On January 30th, I received in the mail a book sent to me by my close friend, and brother in Christ, Rory—the same Rory who frequently comments here at AF—much thanks Rory!
A couple of days before the reception of the book, Rory had given me a 'heads-up' that he was sending the tome to me. Prior to my reading of the book, I knew virtually nothing about Padre Pio, apart from the claims that he was a stigmatist and miracle worker (I did not even know that he had been canonized by John Paul II).
I finished the contribution yesterday, reading portions of the book everyday since last Saturday, whilst supplementing those readings with a good deal of online research to provide greater depth to what I was learning.
The book was originally written in Italian by two Italian authors—Alessandro Gnocchi and Mario Palmaro—and translated into English by Marianna Gattozzi. It is divided into two main parts: “Part One – Toward the Lord" (4 chapters - pp. 21-104), and “Part Two – The Abuse of the Enemy and the Caress of Grace" (5 chapters - pp. 107-194).
“The Prologue – In The Devil’s Territory” (pp. 1-18), sets the tone for “Part One”. Under the sub-heading, “The Mass cannot change”, the following is provided from the lips of Padre Pio: “My mission…will end when on Earth the Mass will no longer be celebrated…The World could even exist without sunlight, but not without the Holy Mass” (p. 5).
On page 7, our authors quote the following from the 19th century liturgical scholar, Dom Prosper Gueranger:
From the terminology used by the Church we understand how much the Holy Mass surpasses personal devotions. Therefore, the Mass must be kept first among all of them, and its intentions must be respected. This is how the Church makes all its members partakers of this great sacrifice; therefore, should the Sacred Sacrifice of the Mass cease, it will not be long before we will fall back into the abyss of depravity where the pagans once were, and this would be the work of the Antichrist. He will all means he can to impede the celebration of the Holy Mass, so that this great counterbalance might be abolished, and thus God will put an end to all things, having no more reason to keep them in existence.
They then write:
During the last years of his life, Padre Pio was weighed down by the realization that the words of Dom Gueranger were becoming more and more manifest in the world. (Ibid.)
And:
If many of Padre’s spiritual sons, because of their fidelity to the Mass of all time, had been rejected by the majority of the churchmen of the 1960’s who had taken the new path, it is easy to suppose the the first stigmatic priest in history would of foreseen the crisis and would suffer the consequence. It was a dramatic event never seen before because, for the first time, the Mystical Body of Christ was lacerated through the attempt to revolutionize the sacrifice offered at the alter. (Page 13)
Immediately following the above assessment, the authors take us way back to the 2nd century—specifically, to St. Irenaeus—and relate the following:
The words of S. Irenaeus of Lyon, in his treatise Against the Heresies, are hard to forget, even by those in more remote areas, focused on the timelessness of the Mass. The importance of the words lies in their connection with the work of Padre Pio. Such a link reveals itself in all its disquieting evidence. "For this reason," explains St. Irenaeus, talking about the coming of the Antichrist,
Daniel says: "The sanctuary will be desolate: sin has been offered instead of sacrifice, and justice has been thrown to the ground. He did it and he was successful."
St. Irenaeus also writes:
The angel Gabriel [...] then, in order to indicate the length of the tyranny, during which the saints who offer to God a pure sacrifice will be put to flight, declares: "And in the middle of the week the sacrifice and the libation will be suppressed and in the temple the abomination of desolation will take place, and until the end of time the desolation will be accomplished." [...] the things [...] that Daniel prophesied regarding the end of times have been proved by The Lord, when He says: "When you will see the abomination of desolation prophesied by Daniel."
The abomination of desolation prophesied by Daniel, confirmed by Our Lord, and recalled by St. Irenaeus, is, undoubtedly, a world without the Mass. (Page 14)
The authors' provocative interpretation of Daniel's prophecy seems foundational to their understanding of Padre Pio's unique role in the unfolding of the end times. Attention is drawn to the length that Pardre Pio had the stigmata—exactly 50 years to the day—with the stigmata vanishing just prior to his final mass.
