…then praise God in Heaven, because you have tangible proof you are still Catholic.
If Roche Calls You a Protestant…
30 Tuesday Aug 2022
The Party's Over
The Blog with Less and Less to Say
In Ministerium Maiorum
Catholicism from a traditional perspective.
Catholic Movie Guy
Because Catholics Like Movies Too
Local Travel Junkie
Addicted to travel, not the tour groups.
Saint Louis Catholic
Unabashedly Catholic News and Views
WordPress.com
WordPress.com is the best place for your personal blog or business site.
Saint Louis Catholic
%d bloggers like this:
In the article you link to, this comment is made –
“Roche insisted that if one rejects the “legislation” of a Council “you are placing yourself on the margins, on the edge of the Church, you are becoming more Protestant than Catholic.”
A defining feature of Protestantism is taking one subset of the Magisterium and making it into a favored religion; parsing Sacred Tradition, mining it for what is useful and ignoring that which is not useful for a religion created to match personal preference.
A Catholic, on the other hand, submits to the entire Magisterium, all of Sacred Tradition, in total, all at the same time. Every Pope has a say and equal authority in the Magisterium. All elements of the Magisterium fit together perfectly and bind us in their own way. Anything that is in conflict with the Constant Magisterium and its Sacred Tradition is suspect and to be rejected if proven to be outside the lines.
The Vatican II New Church (which is how they see and define themselves – Novus equals New) see and reference *ONLY* the II Vatican Council – *THE* Council, in their words. I cannot accept those terms. I accept the II Vatican Council as it was presented to us by the Council Fathers, a non-binding, non-dogmatic pastoral Council; one of many Councils but the only Council defined as “Pastoral” in history. Its subsequent Constitutions are similarly to be accepted or rejected based on their adherence to or variance with the Constant Magisterium of Holy Mother Church.
The Council of Trent led the Church Fathers to task Pope St. Pius V to canonize a Liturgy, carefully sourced in antiquity that would ensure for all time until the end of time Liturgy that was heavenly, and Divine. This he did. This the Dogmatic Council approved. His Papal Bull guaranteed his Divinely sourced Liturgy for all Catholics, everywhere until the end of time. *NO ONE* can ever take away that right. Archbishop Roche does not possess the authority, nor even a Pope and most especially an antipope.
Aqua – always appreciate your observations on the current situation of the Church and would be interested to hear yours or Thetimman’s further thoughts on the authority of the 2VC. I am in agreement that the several proclamations of the Council’s “pastoral” character aligns with at least a few other pieces of evidence that, relative to the rest of Church history, causes it to seemingly occupy a lesser position in fact than other Councils because:
1) it did not condemn any heresy
2) it did not issue any anathemas
3) its rather ponderous documents have not been summarized into an authoritative, concise, and official teaching document (as with Trent), save for the updated Catechism which is itself quite sizable
4) In the absence of an authoritative and concise teaching document on 2VC, there is no statement from any Pope since the Council which states what aspects of the teaching of the 2VC are binding on the conscience of a Catholic
5) John XXIII and Paul VI deemed it to be pastoral
6) If I understand correctly, Paul VI reversed course and deemed it dogmatic only when disputing with Archbishop Lefebvre
The other side’s best argument in favor of the binding and dogmatic nature of the Council that I am aware of is that the titles of some of the 2VC’s documents include the term “Dogmatic Constitution”, ergo, you must assent.
Are these points accurate?
Andrew,
The various Constitutions written in conjunction with and after the Council is the engine driving all the change. They are the precise formulations of the will of the assembled Bishops.
The problem is that these various Constitutions are at variance with the Constant Magisterium – Sacrosanctum Concilium, Oct 1963, for instance. Arbp LeFebvre had specific differences with this Constitution, expressed after time and reflection, and especially after witnessing the evolution of implementation. The “will of the Bishops”, iow, is at variance with Magisterial Dogmatic Tradition in definable, observable ways.
