Recent Posts

Friday, 20 April 2012

In matters of Faith, Morals, and Religious Freedom, the Catholic Church determines the boundaries of any State, not the other way around.

Fascinating that Gramsci and others who did not want the authority and influence of the Church in Europe, South America, and North America understood what most of our priests do not understand about a cohesive, comprehensive approach to Church-State relations. Here is Gramsci in Notebook 5, written in 1930-1931:

The position of the church (referring to the Concordat) is based on the following grounds, which  were accepted, necessarily , with the acceptance of two distinct instruments-the treaty and the concordat-in (establishing) the relations between church and State: the treaty determines the relations between two states; the concordat determines the relations between two sovereignties with the "same state". In other words, it is conceded that withing the same state there are two sovereignties, since they deal with each other on equal footing (each within its own sphere). Naturally, the church maintains that there is no confusion of sovereignties, but it does so because it maintains that in the  "spiritual" sphere the state has no competence to exercise sovereignty, and should it arrogate such a competence unto itself, it would be guilty of usurpation. Furthermore, the  church also maintains that there cannot be a dual sovereignty within the same sphere of purposes, but it does so precisely because it upholds the distinction between ultimate purposes, and it declares itself the sole sovereign of the spiritual realm.

Yes, and this is what so many Americanist bishops and priests, who have fallen into a false idea of the role of the Church is society cannot verbalize or even conceptualize. It is the duty of the State to protect the Church in areas of Faith and Morals. This is much larger than an issue of "religious liberty" or the American Constitution, although the written Constitution is a great help. 

Until seminaries teach the Catholic political philosophy and not socialism or communism, which is done in some cases, until priests and bishops learn to articulate the Catholic position of the Church as being a sovereignty in Her own right, as the Institution created by Christ on earth for order and spiritual growth, the conversation and activity of bishops is merely putting out fires, such as "civil unions" and "abortion" or "contraception", instead of a united, institutional stand. I have heard one priest in a seminarian refer to the Church as the "invisible Church", which is Protestant heresy and not Church teaching. We are not only visible, but an institution.

Too many bishops in both Europe and America have sold out to the idea that the Church needs the existing political parties to enunciate the Catholic position. NOT so. The Church must not rely on the socialists or communists, the Democrats or the Republicans to uphold the Teaching Magisterium in the world. The Catholic Church in America has been too influenced by Protestantism, which insists on a complete separation of Church and State, and the Church in Europe is too influenced by socialism and communism.

These situations mean that the Church has been terribly weakened in the political and social spheres. That the teaching of the Church gives certain rights and sovereignty to the various States, be they monarchies, democracies or whatever, is a practical solution to the end of Christendom. 
However, the Church must never back down when facing opposition and fall into a siege mentality, when the Truth is on Her side, as it were. In fact, the definition of the State comes from Catholic teaching; that is, the Church determines the boundaries of any State, not the other way around.

Our seminaries in the States have become too anti-intellectual, too individualized, too un-spiritual and too psychological in formation and training. One only has to look at what the required courses are and what the electives are to see the problems. My two friends, one a transitional deacon, and one who will be ordained a transitional deacon next year, have NEVER had a course on either the History of the Catholic Church, or an entire course on the Church's social teaching, the latter which was only a small section of a larger course, emphasizing only the pastoral aspects and not the doctrinal ones. 

This is unbelievably stupid! Without an understanding of the Church's teaching on Church-State relationships, the priests will fall into individual, ad hoc, ideals. And, with the majority of South American and Central American seminaries being sold on Liberation Theology to this day, as I have discovered when teaching young men from those seminaries, what chance is there for a Catholic view of politics entering the level of parish catechesis? 

Liberalism infected the Church a long time ago. The effects in Europe, perhaps, are more obvious than in America. However, the naivete of the seminary training and the lack of obedience in not applying the Oath and Promise of Blessed John Paul II and the implementation of  Ex Corde Ecclesiae in the seminaries will have serious consequence for the Church in America, as well as in Europe. I have put the link to the CDF's document many times on this blog. Here is it again.


Not only should instructors and pastoral care assistants, such as psychologists and counselors need to be under these documents, but the boards and administrators as well. Disobedience is a sign of both Americanism and other modernist heresies in a seminary.

That most governments have now become so secularized, become socialist, or even communist in philosophy indicates that the Church must be on the offensive, not the defensive. That most adult Catholics themselves cannot think outside the materialist philosophical systems shows how far the rot of bad or absent catechesis has set in. If the laity do not insist on good teaching, it may not happen. 

Last year's huge kerfuffle over the unapproved economic document released from the Vatican, shows how far the Church has been lax in the area of political and economic intellectual life. We have become so protestant that we cannot see how Reason has been thrown out the door for an emphasis on personal, experiential religion, which ignores political philosophy and social doctrines. I partly blame the charismatic movements in the States for this anti-intellectualism, and mostly the seminaries, who no longer teach leadership training or even push for high standards of academic success.

St. Anselm, we need one reformer of the seminaries like you now. St. Pius IX, we need you now to inspire Catholic politicians and bishops to understand their own Faith.

4 comments:

Catholic Mission said...