Padre Pio's intense devotion to the sacrifice of the Mass via the Traditional Roman Rite Liturgy is detailed in "Part One" of their book, as well as their belief that the Novus Ordo mass is a grave corruption.
The following selection is the authors’ detailed description of the consequences that have followed the institutionalization the Novus Ordo mass:
The results became evident in the decades that followed. We saw emptied convents and monasteries, decimated vocations, and infatuation for the world and its sweetly anti-Christ sirens, a feverish spirit of continuous reforms with inevitable loss of any sense of hierarchy and obedience, parish priests rebelling against their pastors, pastors revolting against their bishops, bishops dissenting with the pope, sacraments considered a minor bureaucracy to be avoided, deserted confessionals, the practice of prayer annihilated, liturgical creativity to the point of parody, a fading faith in the Rea Presence, empty tabernacles and tabernacles removed from the altars, the Blessed Sacrament hidden in the sacristies, altars reduced to workplace cafeteria tables, relics and sacred books sold in flea markets...All of them are bad fruits of the abandonment of the Mass of all time and of the good doctrine which, naturally and supernaturally, goes along with it. (Page 67)
"Part Two" relates of number supernatural events throughout the life of Padre Pio. Chapter 1, "The Devil Exists, I Met Him", deals with Padre Pio's lifelong battles against Satan and his demonic hosts. It also includes three important visions that he had received in 1903 (pp. 120-124). Chapter 2, deals with Padre Pio's interactions with souls in Purgatory. Chapter 3 with the confessional and the conversion of some skeptics.
Chapter 4, "The Little Flowers of San Giovannia Rototndo", is my personal favorite of the book. It is a concise history of Padre Pio's life, with additional supernatural, historical events related. The chapter begins with the following:
Bilocaton, scents and extraordinary aromas, the ability to “see" the thoughts of people, knowledge of diverse languages without having ever studied them, descents into Hell, visits to Purgatory, healings, prophecies, and conversions: Padre Pio’s case is one of a kind, the case of a man who had experienced an unusual abundance of phenomena definitely inexplicable, at least according to the categories of science and the physical world. (Page 161)
So much more could be included in this 'review' of mine; but I shall end here, hoping that what I have written will encourage many to obtain, and read, this fascinating contribution.
Grace and peace,
48 comments:
Dave, hi.
I have bought the book for three friends now. I see value in it in three distinct ways.
1) For the Non-Catholic--It presents a quandary. Why is God doing all of these wonders in the 20th Century with this man?
2) For the Non-Traditional conservative Catholic--I refer to sincere souls who followed the promise of "a new springtime in the Church" through the implementation of the principle of the Second Vatican Council. How long does John Paul II's promised "new springtime" take? Obviously, it did not happen in his lengthy pontificate. Jesus told us we would know the good shepherds from the bad by their fruits.
This book shows the only priest in history to bear the stigmata to be rigorously opposed to the reforms proposed by Vatican II, both in regards to the liturgy and the new constitutions drawn up by his own religious order. In 1966, after it had been explained to him how these new changes were necessary, foreseeing the disaster that was coming upon his own religious order as a result, he proclaims to the Superior General of the Capuchins: "Let us not pervert ourselves. On the day of God's judgment, St. Francis will not recognize us as his sons." Later, when the Assistant General of the Order tries to soften up the venerable saint to the reforms explaining how the young people are not drawn to "tonsures, bare feet, and habits" he gives a rather difficult answer for those any who would defend the reforms while claiming St. Pio as one who was pleased them: "Throw them out! Throw them out! Tell me...is it they who do St. Francis the favor of wearing the habit and following his way of life, or is it St. Francis who gives them a gift?"
I have complained often on this site about the destruction of the liturgy. I have not spoken about the ruination of the religious orders. This book introduces both of these subjects. The conservative Catholic who still believes in John Paul II's new springtime should at least be familiar with the reasons why other faithful Catholics, and apparently Padre Pio, see the implementation of the Vatican II reforms as a disaster for the Catholic Church.
