Thanks for everyone contributing to the excellent discussions over the last few days. I am astounded that one combox string went for over 170 comments. I am still working my way through all of those.
Things are very busy here as I am preparing for a Joint Muslim Catholic Pilgrimage to Istanbul and Rome after Easter, and for a week in Rome before that (Holy Week!). Hopefully I will have my new laptop with me on the trip and will be able to give regular updates on our journey (you will recall the red-wine incident… )
In the mean time, I just want to throw a few pebbles in the pond – I don’t have the time to work these into full separate theses, so they are just ideas:
1) On the invocation of the Saints:
There have been two objections from our Lutheran commentators. The first has been that there is no command or promise attached to the invocation of saints in the Scriptures. The second is how can the dead hear us?
Answer to the first objection could be that we don’t have any promise or command in scripture (as far as I know) about asking our fellow Christians to pray for us either. We have the command to pray for others – a command which I presume even the departed saints alive in Christ continue to fulfill. There are examples in the Old Testament of people asking prophets to intercede for them (eg. 1 Sam 12:19, Job 42:8, Jer 37:3). There is a striking parallel in the New Testament of Simon Magus asking Peter and John to pray for him to the Lord (Acts 8:24) – a very interesting case that could be used as the basis for the invocation of saints. Then there are several places in the letters of Paul and in Hebrews where the request is made that the readers “pray for us”.
All these examples seem to assume that the one being asked to pray – prophet, apostle, churches – have some influence with God. They are “near to God” in a way that would make their prayers beneficial. This seems to fit with James 5:16-18, where the “righteousness” of the intercessor adds power to the prayer. Again, this would seem to support invocation of saints. We invoke them to intercede for us because they are more righteous, more holy and closer to God than we are.
I can’t find anything in the Scriptures that would seem to say that we can’t invoke the saints to pray for us – unless of course it is the second objection: that they are dead and this would be communication with the dead, something explicitly rejected in the Old Testament.
But here we come to the fact that the doctrine of the Communion of Saints is based on the doctrine of the Resurrection and new life in Christ. They are not dead, but living, and therefore invoking them does not come under the OT ban.
However, can they hear us? No, not directly. They are not divine or omniscient or omnipresent. (I like the idea that theosis comes into play, but theosis is only complete with resurrection, so I can grant this in reference to Our Lady, but am not sure how it applies to all the rest of the saints beholding the beatific vision.) The Communication of Saints (if I may coin that term) depends on the same thing that the Communion of Saints does: they and we are all one in Christ and in the Spirit. Indeed that is the reason we can ask our brothers and sisters in Christ here on earth to pray for us: not because they can hear us, but because they are in Christ and the Holy Spirit with us. St Paul tells us that nothing, not even death, can separate us from Christ (Rom 8), and so this connection does not cease at death. It is an indirect communication, granted, just as our communion with one another is indirect, whether in this life or in the next. But Christ shares his glory with his people by allowing them to share with him the role of sole intercessor before the right hand of God.
2) On purgatory:
Pastor Weedon said in a combox:
“Purgatory I have no truck with; purgation is another matter. Our God IS a consuming fire. And the way St. Paul speaks in 1 Cor. 3 suggests that purgation is order for all of us. The Lutheran Symbols note – without censure – that St. Augustine apparently so understood it. So not a place, but the final purification that burns out of us all that is not love – and that we rejoice in. An ouch before the “ah” as a friend used to put it. But an ouch to which we cry: Burn, baby! Burn! Destroy in me all that is not the love of God!
Such purgation, I might note, begins long before our death. It is to start at the moment of our Baptism and will be complete when our Baptism is completed in passing through death.”
I wonder, what does he actually think it is that we Catholics believe? For in this, he says nothing other than that which the Catholic Church teaches. See a presentation I did on this matter here (powerpoint file)
3) Regarding the Word of God:
Pastor Weedon also said in another combox: “I do deny that the Scriptures are anything less than the active and living Word of God which itself decides truth.” I would like to put this alongside something Ratzinger wrote way back in 1965 (you can find it in the Ignatius Press collection of Ratzinger essays “God’s Word”):
Can the Word be handed over to the Church, without having to fear that it will lose its own life and power under the shears of the Magisterium or amid the uncontrolled growth of the sensus fidelium? That is the Protestant’s question to the Catholic.
Can the Word be set up as independant, without handing it over to the arbitrariness of the exegete, to be emptied in the disputes of historians, and thus to the complete loss of normative authority? That is the question with which the Catholic will directly respond…
I think there are two things going on here. There is the Word of God as it directly and existentially and spiritually addresses me as a creature of God, convicting me of sin, calling me to repentance, forgiving me my sin and strengthening me in faith, hope and love towards God and my neighbour. That is definitely the work of God’s living and active Word alone, which no human being can ever control nor for which any human being can ever take credit.
But then there is the other way in which the Word of God works, as teaching and as commandment, creating and ordering the Church and binds me together in community with my fellow believers. In this sense the Word requires an “administrator” as much as the sacraments do; in order for the Word to teach doctrine, there must be a teaching office (Magisterium). But the Lutheran claim is (as Ratzinger puts it in the same essay mentioned previously) that they have
“set the Word of God free from its chains in the ecclesiastical office…
This notion, that in the Catholic Church the Word of God had been fettered by being linked to the authority of office, that it had been robbed of its active, living power, is expressed time and again in the writings of the Reformers… [In the Catholic Church] office appears…as the criterion for the Word. It guarentees the Word. In Melanchthon’s thinking, it is the other way round: the Word appears as the criterion for office… The Word has become independant. It stands over and above the office, as an entity in itself. Perhaps it is even in this reversal of the relations between Word and Office that the real opposition lies between Catholic and Protestant conceptions of the Church…”
Does it help if we distinguish between the way in which the Word of God speaks to us as teaching and commandment (requiring “Office”) and the way in which it speaks to us for the sake of convinction, repentance, forgiveness and nourishment (independantly of “Office”, living and active and powerful)?
