSPX USA website, including "Can Obedience Oblige Us to Disobey?" and "The New Catechism: Is It Catholic?"
In short, it became clear that the SSPX appears extreme only because of the slide left of most Catholics today, including "conservatives" like Weigel, Novak, Shea, and Fr. Neuhaus. The SSPX holds only to the traditional doctrine and traditions of the Church. Naturally then, in light of Vatican II's toxic lust for novelty, shameless anthropocentrism, suicidal ecumenism, pusillanimous collegiality, and so much more, traditional Catholics like those of the SSPX appear extreme today. This is yet more proof of the catastrophe of Vatican II - Vatican II itself, not only its implementation - a catastrophe that's becoming increasingly undeniable for those with eyes to see.
Adherence to traditional Catholicism grows while the Conciliar catastrophe continues to wreak havoc. Emptying seminaries, rotting orders, rampant homoheresy, a consciously Protestantized liturgy.... A tree is indeed known by its fruits. The Hippie Council has proven to be thoroughly poisoned and poisonous. Wake up, Weigel.
In short, it became clear that the SSPX appears extreme only because of the slide left of most Catholics today, including "conservatives" like Weigel, Novak, Shea, and Fr. Neuhaus. The SSPX holds only to the traditional doctrine and traditions of the Church. Naturally then, in light of Vatican II's toxic lust for novelty, shameless anthropocentrism, suicidal ecumenism, pusillanimous collegiality, and so much more, traditional Catholics like those of the SSPX appear extreme today. This is yet more proof of the catastrophe of Vatican II - Vatican II itself, not only its implementation - a catastrophe that's becoming increasingly undeniable for those with eyes to see.
Adherence to traditional Catholicism grows while the Conciliar catastrophe continues to wreak havoc. Emptying seminaries, rotting orders, rampant homoheresy, a consciously Protestantized liturgy.... A tree is indeed known by its fruits. The Hippie Council has proven to be thoroughly poisoned and poisonous. Wake up, Weigel.
2.28.2013 | 1:20pm
anonchap@aol.com says:
Nancy D. said:
"Communion is not a matter of degree."
Well said! We hear so much about "full communion" from neo-Catholics like Weigel. To see through this absurdity, google for this article:
Gnostic Twaddle by Christopher Ferrara
Also see:
The Justice of the Term 'neo-Catholic' by Christopher Ferrara
"Communion is not a matter of degree."
Well said! We hear so much about "full communion" from neo-Catholics like Weigel. To see through this absurdity, google for this article:
Gnostic Twaddle by Christopher Ferrara
Also see:
The Justice of the Term 'neo-Catholic' by Christopher Ferrara
2.28.2013 | 2:43pm
jz says:
Pope Benedict did lift the official excommunication from SSPX as a gesture to help bring them back into the fold. However, they are not back in the fold because they continue to be obstinate to Papal authority. You draw a false equivalence - excommunication is not the same thing as schism. Schism according to canon law is withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff. As long as SSPX refuses to submit to the authority of the Pope they are in fact schismatic. Two basic questions:
1) Do you accept the authority of the Pope?
2) Do you accept the teachings of Vatican II as interpreted by the Pope?
If your answer to either of these is No, then you are in schism.
I find no joy in saying any of this. In fact I have a great love for the Latin Mass, traditional Catholic spirituality and I even have a friend who is a member of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. But the disobedience of SSPX must end! The Holy Father emeritus bent over backwards (no small thing for a man of his age) attempting to bring it about, but still SSPX continue to dissent.
1) Do you accept the authority of the Pope?
2) Do you accept the teachings of Vatican II as interpreted by the Pope?
If your answer to either of these is No, then you are in schism.
I find no joy in saying any of this. In fact I have a great love for the Latin Mass, traditional Catholic spirituality and I even have a friend who is a member of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. But the disobedience of SSPX must end! The Holy Father emeritus bent over backwards (no small thing for a man of his age) attempting to bring it about, but still SSPX continue to dissent.
2.28.2013 | 4:29pm
Gabriel says:
Jz,
It is ironic to say the least that someone keen on offering a mini-lecture in obedience has to first reinterpret the actions of our former Holy Father in order to advance his own private view off the SSPX.
Can you please cite me an official Vatican statement that holds the lifting of the excommunications to be a pro forma gesture intended to advance canonical talks? Also can you explain how a group that is not excommunicated can be in schism? Or perhaps you can cut to the chase and cite an official organ of the Church on the Society's schismatic status. Thanks.
It is ironic to say the least that someone keen on offering a mini-lecture in obedience has to first reinterpret the actions of our former Holy Father in order to advance his own private view off the SSPX.
Can you please cite me an official Vatican statement that holds the lifting of the excommunications to be a pro forma gesture intended to advance canonical talks? Also can you explain how a group that is not excommunicated can be in schism? Or perhaps you can cut to the chase and cite an official organ of the Church on the Society's schismatic status. Thanks.
2.28.2013 | 5:36pm
JKE says:
“We are not of this new religion! We do not accept this new religion! We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. We are not of this “universal religion” as they call it today – this is not the Catholic religion any more. We are not of this liberal, modernist religion which has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own “ecumenical” Bible. We cannot accept these things. They are contrary to our Faith. It is an immense, immense pain for us, to think that we are in difficulty with Rome because of our faith! We are in a truly dramatic situation. We have to choose an appearance of disobedience – for the Holy Father cannot ask us to abandon our faith; it is impossible, impossible! We choose not to abandon our faith, for in that we cannot go wrong.”