3) For Traditional Catholics--It is a refreshing reminder that miracles occur in the modern era. I also find myself pondering Padre Pio's simplistic but profound ideas on how the Mass is the reenactment of Calvary. How should we got to Mass? As Padre Pio reasons, If the Mass is the reenactment of Calvary, then we should go to it, like the Mother of God, St. John and the other women, who had their love increased even more by beholding the sufferings of the Innocent Lamb of God who was offering Himself a sacrifice for them. During Holy Mass, the faithful Catholic must make continual attempts to picture himself or herself where they are in reality, at Calvary.
------------ to be continued.
What is explained in this book about the Mass is also why it is so important to not have a merely valid consecration. In a way, I wish I did not believe that the New Mass has the essential form of consecration. A valid consecration made in a setting that at its best, without the mistranslations, without the scandalous, clownish, and foolish performances of priests who seem trained to trained to entertain the people, and putting Calvary in the background, is still defective in form, diminishing our utter need for mercy, and diminishing the sacrificial nature of the Mass. After all the New Mass was written, according to its principle author, Annibale Bugnini, with a view to remove everything from it that could offend the Protestant. There is a LOT in the Traditional Mass that is anathema to Protestants! Here is where the liturgical reforms of Vatican II dovetail with the ecumenical thrust of the council.
I would remark that at this time, I could not think we have reached "the abomination of desolation", spoken of by St. Irenaeus and Daniel the Prophet. The Traditional Mass is surging, certainly to the devil's chagrin. Young families with parents who were born well after the Council are having large families with vocations to the priesthood and religious life. If we looked at the situation of the Apostles at the time of the Ascension of our Lord, who could have thought that after a few generations they could ever establish the reign of Christ on earth? We cannot underestimate the potential for a new fire to be cast upon the earth, with new apostles and a new Pentecost going forth into a new paganism, and capturing the hearts and minds of souls weary of this modern world and its false promises for happiness in this life without happiness in the next.
IF the Lord tarries His coming, Traditionalists should be able to see the seeds of a TRUE new springtime. Maybe we will have to give up the buildings of our Fathers to the Apostates who will have taken them over. But we would be faithless not to hope that a new springtime should happen among those Catholics who have learned that when the shepherds behave as wolves, the sheep have the right and obligation to defend themselves. When the shepherds betray Christ, the sheep are bound to disobey their "shepherds". We can see from this book, that even before the New Mass was promulgated, Padre Pio saw Vatican II and its reforms as such a betrayal.
Hi Rory,
Thanks much for sending me the book, and sharing your insightful reflections on it in your last two posts.
The last two paragraphs of your second post have certainly given me much to ponder.
Currently, I am reading another book on Padre Pio: “Padre Pio Under Investigation – The Secret Vatican Files". I suspect that you would enjoy reading it too.
Google Preview
From the Igantius Press webstie we read:
>>On June 14, 1921, a priest knocks at the convent in San Giovanni Rotondo. He is in his early forties and wears a simple cassock, but he is no ordinary priest. He is Bishop Raffaello Carlo Rossi, future cardinal and the Apostolic Visitor sent by the Holy Office to investigate secretly Padre Pio.
The Bishop Inquisitor remains with the Capuchin Brothers for eight days, interrogating and recording depositions. He also interviews Padre Pio himself and examins the mysterious wounds of Christ that he bears on his body.
After gathering all the evidence, the Inquisitor sketches his own evaluation of Padre Pio, which includes his reasons for believing that the stigmata are of divine origin. He sends his report and the depositions to Rome, where they stay buried for nearly a century. Now, forty years after the saint's death, these exceptional documents are published in their entirety, thanks to the skillful research of Father Francesco Castelli.