So it’s not that the gates of Hell prevailed over the Church, it’s just that the gates of Babylon took it captive?
Schutz you would not know Catholic doctrine if you fell over it. Pastor Weedon wrote”Such purgation, I might note, begins long before our death. It is to start at the moment of our Baptism and will be complete when our Baptism is completed in passing through death.” and then you comment “I wonder, what does he actually think it is that we Catholics believe? For in this, he says nothing other than that which the Catholic Church teaches” So the Chgurch teaches Purgatory is for this life only!!!! You are COMPOLELTELY wrong and typical of the so called “Catholic” church of today. “The souls of the just which, in the moment of death, are burdened with venial sins or temporal punishment due to sins, enter Purgatory” (De Fide) Like all other heretics the so called “Catholics” of today are in gross error regarding this dogma! And wht’s more they deny it in ht name of “Catholicism”….Mr Schutz you have not converted to Catholicism, sorry to say you are still a Lutheran heretic.
I think anonymous should at least give his name, if he is so willing to blast this blog’s owner so rudely. Have you perchance read David’s longer posting on this issue, or asked him for clarification, so as to be absolutely sure he is a stinking heretic? If not, perhaps you have rashly passed judgement and condemned your brother.
I will only say that I am sure – David will correct me if I am wrong – that he entirely accepts what is said of purgatory at Trent, and what is likewise said of it in the Catechism: in which case he’s not in fact a heretic and therefore not deserving of abuse.
Please try to exercise charity and not rush to condemn. It will only make you sinful and twisted.
And Anonymous who wrote the passage about Schutz still being a Lutheran heretic did not have the intestinal fortitude to sign other than as anonymous.I think my comments about crap and piffle as above I retract from Lucian and apply to this chap. you are like some High Church Anglicans I know ,who worry more about the “bells and the smells” than about the fact that people are entering Eternity without knowing Christ.
Wayne Pelling a.k.a Matthias
Flying Judas in the chancery.
Mr Schuetz in no way states that Purgatory is for this life only. If that were in any doubt, read the Power Point presentation.
Mr Schuetz’ comment in the post is related to Pastor’s distinction between purgation and Purgatory, to say that if one denies the latter by distinguishing the former from it, what is it that one thinks the RCC teaches re the latter.
Finally, as one of the resident “Lutheran heretics” who comment here, I would not speak for the others but I think Mr Schuetz has a ways to go before he joins our number.
You people are funny, you condemn me for stating the dogma of the Church with which you all seem quite unacquainted as you fall head over heels to please each other with your ecumaniacal gobbledegook. Schutz is a heretic pure and simple. He sets the domga of the Church on it’s haed by agreeing with the Lutheran heretic. And why would I sign myy name here, what with you all barking mad to bite me nbecause I speak the truth of the dogma of a Council that all modern catholics effectively deny in favoutr of the flim flam V2 and the utter devastation it has unleashed in the Church. Most of you would not be old enough to know the true Catholicism we were raised with.
Anonymous
You just do not get mate.Yes that’s right keep on worrying about secondary things and not pursue the first-to seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness,to live the Gospel and to proclaim it.Instead you go on and on. You have every right to your opinion but i think you are a coward,for using your anonymity to attack Schutz. As for your version of catholicism-go stick it up your jumper ,for it is certainly different to the version I see and hear from many catholics on this web site,and what I personally have experienced.
sorry for the vexatiousness people but I am sick and tired of people being attacked personally .
I will now sinbin myself for a few days .
You know what, Anonymous, for a couple of years now I’ve been here with the message that in converting to post-conciliar Catholicism one converts to a parody of Catholicism at best.
As to what one was raised with, I remember when the 1962 Mass was the “new” Mass, not the preposterous pile of dung that is the novus ordo, by Catholic lights.
So I suggest again you read the Power Point presentation. You will find nothing of Lutheran “heresy” re Purgatory there. Actually, what one finds is a typical Vatican II style of maintaining something but on a different basis but calling it the same, as a deserved punishment willingly accepted gets morphed through phenomenology into an experience of purgation to be desired. Revisionism yes, but Lutheran “heresy”, hardly.
matthias, it is very sad that you think that the revealed and defined dogma is a “secondary thing” I suppose that guitar masses and clown masses are primary things for most folk these days. I simply called Mr SChutz what he evidences he is i.e a heretic. Oh yes the “version” of Catholicism, there is only ONE catholic Faith and that is found in all the dogmas. Time was when people like the saintly Archbishop Mannix and the revered Norman Cardinal Gilroy would have praised me for standing up for Catholic truth as I used to do in the lay apostolate many years ago….I have been caled more than a coward down by the Yarra where we did our catholic evidence work and in the Domain in Sydney. Now I am in a strange place for I find myself in agreement with Past Elder because he has rightly stated that modern Catholicism is a “parody at best”. You are a man of PRINCIPLE and for that I salute you. And again I salute you by agreeing that the Novus Ordo is preposterous.For it comes very close to denying the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Something which the Mass of all time NEVER hides! Your careful tearing apart the “moderrn catholic” apologia for the dogma is masterly. You rightly discern the morphing of dogma by the heretics who parade as Catholics today. I am only left to wonder how these flim flammers here explain Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (EENS). In ALL charity Past Elder I invite you to leave your Lutheran heresy and become a Catholic. I want to see you in heaven for that is where Catholics who tell the truth go. I once knew a rabid Presbyterian , of Ulster stock, by the prayers of his elderly Catholic aunt he abandoned the Orange Lodge and the heretical Presbyterianism and became a Catholic, he worked hard then at converting his former partners in error. I woul pray that you too could use your powers of perception for the True Faith. And by the way my name is Frank.
I have broken out of the sinbin for the minute. But I believe in revealed dogma-as long as it is either the revelations as contained in the Bible or those revelations that abide by Scripture,and conform to Scripture. Primary dogma are what the Creeds talk about.(Guitar and folk masses,do not appeal to me,neither do those Protestant services where we must sing a hymn repeeatedly.)
Frank glad you emerged form cyberspace.