-Archbishop Lefebvre, Ordination Sermon, June 29, 1976
-Archbishop Lefebvre, Ordination Sermon, June 29, 1976
2.28.2013 | 6:01pm
jz says:
Gabriel - I see you did not bother to answer my two simple questions but have instead asked your own. So I will take it that your answers are no to both.
I'll take your cut to the chase option.
Pope Benedict XVI - "As long as the Society (of St. Pius X) does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church ... Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers ... do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church"
I'll take your cut to the chase option.
Pope Benedict XVI - "As long as the Society (of St. Pius X) does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church ... Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers ... do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church"
2.28.2013 | 6:35pm
Tom O'Reilly says:
Excuse me, Mr. Weigle, but the "hard-right Lefebvrists" have not advocated any reform; they are only advocating that the Church remain true to her dogmatic beliefs. And while not a follower of Bishop Fellay, I do respect what he and other traditionalists are advocating.
But it is you and the characters on the far-left that you have mentioned that are advocating this so-called "reform". Well one day, sir, you will learn what your reform has done for the Church and what it has earned for you. For the sake of your soul I pray that you learn it in this life and have the opportunity to repent.
But it is you and the characters on the far-left that you have mentioned that are advocating this so-called "reform". Well one day, sir, you will learn what your reform has done for the Church and what it has earned for you. For the sake of your soul I pray that you learn it in this life and have the opportunity to repent.
2.28.2013 | 11:44pm
K. C. Thomas says:
I understand that the crowd crying for changesnd reform are crying for permissiveness in all fields and according to them Church should be run on the basis of votes. Mr Weigle has very rightly analysed and remarked that the criterion of Truth and the Mission of the Church are the most important factors and they cannot be ignored in any reform. I very sincerely and humble fee that a great reform is required in each person to be loyal to Christ and his Church . Only our change and reform can brighten the Light.
3.1.2013 | 9:31am
Nancy D. says:
anonchap, I have great respect for Mr.Weigel. The problem with Vatican II, is not only did it do away with the Charitable Anathema, it appeared to make changes to Catholic Doctrine, even though the claim is made that Vatican II did not change Catholic Doctrine. For example, in regards to Nostra Aetate, although it is true that there is only ONE True God, The Communion of Perfect Complementary Love that Is The Blessed Trinity, Who Was In The Beginning, Is Now, and Forever Will Be, those who profess to be Muslim or Jewish, are not worshipping the same God because they do not worship The Blessed Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
3.1.2013 | 1:45pm
Gabriel says:
Jz,
Stating that the Society's priests do not excercise a "legitimate ministry" in the Church and that the Society as a whole is canonically irregular are not points I am disputing. (For that matter, the Society itself does not direcly contend either point, though they do cite a "state of necessity" as justifying their efforts.) Neither of those charges, however, are tantamount to a charge of schism. Try to apply that statement to an undeniably schismatic (separated) body such as, say, the Eastern Orthodox Church and then revel in the absurdity.
As for your questions, I didn't realize they were directed at me. They came across as rhetorical, not to mention loaded. Regardless, I know of no source in canon law or the praxis of the Church that holds those two questions as the means for determining schism. Methinks you are applying your own understanding of a polemically charged term in order to advance your own private dislike of the Society of St. Pius X (and those who agree with them).
For what it's worth, I am far from in perfect agreement with the Society and some of its arguments. I just find namecalling childish.
Stating that the Society's priests do not excercise a "legitimate ministry" in the Church and that the Society as a whole is canonically irregular are not points I am disputing. (For that matter, the Society itself does not direcly contend either point, though they do cite a "state of necessity" as justifying their efforts.) Neither of those charges, however, are tantamount to a charge of schism. Try to apply that statement to an undeniably schismatic (separated) body such as, say, the Eastern Orthodox Church and then revel in the absurdity.
As for your questions, I didn't realize they were directed at me. They came across as rhetorical, not to mention loaded. Regardless, I know of no source in canon law or the praxis of the Church that holds those two questions as the means for determining schism. Methinks you are applying your own understanding of a polemically charged term in order to advance your own private dislike of the Society of St. Pius X (and those who agree with them).
For what it's worth, I am far from in perfect agreement with the Society and some of its arguments. I just find namecalling childish.
3.1.2013 | 11:50pm
anonchap@aol.com says:
But Nancy D., see the notorious paragraph 841 of the new Catechism.
Then google for this article:
"The New Catechism: Is It Catholic?"
Then google for this article:
"The New Catechism: Is It Catholic?"
3.2.2013 | 2:18am
Bret Lythgoe says:
Mr. Weigel has struck the right balance. He seems to endorse the view that the Catholic Church should not repudiate those aspects of the Church that are essential to it, but may not be exactly popular with our current culture, but at the same time, accept, and incorporate into the Faith, (or, rather, see and make explicit what was implicit in the Faith from its beginning, but not properly manifested until stimulated by our modern culture's emphasis on individual rights) those aspects of modernity that one can deduce, using secular reason, are for humanity's good, such as religious liberty, and liberty in general. I look forward to reading his latest book.
3.4.2013 | 11:53am
Nancy D. says:
anonchap, It appears that Cardinal Schonborn, as editor of The "new" Catechism, is not aware of that which has been "implicit in The Faith" from The Beginning.
"Let Us Make Man In Our Image." - The Ordered, Complementary Communion Of Perfect Love That Is The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity
God Is Love. Love exists in relationship.
This does not change the fact that some, at the hour of their death, like The Good Thief, will come late to The Fold.
"Let Us Make Man In Our Image." - The Ordered, Complementary Communion Of Perfect Love That Is The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity
God Is Love. Love exists in relationship.
This does not change the fact that some, at the hour of their death, like The Good Thief, will come late to The Fold.