ECCLESIA DEI’S ADVICE TO THE INSTITUTE OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD IS SCARY
Ecclesia Dei-CDF cause of unintentional dissent and liberalism

At first communities who offer the Traditional Latin Mass are invited to enter the Church with full canonical status .The discussion on Vatican Council II is to be continued later. After a few years Ecclesia Dei recommends that they follow the Catechism of the Catholic Church; the liberal version with errors. The liberal interpretation of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and Ecclesia Dei assumes there is a visible baptism of desire which contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. If the traditionalists do not accept it an ‘ecclesial rupture’ could follow.

The fault is also there with the traditionalist communities as it is with the CDF, they are not aware of the root cause of the liberal interpretation of the Catechism or Vatican Council II If they were aware - they would point out the precise error of the CDF and the problem could be resolved.

The Institute of the Good Shepherd, unlike the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), is willing to accept Vatican Council II as a continuity with Tradition. So for them it should be easy to identify the CDF's unintentional error and to get rid of it. They can follow the Catechism of the Catholic Church which would not be difficult. The Catechism can be interpreted according to Tradition.

Much of the liberalism and dissent that we see in the Church is not just general liberalism it has a specific cause and when identified it can be corrected. It has to be corrected formally by the CDF and Ecclesia Dei.

There is hope for the future. There must come a time when Catholics understand what the precise problem is, and they ask the pope or the Curia precise questions. Presently in ignorance they are not even asking the relevant questions.

A time must come when the IGS, FSSP and SSPX shout out in frustration “There is no visible baptism of desire!”

“Only God knows who is saved in invincible ignorance!”

“You do not know a single case saved with a good conscience”

“Can you identify who is saved with the seeds of the Word?!”

“There is nothing in the Catechism or Vatican Council II which contradicts the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus!”

“Vatican Council II says outside the church there is no salvation”

“The Catechism can be interpreted as a continuation of Tradition and you can’t fool me!”
-Lionel Andrades

SSPX -DICI SAYS ECCLESIA DEI HAS ASKED THE INSTITUTE OF THE GOOD SHEPHARD TO FOLLOW THE CATECHISM
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/sspx-dici-says-ecclesia-dei-has-asked.html

Catholic Mission said...

PROFESSORS AT THE LEGIONARIES OF CHRIST UNIVERSITIES IN ROME SUPPORT THE SSPX POSITION ON OTHER RELIGIONS

Fr.Rafael Pascual L.C, Dean of Philosophy at the University Pontificial Regina Apostolorum(UPRA) and Mr. Corrada Gnerre a Professor of Philophical Anthropology at the Universita Europa di Roma affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

They also know that we do not know any case of a non Catholic saved who can be an exception to the defined dogma. The text of the dogma also does not mention invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire since they know at that possibilities were not defacto exceptions to the dogma which says all need to convert into the Church for salvation.

The dogma is in agreement with Vatican Council II(AG 7) and LG 16 is not an exception as is often claimed.

So Vatican Council II is in agreement with the traditional teaching of the church on ecumenism and other religions which has also been that of the traditionalists Society of St.Pius X, Institute of the Good Shepherd and the Priestly Fraternity of St.Peter (FSSP).-Lionel Andrades


LEGIONARY OF CHRIST PRIEST FR.RAFAEL PASCUAL AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/10/legionary-of-christ-priest-frrafael.html

CATHOLIC LAY PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITA EUROPA DI ROMA AFFIRMS DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/10/catholic-lay-professor-at-universita.html#links

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/professors-at-legionaries-of-christ.html#links

Catholic Mission said...

CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN ROME WHO OFFER THE NOVUS ORDO MASS IN ITALIAN UNKNOWINGLY SUPPORT THE SSPX POSITION ON OTHER RELIGIONS: THEY CONFIRM THAT THERE IS NO CASE KNOWN OF BEING SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE (LG 16)IN THE PRESENT TIME
So if the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumes that the baptism of desire contradicted the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus they made a mistake.


The participants in the Vatican-SSPX talks also did not realize that there are no explicit exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II, to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Catholic priests in Rome to whom I spoke to, say that there is no known case of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.Some say quite plainly that the baptism of desire etc do not contradict the literal intepretation of the dogma. Others do not want to comment further.

They know that we have returned to the centuries old intepretation of the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and this is essentially the positon of the Society of St.Pius X on ecumenism and inter religious dialogue.


It means Vatican Council II (AG 7) says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation-just as the SSPX teaches,and there are no known exceptions, this includes invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16).


So the priests are really saying, but do not want to put it into words, that Vatican Council II holds to the traditional teaching on Hindus,Jews, Buddhists,Muslims etc.


While priests who offer Mass in Italian here admit there is no visible baptism of desire there is no such comment from SSPX theologians.The SSPX bishops still believe that Vatican Council II contradicts the traditional teaching on ecumenism and other religions.Since, the bishops assume, there is a visible baptism of desire.


The Novus Ordo-priests are pointing to the traditional teaching in Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades

Supertradmum said...

I am publishing comments which I am not sure have much to do with the topic at hand. However, other guests may want to weigh in on these points. Please try and stick to the topic, however. This is not a forum for those who completely disagree with Vatican II, but a place where Catholics can come to conclusions regarding the teachings of the Church from those within the Church. Again, please stick to the topic of Church-State relations.