Matthias, I have been following this thread with interest and I have to say your “primary dogma” sounds horribly reminiscent of John Howard’s “core promise”. Are you a Catholic? Surely you can’t be with such a liberal attitude to the dogmas. Where do you stand on the dogma of EENS? Are you familiar with the work of Ken Mock? What about PH Omlor? Have you read his “magisterial tome” on the Eucharist? What about FFF? Obviously you are a fan of clown masses. How did you get out of the sin bin so quickly?
Well then Frank — which, btw, is the name of my dad and my elder son, Frank as such though, not a nickname — I can tell you the reason I came here was not to advocate the conclusion I drew from the implosion of Catholicism, which btw was not Lutheranism, which came twenty some years later, but Judaism as a Righteous of the Nations — but because I encountered our host on a Lutheran blog and I thought what an irony to have thought he found Catholicism but only found postconciliarism, which is little more than Protestantism with a Catholic veneer.
Unfortunately our host labours under the illusion that he is a Lutheran in communion with the bishop of Rome — something which does not exist — and consequently, while I agree what he has found is hardly Catholicism, it is hardly Lutheranism either.
Sorry Carlo I am a Baptist,but one who is heartily sick of catholics in general and the Pope being canned as the AntiChrist.So for me i have to plead ignorant to EENS.
Liberal to the dogmas.Strewth- I accept the Bible as the inerrant Word of God,and those who wrote its books as being inspired by the Holy Spirit. My belief is outlined in the Creeds,and Christ is my Saviour.To quote a phrase” i’m not perfect,just forgiven” These are not liberal but is the Old time religion. As the one time world leader of catholic charismatic renewal( ordained by JP2 as such) said to me in a phone call,after he aksed what I believed, “come and join our prayer and praise service,because you sound like a catholic to me”.
FWIW — EENS is an acronym for extra ecclesia nulla salus, which is “outside the church there is no salvation” in Latin. The fun starts where it usually does — what is the “church”.
Pre Vatican II, I was taught that the “church” is what is known among men as the Roman Catholic Church, however, this does not mean that only visible members of the Roman Catholic Church are saved. Elements of Catholicism sufficient for salvation can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, and Protestants may be saved because they are bound, though imperfectly, to the Catholic Church by those elements of its truth which they do not deny amid the error they affirm.
Thanks PE for making that clear and well I suppose I am bound ‘imperfect proddy” that i am to the Catholic church,because I affirm the same elements of truth as the RCC.
By the way,did anyone read the article by a Cardinal who talked about a ” green Antichrist” and his reference to a book by Validimir Soloviev “Three Conversations”.? It is excellent reading and challenges many prophecies of the premillenial dispensationalist ilk. It also answers some of the discussions here.
I have a copy and it is sold here as ‘THE ANTICHRIST’.
Back to the sinbin for a few days.
Happy travels Schutz ,be sure to go to Hagia Sophia,and contemplate that in the fall of Istanbul(Constantinople) that it was a charnel house.
I think it is time that I came in on this – although much else is pressing.
FIRST: Frank and Carlo might have missed my earlier posting about what we expect here at SCE in regards to good manners (see http://cumecclesia.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-comments-on-this-blog-is-generally.html. If you break this rule repeatedly, there will be no port bottle for you, and no invitation back to the table! On the other hand, I am happy for all views genuinely held to be expressed in the comboxes on this blog, yours as well. And thank you, Frank, for putting your name to your comments. This shows your honesty and dignity, and readiness to enter into rational and reasoned discussion with other commentators.
SECOND: The title of this blog is “Sentire Cum Ecclesia”. By “Ecclesia” I mean the “The sole Church of Christ which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it…. This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him” [LG 8# 2]. Other readers of this blog have other definitions, but that is mine, taken from the Second Vatican Council and quoted by the Catechism at para. 816.
So, now, specifically:
When Pastor Weedon wrote: “Such purgation, I might note, begins long before our death. It is to start at the moment of our Baptism and will be complete when our Baptism is completed in passing through death” and I responded “I wonder, what does he actually think it is that we Catholics believe? For in this, he says nothing other than that which the Catholic Church teaches”, I certainly was NOT suggesting that (as Frank claims) “the Church teaches Purgatory is for this life only!!!!” (Thank you, PE and Matthias for your defence in this matter).
I agreed with Pastor Weedon that purgation (speaking of “purgation” specifically, not “purgatory” in particular) “at the moment of our Baptism and will be complete when our Baptism is completed in passing through death.” You have to understand here what Pastor Weedon means by “passing through death”. I took him to mean (as Lutherans generally do) that he was speaking in terms of Psalm 23: “Yea, though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death”. That “passing through” starts with our physical death and ends with our entry into the Beatific Vision. I therefore concurred with him that purgation continues NOT “until death” but INCLUDES this “passing through” the “Valley”. It is here that we Catholics assert a post-death “purgation” which we describe as “Purgatory” – which Pastor Weedon originally confessed himself unable to accept, but which I do not see as being anything different from the “purgation” which he describes as his own belief. So, I don’t think I was teaching against any Catholic dogma that I know of in this regard.
Frank said that “Schutz is a heretic pure and simple. He sets the domga of the Church on it’s haed by agreeing with the Lutheran heretic.” I think it is possible to agree with a “Lutheran heretic” on many (if not most) dogmas of the faith. I think Pastor W would say he can agree with me (a “Catholic heretic”!) on most of these dogmas too. The point of good dialogue is being quite clear about what it is that we actually disagree on, and not argue about things on which we are really agreed.
In fact, it is worth considering who the actual heretic might be in this conversation. Afterall, it was neither I nor Pastor Weedon who described the 21st Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church as “flim flam”, the Church’s liturgy as “preposterous”, and the “modern Catholicism” as “a parody at best”. If you do not accept the Second Vatican Council’s decrees, you are (even by the estimation of our esteemed Holy Father) not in communion with the Catholic Church.
Frank, you ask “how these flim flammers here explain Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (EENS)”.