I have read LeFebvre’s views on the topic and found them persuasive – more so as time goes on and the error becomes more pronounced.
Once he understood and grasped the scale of the Council’s deviations he became increasingly firm in his resistance against them. It is difficult to quantify error at the genesis of the deviation, but time and experience expose the errors more clearly making a response for and against the error more momentous in its spiritual import to deceive or remedy.
I have found the objections in conscience of Arbp LeFebvre compelling and uniquely accurate and honest. The passage of time has framed his brave public objections and Episcopal sufferings as prophetic. And so, I reference him and his Society in answer to the question how a V II Constitution is or is not in alignment with Sacred Dogmatic Tradition.
In a supplement to what I said about the “Constitutions”, subsequent to the II Vatican Council, this article is an excellent, illuminating exposition on what affect the Liturgical change of Sacrosanctum Concilium had on how we worship, how we believe, how we live.
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2022/08/cardinal-roche-unwittingly-utters-most.html
They might call the Constitutions “Dogmatic”, but if it departs from the straight line of Sacred Tradition, then it is immediately suspect, pending further investigation and review – which is what Arbp LeFebvre did in the aftermath of the Council, (to which he was a contributor and signer), as the awareness grew that the change was much worse than he originally thought (the fullness of time).
It doesn’t affect my Catholic faith that the Apostolic Line, including the Pope, might get wrong answers and propagate error. St. Peter did, as did others in the Line throughout time. Catholic time (which can exceed our life spans) corrects the errors, frequently because the Laity recognize the deviations first and insist on redress (as with the Arian crisis). Our duty is to do our duty in the moment, no matter the cost. And to persevere and remain firm in the Faith within the Constant Magisterium.
Thank you sir.
I just read Michael Charlier’s article at Rorate Caeli, “Abuse of power and murder of souls” …
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2022/09/abuse-of-power-and-murder-of-souls.html
He is a Parishioner at the Shrine of Christ the King Parish in Chicago, so I give great deference and sympathy to him as directly suffering persecution in real time. His anguish is obvious and understandable, shared by the silent suffering Faithful who don’t have a similar outlet to express themselves like he does, so I suspect he speaks for them all.
I don’t disagree with anything he says, but he misses a most crucial point; does in fact make a most crucial mistake that is shared by so many in the Traditional Latin Mass Roman Catholic Church. I think the mistake is fatal, ultimately, to his defense specifically and the rest of us more generally.
He speaks of aesthetics (in general) and tradition over time as what sets the TLM apart as worthy of protection in a small corner of the Church for those who still prefer such things.
That misses the point by a country mile (IMO).
I contend that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of Pope St Pius V and the New Mass of Vatican II are fundamentally different things at the theological level before you ever get to the Liturgical differences that are also so very crucial.
TLM: The Holy Sacrifice is re-presented and Jesus crucified is made present to those present in union with every Catholic who ever lived including the Blessed Mother and St. John at the foot of the Cross.
New Mass: A shared meal in which we commemorate the Last Supper and “share a meal”, one with another – all present are disconnected by definition from every Catholic who came before because it is, by definition, *NEW*.
This is why previous Catholics died for the Mass, walked on broken glass and frozen snow to attend the Mass – Jesus, our Redeemer, is there on the Cross; is there in the host; we are in communion with our Crucified Lord.
Everything else is subsidiary.
I truly believe we will not be blessed with success against our oppressors until we can boldly and without apology make the case to the Church that one Mass is valid because it is Catholic, the other Mass is not because it is Protestant.
If the only reasons we have to maintain the TLM can be boiled down to aesthetics and time (1,000 years) then I don’t think we can prevail with that. Those are subjective and peripheral preferences. To insist that we must be with Jesus at Calvary on Sunday, as guaranteed by right for all time, according to Pope St. Pius V and the Church Fathers of the Council of Trent, and that the NewMass, by design, *is not that* … that argument, only that, before God and the Apostles who serve Him, will miraculously prevail.