The documents in this book reveal every aspect of Padre Pio's life from his amazing supernatural gifts to his health. In his depositions, he admits, under oath, to the phenomenon of bi-location and to other supernatural charisms, and for the first time tells the detailed story of his stigmatization. Also included are letters from his spiritual father and a chronology of his life.>>[Igantius Press link]
God bless,
David
Hi David and Rory,
I too am humbled by Padre Pio and various stigmatists. There is a website called "Mystics of the Church" which has bucket loads of stories. I notice there are a few Protestant stigmatics as well, the most recent being an Evangelical lady from the Solomon islands which was verified by the Catholic church over there (not mentioned on that website).
There also seems to be spiritual deception around some of the stigmatists, I think (there are some weird Satanic experiences mentioned) & some defend a notion of co-redemption which seems to be outside the rule of faith.
Also there is some ambiguity about Padre Pios rejection of the Norvus Ordo (I looked it up on google). This website makes a good defense for it: https://crc-internet.org/our-doctrine/catholic-counter-reformation/catholic-mass.html
Liturgy was also part of Development of Doctrine and I dont think it has the same level of authority as Scripture, but that's from a non-Catholic angle. I hope this doesn't get Rory "blowing of some steam" :)
Cheers
Dennis
Hi Dennis,
Thanks much for bringing attention to the MYSTICS OF THE CHURCH website—very interesting!
Personally, I am still processing the case of Padre Pio (as well as the whole issue of stigmata). The following from Padre Pio Under Investigation should give to pause to anyone studying this issue:
>>In dealing with Padre Pio’s case, the Dominican Father Lemius had advanced four possible hypotheses of causes of the phenomenn [stigmata]:
1. hypothesis of self-inflicted stigmata ad intrinseco, through the morbid condition of a pathological nature;
2. hypothesis of self-inflicted stigmata ad estrinseco, through suggestion or voluntary application of artificial means;
3. hypothesis of stigmata of divine origin;
4. hypothesis of stigmata of diabolic origin.>>
I have narrowed down the possible options to the last two hypotheses—the first two are virtually impossible to reconcile with the extant data.
You wrote:
==There also seems to be spiritual deception around some of the stigmatists, I think (there are some weird Satanic experiences mentioned)==
Agreed.
==& some defend a notion of co-redemption which seems to be outside the rule of faith.==
Perhaps “co-redemption" is too strong a term to define what Paul meant to convey in the following verse:
>>Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church;>> (ASV - Colossians 1:24)
I think that Prots have a difficult task before them when attempting to interpret the above verse if they begin with a strict understanding of ‘salvation by faith alone'.
In ending, I am deeply pondering over a number issues/phenomenon I have recently been exploring—e.g. Akita, Fatima, La Salette, bilocation, private revelation/s, stigmata. I suspect I will add to the above list as I read the posts at the MYSTICS OF THE CHURCH site.
Grace and peace,
David
Dennis
Liturgy was also part of Development of Doctrine and I dont think it has the same level of authority as Scripture, but that's from a non-Catholic angle. I hope this doesn't get Rory "blowing of some steam" :)
Rory
Dennis, hey. You're good with me on this. No steam. The liturgy is dependent on Scripture. No Scripture, no liturgy.
Hello Rory, David, and Dennis;
I was aware that Padre Pio was a Stigmatist. I hadn’t heard of some of the other things like “co-location.” That is very interesting.
As a thoroughgoing heretic, I paid particular attention to Rory’s #1, and as one interested in what Rory’s position concerning #2 has to say about my heretic-ness I also think about that a lot.
I have long said that I am a “spiritual inclusivist.” This is as contrasted with a “spiritual exclusivist” or a “spiritual pluralist.” I do not believe that the spiritual experiences present in non-LDS traditions after the restoration of the gospel are always from the adversary, nor do I think spiritual experience present in non-LDS traditions after the restoration provide evidence that God’s Prophet is not uniquely at the head of the CoJCoLDS. I believe that God works with people where they are. As a side note, I believe that the Restoration was born into an environment where many Protestants embraced cessationism which was part of the Restoration melee.