I understand this in the way that the Second Vatican Council does. I do not deny, but I confess, that there is no salvation outside the Church. But like the ancient Fathers, I know that “the Church” (even according to the definition given above) exists in some way beyond the borders of the visible society and communion of the Catholic Church. (I suggest that you read Fr Most’s essay “Is there Salvation outside the Church?”) Thus, all those who are saved (something known only to God himself, I might add) and yet who are not visibly in communion with the Catholic Church are saved not only through Christ alone but also in and through the Catholic Church, again – in the words of the Second Vatican Council – in ways known only to God himself.
Your assertion that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite “comes very close to denying the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” is total bunkum. I myself have learned to know the Sacrifice of the Mass through the Ordinary Form, something which would be impossible if it almost “denies” this doctrine.
Now, I have to get back to work, so please behave yourselves, OK?
Suppippla: The sip of port you get after supper at my table – IF you are good…
Suppippla: The sip of port you get after supper at my table
David,
“-ippla” like “-ino” and “-ito” is used, as you are no doubt aware, to form a diminutive in Italian. Perhaps the reason people are misbehaving on your blog is because the sip you give them from the port bottle is so slight. I suggest you up the dosage.
Fr Damian
Of interest with regard to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is the explanation of the Holy Office issued with the approval of the Holy Father in 1949:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM
Then, as now, people interpret the axiom incorrectly. It belongs to the teaching authority of the Church to determine the meaning of this teaching, not to the private judgement of individuals.
Frank,
I’m glad you’re now using your name! Now, what is so disturbing to you about what David says? He accepts, does he not, what Trent said, viz., that Purgatory exists and that the souls detained there may be aided by the prayers of the faithful? (BTW, I’m assured by one Lutheran pastor that, while Lutherans don’t publicly pray for the dead, they do not consider it heretical to do so, interestingly enough.)
And furthermore, if you haven’t realized that David is the type of convert that would have read and assented to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which I assume you too subscribe to as Catholic and unheretical, unless you wish, say, to traduce its principal author, now reigning as Benedict XVI), then you’ve missed much.
I assert that, given this, Daivd rightly confesses Catholic doctrine on purgatory, and that his legitimate theological speculation on it is perfectly allowable within the Church – just as, say, at the mediæval Councils the Greeks were not required to confess belief in the fires of Purgatory (which are a Latin tradition).
Try and be less intemperate.
I’m delighted to correspond with you, BTW!
Does it help if we distinguish between the way in which the Word of God speaks to us as teaching and commandment (requiring “Office”) and the way in which it speaks to us for the sake of convinction, repentance, forgiveness and nourishment (independantly of “Office”, living and active and powerful)?
I think I’ve always made this distinction myself.
Mr Schutz can you please give us a precise commentary on how the Novus Ordo teaches the sacrifice of the Mass? For your staring popint please consider the Offertorium of the Novus Ordo vis a vis The mass of St Pius V; and again please demonsrtate how the Eucharistic Prayers numbers 2 onwards particularly stack up against the Roman Canon (properly translated). Your only sources seem to be the Vatican II Council and the New Catechism and to my mind you accept these and implicitly deny all that has gone before. I had the very great advantage of growing up in the pre Vatican II Church and I can say that I am very disturbed by the desecration of Churches that fell under the hammer of the liturgical vandals in the 1960s and going forward. There is a very real sens ethat we Catholics have of each other and I detect a certain lack of Catholic thinking on your part and that of many contrbutors here. Past Elder is quite right when he says you found conciliarism, for that Vatican II which has been the bane of Catholic life since the early 60s has largely speaking emptied the Church and drained her spiritual reservoir…..but I believe in the Holy Ghost and the Petrine Promise and know that the day is soon coming when all the errors unleashed of late will be cast off and we will once again be Roman Catholic and proud of it.
Frank,
Certainly Eucharistic Prayer II is rather short and I would argue vague – but I think Prayers III and IV are self-evidently most Catholic, despite being recent compositions (both stemming from prototypes of Dom Cipriano Vaggagini, OSB, which he based on ancient models).
How about these parts of Eucharistic Prayer IV (I quote the Latin and then Fr Zuhlsdorf’s translation, rather than the ICEL paraphrase):
1. Consecratory Epiclesis:
Quaesumus igitur, Domine, ut idem Spiritus Sanctus haec munera sanctificare dignetur, ut Corpus et + Sanguis fiant Domini nostri Iesu Christi ad hoc magnum mysterium celebrandum, quod ipse nobis reliquit in foedus aeternum.
Therefore, O Lord, we beseech You, that the same Holy Spirit may deign to hallow these gifts in order that they may become the Body and + Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ for the celebration of this great [sacramental] mystery which He Himself left us as an everlasting covenant.
[Note that formula is actually stronger than the Quam oblationem of the Roman Canon, since it prays that the oblations may be made the Body and Blood of Christ without even the words “pro nobis”, which could falsely and heretically be interpreted as teaching a subjective presence only – though of course it is itself anathama to claim that the Roman Canon is unorthodox, as Trent declared.]
[I omit the actual Verba as too well-known to bother repeating.]
2. The Anamnesis and Oblation:
Unde et nos, Domine, redemptionis nostrae memoriale nunc celebrantes, mortem Christi eiusque descensum ad inferos recolimus, eius resurrectionem et ascensionem ad tuam dexteram profitemur, et, exspectantes ipsius adventum in gloria, offerimus tibi eius Corpus et Sanguinem, sacrificium tibi acceptabile et toti mundo salutare.
Therefore, O Lord, celebrating now the memorial of our redemption, we also call to mind the death of Christ and His descent into Hell, we publicly profess His resurrection and ascension to Your right hand, and, waiting for His coming in glory, we offer to You His Body and Blood, a sacrifice acceptable to You and salvific for the whole world.
[You can’t get more forthright and Catholic than this last phrase! Talk about the Sacrifice of the Mass!]
3. Epiclesis for the Communicants:
Respice, Domine, in Hostiam, quam Ecclesiae tuae ipse parasti, et concede benignus omnibus qui ex hoc uno pane participabunt et calice, ut, in unum corpus a Sancto Spiritu congregati, in Christo hostia viva perficiantur, ad laudem gloriae tuae.
Look with care, O Lord, upon this sacrificial victim which You Yourself provided for Your Church, and graciously grant to all who will take a share in this one bread and chalice, that having been gathered by the Holy Spirit into one body, they will be perfected in Christ as living sacrifices unto the praise of Your glory.
[Some foolish folk baulk at mention of bread and chalice, forgetting that the Roman Canon too refers after the consecration to the Bread of eternal life and Chalice of perpetual salvation – just as Our Lord Himself speaks of being the Bread of Life.]
3. The Impetration – that is, not just intercession, but the offering of the Sacrifice for determinate ends:
Nunc ergo, Domine, omnium recordare, pro quibus tibi hanc oblationem offerimus: in primis famuli tui, Papae nostri N., Episcopi nostri N., et Episcoporum ordinis universi, sed et totius cleri, et offerentium, et circumstantium, et cuncti populi tui, et omnium, qui te quaerunt corde sincero. Memento etiam illorum, qui obierunt in pace Christi tui, et omnium defunctorum, quorum fidem tu solus cognovisti.
Therefore, O Lord, remember all for whom we are offering to You this oblation: among the first, Your servant, our Pope N., our Bishop N., and the whole order of Bishops, and also all the clergy, those now offering, the bystanders, the entire people, and all who are seeking You with a pure heart. Be mindful also of those who have died in the peace of Your Christ, and of all the dead, whose faith You alone have known.
[Here we have the Sacrifice of the Mass in full conformity with Trent.]
******
Tell me, Frank, do you attend the Traditional Mass, or perforce (like me) go to the local Novus Ordo for lack of anything better?
Frank asked me to show “how the Novus Ordo teaches the sacrifice of the Mass? – I bow to Joshua on this point – although I guess it depends what you mean by “teach” – are you expecting to find the whole doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass explicated in a single celebration of the rite? I don’t even know if the Extraordinary Form does that. And, it depends on what level you are prepared to look into the matter… Really, that is a very big post you are looking for.
But you go on to ask that I do various comparisons between the EF and the OF of the Rite. There your point appears to be slightly different: not whether the OF teaches the sacrifice of the mass, but whether it does it as well as the EF. If you are arguing the latter, that is a different proposition – and I might be ready to grant it to you upon further study.
Frank also said: Your only sources seem to be the Vatican II Council and the New Catechism and to my mind you accept these and implicitly deny all that has gone before.
Well, that’s drawing a long bow. I would say that the new Catechism (the Catechism of the Second Vatican Council) is a major source for me – but so it should be! Afterall, the late Holy Father, John Paul II proposed it to the Bishops of the Church as “a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium” and “a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.” (Preface to the CCC). Good enough for me!
But as to being the “only” source? Well, Scripture is a source, for a start, as are the writings of the Fathers (I am growing in familiarity with them), the decrees of the Councils, the Magisterium of the Church (past and present) etc. etc. etc. I’ll get into God’s Word any way I can. The main benefit of the Catechism is that it is such a beautiful compendium of the Church’s 2000 year old tradition (with really neat indexes).
I can completely understand how you might be “very disturbed by the desecration of Churches that fell under the hammer of the liturgical vandals in the 1960s and going forward.” There was never any excuse for that – truly. I am with you and Joshua with regard to what those who did this will have to suffer in purgatory (or elsewhere) for these crimes.
Frank also said “Past Elder is quite right when he says you found conciliarism, for that Vatican II which has been the bane of Catholic life since the early 60s has largely speaking emptied the Church and drained her spiritual reservoir…”
You need to learn to distinguish between the authority of the Council and its documents, and the sins of those who did many wicked things in the name of the Council. You
..but I believe in the Holy Ghost and the Petrine Promise and know that the day is soon coming when all the errors unleashed of late will be cast off and we will once again be Roman Catholic and proud of it.
Amen, brother.
And, Louise, I noted that you picked up my final comment regarding the different ways in which the Word of God speaks to me existentially/coram Deo and to me as a member of the Community of the Church, in submission. I am really interested in what people have to say about that.
Joshua:
“BTW, I’m assured by one Lutheran pastor that, while Lutherans don’t publicly pray for the dead, they do not consider it heretical to do so, interestingly enough.)”
Joshua, while your ‘contact’ may well hold that view, and even practice it himself, I have it from several Lutherans that they certainly do not agree. So, it seems just a little unrealistic to suggest a commonality of belief, on the basis of this one personal example.
Has he run it past his Bishop?
I’d be very surprised that a Lutheran pastor worth his salt (and sticking to his vows) would be less than open about such a matter. Golly, this idea of “they don’t do it openly, but really think it’s OK” is so far removed from the Lutheran Church stance on pretty much everything:
“here I stand..” and all that.
Still, several Lutheran pastors (Schutz, Cooper..et al) have crossed over, so if you asked one of them a similar qn, before they renounced their Vows..they may have said a similar thing?
As for the idea of purgatory, after death, well I have to say it
flies in the face of the Gospel as I have heard it. As PE said: “It is Finished” means just that.
It challenges the whole concept of forgiveness for a start. (“I will remember…NO MORE”).
As the CC has confession as a sacrament, yes?, how could they then undermine that with this ‘conditional forgiveness’?
Sorry, not for me.
I appreciate Catholics may feel bound to believe it, but I just don’t see how a christian could..if they read the scripture.
Does your ‘contact’ visit here?
Would he be happy to share his perspective?
retag Fashion recycling
Frank,
You write: “Vatican II which has been the bane of Catholic life since the early 60s has largely speaking emptied the Church and drained her spiritual reservoir”
I find this an odd statement, coming as it does at the end of the Pope’s visit to Africa. Whilst the western world has, during these last fifty years of material growth and massive social changes, seen a plummet in church attendance rates, the church in Africa and some parts of Asia has experienced an explosive growth which has well outweighed the church’s ‘losses’ in the West. The number of local bishops, priests and religious seen in the footage of the Pope’s visit stands in stark contrast to the church of the 1950s in Africa, depending as it did on white European missionaries.