It is my opinion that the ONLY VIABLE position on the Restoration of the Gospel through Joseph Smith for the Catholic is the one that Rory has embraced. Namely that the spiritual experiences, miracles, and evidences associated with the foundational truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have genuine supernatural components, but those components are a product of the adversaries work to damn souls to hell. In other words, “the Devil did it.” (at least in many areas, there are other areas were fallen men can naturally accomplish some of what is in the record).
It is my opinion that such an explanation is not necessary for a LDS to explain what we find in the life of Padre Pio or even in the miracles of Fatima or ???. I would say that the best read of the evidence is that Padre Pio died and discovered that Joseph Smith restored aspects of Christ’s Church, but that this “revelation” was a joyous one as it came with the words of Christ, “well done thou good and faithful servant” AND that his divine experiences enhanced his piety and contributed to his divine servantness. It is however theoretically possible that Padre Pio’s extraordinary supernatural experiences hindered the Restoration somehow and thus Satan was served by (and sourced) the supernatural activity.
Concerning #2, there are volumes of reasons to not be a LDS. One could surely say:
There is a simplistic view (not based on historic evidence our critics like to site) of the CoJCoLDS that is very prevalent within the church and not aggressively batted down by church leaders. That this “simplistic view” is in some type of conflict with the view many LDS who engage criticism of our church hold. Thus, this internal conflict is a reason to reject the truth claims both groups agree upon.
That being said, this “internal conflict” IMO is like a single gnat flying around when compared to the roaring lion present within Catholicism when one takes seriously the view that Vatican II is not the 17th Ecumenical Council, the New Mass is defective (though valid or invalid), and Pope Francis profoundly misunderstands what it is to be a Catholic.
Perhaps in a few decades, engaging with the Saints like Padre Pio will result in a reunification up and down the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that Levebre, modern Sedevacantist (not Levebre followers), and more liberal minded Catholics (who walk with Pope Francis today) all embrace. Today however, while I do not think this “soft schism” would lead to me being a “Restorationist in Waiting,” it certainly does not invite me to reject the Restorationist tradition I embrace.
Let me conclude by saying that I think the witness of Padre Pio is wonderful and remarkable. It is important that spiritual traditions produce such men (and women). I do not wish to detract from the witness of Padre Pio, I just want to say that Rory’s 1 and 2 are not as strong as he might like IMO.
Charity, TOm
Hi David,
Firstly I made a mistake regarding the Evangelical stigmatist, it was in Samoa:
https://cathnews.co.nz/2016/10/07/samoan-stigmata-becomes-catholic/
Also, my comments about co-redemption are valid if you read some of those articles. I don't think you can add to the work of Christ. However I believe the sufferings mentioned by Paul relate to Him suffering through us as we are in Him. As we share His mission His suffering is extended to our particular situation and we suffer as co-workers.
Lastly for Rory, I think that link I supplied on the Counter Reformation website is a good defense for the Novus Ordo. As a High Anglican I think our church uses elements from both & as liturgy has developed across East & West I think one can get bogged down in defending something that is allowed to change over time (as long as the change isnt destructive to orthodoxy).
Cheers
Dennis
Hi Tom,
Thanks much for sharing your thoughts on Padre Pio and other germane events. I was hoping that Rory would have responded by now given the general thrust of your post, but I can wait no longer to share some of my own musings. You wrote:
==It is my opinion that such an explanation is not necessary for a LDS to explain what we find in the life of Padre Pio or even in the miracles of Fatima or ???. I would say that the best read of the evidence is that Padre Pio died and discovered that Joseph Smith restored aspects of Christ’s Church, but that this “revelation” was a joyous one as it came with the words of Christ, “well done thou good and faithful servant” AND that his divine experiences enhanced his piety and contributed to his divine servantness. It is however theoretically possible that Padre Pio’s extraordinary supernatural experiences hindered the Restoration somehow and thus Satan was served by (and sourced) the supernatural activity.==
The book reviewed in this thread relates a number of accounts of lapsed Catholics who returned to the Church with vigor. It also chronicles some conversions. It is difficult for me to put a positive spin on such events if the RCC is an apostate/false church—i.e. "church of the devil"—an integral aspect of the LDS paradigm as related via the BoM and a number of LDS apostles.