Strangely, I never see those who blame the problems of the Church in the West on Vatican II and the Ordinary Form of the Mass make any connection between these and the growth of Christianity in other parts of the world.
Vicci,
As I think I’ve already mentioned, there are plenty of Scriptural warrants for Purgatory: “he shall not get out until he have paid the last penny”; some sins being unforgiven both in this age and in the age to come – implying (as Gregory the Great noted) that some sins are forgiven in the age to come, i.e. in purgatory; all we do shall be tested by fire; etc. – please find the references. It is insulting to Catholics to say that “a Christian” (implying we’re not, when we’re the majority of all Christians?!) would believe X if he but read the Scriptures – as if the Catholic world doesn’t and hadn’t! Really! Where do you think our beliefs come from? We believe that the Revelation of God is mediated to us through Scripture and Tradition, so that the two mesh together seamlessly as they express the one truth.
The Lutheran Pastor I quote is my friend Fraser Pearce, whom I visited a few weeks ago – many thanks to him and his wife and family! In response to a question of mine while we were walking around Bendigo, he pointed out that prayer for the dead is not condemned as heretical in the Book of Concord, and therefore, while it is not used in their public worship, it could not be condemned as contrary to confessional Lutheranism to do so in private. Note that I am not claiming he ever does so himself; he simply answered my honest question according to the confessional statements of Lutheranism.
I think, Vicci, you were a bit rude in making the insinuation that a Pastor who said something like this is suffering “Roman fever” and is about to cast aside his vows and swim the Tiber! Post hoc non ergo propter hoc. You argue just like the Anglicans of old, who condemned everything Newman said because they reasoned rudely as follows: Aha, he was clearly a wicked liar and heretic because he went to Rome, and therefore everything he did beforehand was really all lies and not Anglican at all. Ditto for your claim that any Lutheran pastor who claimed such things must really, like Schütz et al., be a wolf in sheep’s clothing – how offensive.
I think I detect anti-Catholic prejudice here.
Perhaps a more pleasant tone would be a good idea?
Fr Damian the third world countries may have seen an explosive growth in your words but have we not also witnessed the birth of co called liberation theology and the spectacle of pagan rituals being introduced even within the Church itself? These events are well documented and cannot be denied. I will stand by my assertion that Vatican II no matter how well meaning has had a disastrous effect on Catholicism as we know it. And I recall the late great Justin Cardinal Simonds reminding us that the Council was a “pastoral” and NOT a dogmatic Council.
Dear Mr Schutz your latest replies show some improvement and I commend you for that. may I respectfully suggest that you get a copy of Dr Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals ofd Catholic Dogma”? It is a very handy reference guide to what a Catholic MUST believe. I am surprised that your Instructions did not cover such basic ground. I also heartily recommend True Devotion to Mary by ST Louis Mary de Montfort and Preparation for Deat by St Alphonsus Liguori as both books are 100% Catholic and inspirational.
To Joshua and Mr Schutz, I neglected to say thank you for your presentation of the various texts vis a vis the Mass. I note that you carefully avoid much comment on the abominable Eucharistic Prayer II and what of those Eucharitic Prayers for children, and while we’re at it, I challenge you to cold canvass any child in a catholic school and ask them What is the Mass? I’ll bet most of them will answer with that awful “M” word..very few would know it as “CHrist’s sacrifice on the Cross made present…” etc etc etc and also a”sacrifice of expiation and impetration” (De Fide).
Frank,
With respect, the fact that certain practices or theologies have arisen since Vat II does not necessarily mean that they are a product of Vat II. One could point to a thousand abuses and errors that arose during the first 1900 years of the church’s life and not be obliged to see them as the outgrowth of a preceding council or the, at the time, approved Rite of Mass. Correlation does not equal causation.
Personally, I would only go as far as to say that the way Vat II was misconstrued, perhaps intentionally, by some members of the Church has had disastrous effects.
The Church, in its members, has never been immune from prevailing cultural movements. It is no surprise that last century saw some members of the church, ill-advisedly, attempt to use ‘insights’ from Marxist philosophy (a philosophy du jour) in its reflection on the plight of the human person. It is conceivable that such movements would have arisen if Vat II had never been called.
Frank said: Dear Mr Schutz your latest replies show some improvement and I commend you for that.
As do your replies, and I commend you for that! :-)
Seriously though, if you had spent more time reading this blog, rather than (mis)judging me on the basis of one comment, you will have realised that I was not the heretic you took me for initially!
Regarding the books you propose, I am familiar with the works of St Louis Mary de Montfort and St Alphonsus Liguori. I am not familiar with the book by Ludwig Ott, but I am somewhat puzzled why you believe this book should have been the text used for my instruction rather than the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I would have thought the latter was the most official statement of “what a Catholic MUST believe” currently available.
As for Catholic Primary School children and the doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass, I fear you may well be right – but I don’t know if the blame for that can be laid at the door of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. I blame poor catechesis, not only of the students but primarily of their teachers. (Nb. you may not have heard that the Eucharistic Prayers for Children are to be abrogated when the new missal translations are approved – and hopefully there will never be a Motu Proprio that ever allows their use again!).
Incidentally, my Lutheran daughters attend the parochial school, and we recently had a very in depth discussion of the sacrifice of the mass. However, I do not rely on the school to teach them the faith. Any parent who does is a fool and unfaithful to the vows he made at his children’s baptism. I expect the school to support me as I catechise my children, not to do the job for me.
Vicci, the Lutheran Church makes a distinction between public doctrine and pious opinion. Just about anything goes with regard to pious opinion. A pastor or layman is quite free to hold whatever pious opinion he likes, but his public teaching must be in accord with the teaching of the Church. And it is quite true as Joshua claims Pastor Pearce said: prayer for the dead is not condemned in the Book of Concord – even though it can hardly be described as “encouraged”.
Vicci said: “As for the idea of purgatory, after death, well I have to say it flies in the face of the Gospel as I have heard it… It challenges the whole concept of forgiveness for a start… how could they then undermine that with this ‘conditional forgiveness’?
Sorry, not for me.”
Vicci, you continue to make an error of distinction between forgiveness and purgation, between eternal punishment for the guilt of sin, and temporal consequences for sinful actions.
The forgiveness given in the sacrament of penance is absolute and complete. After absolution, no guilt remains. Forgiveness is the removal of guilt. There will be no eternal punishment for sin forgiven in the Sacrament of Penance.
But sacramental forgiveness does not completely purge me of attachment to sin, nor does it remove the temporal consequences of my sinful actions. Can you demonstrate how it can possibly do this?
Confession and Absolution certainly gives me God’s grace to weaken my attachment to sin, and it just as certainly adds God’s grace and power to any actions I may do to repair the damage that my sins have caused, but in itself it completely removes neither.
If I am a kleptomaniac, does absolution remove the desire to steal from me? If I have stolen from someone, does absolution restore what was lost to the person from whom I stole? You know that neither is the case.
As Joshua pointed out, this is all in conformity with Scripture, and a Catholic Christian certainly does find the doctrine of temporal and eternal punishments, and of purgation and purgatory in the scriptures. That is because he reads Scripture with his eyes open…
David,
We frequently pray this petition in our prayer of the Church at St. Paul’s:
Remember, Lord, our sisters and brothers who have fallen asleep in Christ. Grant them heavenly consolation and joy and fulfill for them all the promises which in Your Word You have given to those who believe in You.
Additionally, every funeral in the LCMS includes the petition:
Give to Your whole Church in heaven and on earth, Your light and Your peace.
FWIW.
(This comment is to let Past Elder, William Weedon and Christine know that I have responded to their rejoinders in this post’s combox:
http://cumecclesia.blogspot.com/2009/03/more-on-sola-scriptura-in-lutheranism.html
But if no-one’s interested in pursuing that discussion, could I repeat here the question that I ask there:
“could someone please point out whereabouts in the Book of Concord (or any Lutheran treatises available on-line, for that matter) where it deals with these questions of private judgment vs. authority? I am interested in reading up on this, if only so that I am not dealing with straw men when I have these discussions with Protestants.”
)
Back to this discussion, though:
I find it curious the length of time spent here discussing Purgatory, and the direction of that discussion; I might be mistaken about Lutheran doctrine, but I thought that when Catholics ask, as Mr. Schütz does,
“how [sacramental forgiveness] can possibly do this [remove the temporal consequences of my sinful actions]?”
Lutherans would simply answer: the punishment owing to one’s sins is no longer imputed to one, so there’s no punishment to remove. Am I wrong here?
In any case, it’s Mr. Schütz’s third point in the original post that really matters. As I keep saying, only an authoritative “Office”, as Mr. Schütz puts it, can keep the body of the faithful united in truth.
And so given that it’s authority vs. private judgment that is really the big question here, I really do wonder what the value of denomination-level theological dialogue is. It makes for fascinating discussion at the level of individuals (though even then it runs the risk of trying to ‘beat them at their own game’, debating them on their own terms), but at the level of denominations, what good is it? Take Purgatory as an example; even if dialogue were to produce a doctrinal statement that agreed not only in the terms but in the substance of the doctrine, what good would this be when Lutherans believe the doctrine by their lights while Catholics believe it by theirs?
Cardinal,
Briefly – running out the door to do daycare chapel – the Lutheran Symbols distinguish between temporal and eternal punishments and we acknowledge that God’s remission of eternal punishments does not always eliminate temporal ones. The thief on the cross died a forgiven sinner and was welcomed to Christ kingdom; but the forgiveness didn’t get him out of his cross.
All the usual pseudo-proofs from the conciliar “Catholics”, particularly the argument from numbers outside Europe, which would also “prove” Islam the true religion, and the old “that’s not what the church REALLY teaches” as if that excused what a church really teaches being so rarely found and what it supposedly doesn’t teach being rather uniformly taught.
I quite agree that the “excesses” of Vatican II are not Vatican II; what you fail to see is that both proceed from the same dissent from Catholicism routinely condemned by the Catholic Church right up until it was taken over by it. What you uphold is not Catholicism at all, but a more conservative point on the dissent spectrum from it than the excesses you condemn.
To accept this dissent, even when cloaked in period costumes and keeping the same bank accounts and real estate, as Catholic is simply not possible.
The stinking liars who confected this unholy charade proceed in their duplicity by calling Vatican II a “pastoral” council yet acting as if it were dogmatic.
One may draw various conclusion from that, and clearly Frank has drawn one and I another, which is, if the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a sure norm for teaching the Catholic faith and the novus ordo missae a (previously unheard of) ordinary form of the same thing as the (also previously unheard of) extraordinary (but formerly only) form of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, then I should count it an honour indeed to be not in fellowship with such a church, for the sake of Catholicism itself which it does not profess, and for this to have happened reveals that the entity known among men as the Roman Catholic Church not only is not now, but never was (the far more painful part) the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of the Creed.
Or to put it a little more familiarly — you claim to be Catholic and to have converted to Catholicism, yet sound nothing like a Catholic or converts thereto did before Vatican II. Like saying you’ve been to Omaha, but what you say sounds like you’ve been to Minneapolis!
Past Elder
I’m not sure if you misread my post or have intentionally chosen to misconstrue it.
I did not offer any “proofs,” let alone “pseudo-proofs” regarding “true religions” or other wise.
I most specifically stated that correlation does not equal causation.
I countered the canard that Vatican II has “emptied the Church.”
It’s very simple: there are not fewer Catholics in churches today than in 1961.
Further, the Extraordinary Form of the Mass was never the only form of the Mass.
PE for us Aussies it would be like saying one has been to Hobart when in fact they have gone to Darwin .
Frank you are right about liberation theology being the curse of churches in the Developing World and The Day is Coming,perhaps sooner than we think,when all errors will be gone,all persecution of Christians,will stop,all divisions healed and Catholic,orthodox and Proddy,will be united ,when we see Jesus face to face.For that is when
the Church will truly be one.
I remember as a boy preachers thundering against ecumenicalism and unity with Catholics,they forgot the sleeping liberals in their own denominations,who spout theology alien to both catholics such as you frank and proddies like me. RCC has kennedy and Proddies have well- Francis Macnabb,Rowan Williams,Joel Osteen,etc.
Cardinal,
The BOC doesn’t deal with the question of private or personal judgment that I am aware of. I think there are implications for the topic in the Introduction to both the Epitome and the Solid Declaration – both easily findable online.
A thorough treatment of the topic, however, can be read in Krauth’s *Conservative Reformation* (googlebooks) and you’ll find it on pages 168-175).
Also on the matter of temporal and eternal punishments, you might wish to check out what is confessed by our Church in the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, XII:53-69.
Mr Schutz, why did you make a vow at your daughters’ baptism to bring them up as Catholic but yet you describe them as Lutheran? Are you in a mixed marriage?
David Schutz was a Lutheran minister before he became a Catholic, and his wife and daughters remain Lutheran.
Carlo,
it helps to read about the owner of a blog site before making comments. and for the record i was a member of the Lutheran church at the time Schutz made his decision to become a Catholic and I know it caused some rancour in the pastorial ranks here in Victoria but to quote Luther ,he was “bound by his conscience”.
This is all very interesting however past Elder has exactly stated the fact and it is the unavoidable conclusion that many modern “Catholics’ are nothing of the sort. Fr Damian says there are not fewer catholics in Church today than in 1961, well I ask you why has the Church sold so many of it’s churches and assets? Why are there so few priests and religious and among them why do so few of them really know what it means to be a Catholic? You can take cold comfort in the numbers in Africa and Asia but in the western world we are failing. Past Elder has your number Fr damian, and may i ask are you a secular or religious priest? I would be interested to know as your seminary training seems to have lacked something. I feel sorry for Mr Schutz, he has not been correctly instructed. Do not be puzzled that I recommend Ott, get a copy and read for yourself or as you are a more learned man than me get Denziger. Goffine is also excellent these texts give you ALL the dogma, not just the personal opinion of men. Ott cuts to the core by showing the De Fide dogma and it is not couched in modern psychobabble as many so called “Catholic” texts are. Time was when we went out and tried to save souls by converting them to the Catholic faith, what is done now is that we sit down and discuss the matters we are in agreeance on. Well let me say this and I will put it baldly; me and the devil agree there is a God, but that doesn’t mean the devil is a Catholic!
Hi David,
when do start to pack?
I’m looking fwd to the Travelogue- if it’s as good a read as the Movie Reviews.. it will be a good read.
re: purgatory and purging and consequence of sin and forgiveness..and all that:
sure, I agree with you (both times) when you commented about the consequence of sin remaining.
I think a lot of Christians struggle with the concept of complete pardon, and so carry a double burden of consequence -and guilt.
Maybe it’s because WE find it so hard to forgive others?
My belief is simply: when we die..that’s it. It really IS finished. So, as the parable of the 5 wise virgins, the thief on the cross, and many other refs. tell us pretty clearly, there isn’t a Holding Room between this life and the Next (heaven or hell).
You said: “That is because he reads Scripture with his eyes open…”
-nice dig!
But you also posted:
“.. the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I would have thought the latter was the most official statement of “what a Catholic MUST believe” currently available.”
This suggests that a Catholic or two might be reading scripture with a view to substantiate the things he MUST (your emphasis) believe?
..with Eyes Wide Shut?
No dig intended. But you know it makes sense.
wingdoe Santa’s locomotion?
So, Matthias, what do you think were the vows Mr Schutz made at his daughters’ baptism, and are they compatible with the Catholic faith?
Also, I hope you realise that as a Baptist you cannot be saved. This is not my opinion, but the defined, infallible dogma of the one holy Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church.
PS to Frank’s post: well said Frank! We were always taught that the Devil was the first Protestant, and Our Lady was the first Catholic.
Frank,
I’m not sure whether PE ‘has my number’ or not.
I would like people to make distinctions when they talk about the state of the church today. The experience of the church over the last 50 years has not been uniform. The very real crisis experienced by the Church in the West is not mirrored in Africa (where the number of Catholics has increased 500%) or parts of Asia. The crisis of the church in Australia is not precisely mirrored in the US. The situation of the church in latin America finds no direct counterpart in other regions of the world.
You ask “why has the Church sold so many of it’s churches and assets?”
You fail to distinguish between the situation of the Church in the Western World and in the developing world.
Nevertheless, whilst the church in the Western World has sold a number of churches in inner cities, it has also built numerous churches in the peripheries of these cities. In Australia, there are vastly more schools today than 50 years ago.The number of catholic churches, schools, hospitals, and seminaries today, at an international level, is greater than 50 years ago.
This is not to deny that in the Western World there has been a collapse in church attendance.That is obvious. What is not obvious is the exact cause or the way in which various factors have contributed to this collapse. To simply assert that Vat II is responsible is absurd – other churches and ecclesial communities have experienced an even worse deterioration in affiliation.
You ask: “Why are there so few priests and religious…?”
There are more priests and vastly more seminarians today than 50 years ago. There are slightly fewer religious.
In Australia, there has been a decline in the number of priests by about 20% in the last 50 years.
Of concern is not the number of priests but the ratio of priests to people.
In Australia, in 1960 there was one priest for every 700 Catholics. At a practice rate of about 60%, this means 1 priest for every 480 church-going Catholics.Today, there is one priest for every 1500 Catholics. At a practice rate of about 15%, this means 1 priest for every 225 church-going Catholics.
I am a diocesan priest. I completed a Masters degree post-ordination in dogmatic theology. I have a licentiate from a Pontifical Institute in Rome. I have partially completed a Doctrorate in Sacred Theology. That’s about all the personal information I’m prepared to give away. What did my seminary training seem to lack?
And still I can’t spell “doctorate”