If memory serves me correctly, an important aspect of the early LDS missionary efforts was to counter the “cessationism" which you mentioned. The BoM asks: “has the day of miracles ceased?"; and, "have angels ceased to appear unto the children of men?"
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints adamantly says NO to both questions. But then, so does the RCC. If the supernatural events related throughout the history of the RCC are true, then the need for a ‘restoration’ seems highly suspect.
Have I missed something…
Grace and peace,
David
Hello David!
You said:
The book reviewed in this thread relates a number of accounts of lapsed Catholics who returned to the Church with vigor. It also chronicles some conversions. It is difficult for me to put a positive spin on such events if the RCC is an apostate/false church—i.e. "church of the devil"—an integral aspect of the LDS paradigm as related via the BoM and a number of LDS apostles.
TOm: I am aware that Elder McConkie linked Catholicism to “the church of the devil,” (as have others) but this linkage has been largely rejected by LDS leaders, scholars, and members. If lapsed Catholics are filled with faith because of the witness of Padre Pio, this serves God! The Church of the Devil is responsible for the invitation to cease to have faith in God because the Pope is not Catholic, Joseph Smith was a polygamist, or Christ was merely a “marginal Jew.” This of course is not Rory’s message nor mine.
In 2014 Elder Oaks well expressed what I have come to believe about the passages in the BOM you reference. His talk:
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/witnesses-of-god
“… this great and abominable church must be something far more pervasive and widespread than a single “church” as we understand that term today. It must be any philosophy or organization that opposes belief in God. And the “captivity” into which this “church” seeks to bring the saints will not be so much physical confinement as the captivity of false ideas.”
You said:
If memory serves me correctly, an important aspect of the early LDS missionary efforts was to counter the “cessationism" which you mentioned. The BoM asks: “has the day of miracles ceased?"; and, "have angels ceased to appear unto the children of men?"
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints adamantly says NO to both questions. But then, so does the RCC. If the supernatural events related throughout the history of the RCC are true, then the need for a ‘restoration’ seems highly suspect.
TOm: I agree that cessationism was part of the melee into which the Restoration occurred. I agree that it is inappropriate to call Catholicism cessationist. I however suggest that like the doctrine of deification (in Catholic teaching and self-understanding), the rejection of cessationism was not something emphasized. That being said, the CESSATIONISM that I believe was condemned by God when He restored Christianity was the idea that Supernatural Public Revelation had ceased with the Apostles. The idea that the ancient Apostles could produce inspired scripture, but no church leader after them could. To me this “cessation” is the key to both the apostacy and the restoration.
Finally, my point is not to be an apologist for Padre Pio who I believe was a good Christian. My point is that if one approaches Padre Pio and Joseph Smith with the same degree of skepticism they can either declare both are frauds (probably because they believe in a Christian cessationism OR an Atheistic rejection of all supernatural) or they can declare both experienced the supernatural. The Catholic who believes both experienced the supernatural in my opinion MUST conclude the devil was involved in the supernatural interaction Joseph Smith experienced. The LDS in my opinion could consistently declare that the devil was involved in the supernatural interaction with Padre Pio, BUT INSTEAD could consistently declare that God interacted with Padre Pio where Padre Pio was. That God’s purposes are served by enhancing the faith of Padre Pio AND Catholics who become more faithful because of his witness.
I can acknowledge that I doubt in 1950 Elder McConkie would agree with me. This disagreement that I have with the 1950’s McConkie (and some modern disagreements in other areas) is (are) as a gnat to the Lion of problem(s) I see in the Catholic Church today (as I outlined in my #2). I should also say I think David O. McKay and/or Joseph Smith MIGHT agree with me about Padre Pio. And they should .
Charity, TOm
I did add "grin" after I declared that David O. McKay and Joseph Smith should agree with me, but it was set apart as if it was html code and thus disappeared.
You will all forgive me.
Tom is here! A Latter DS that takes somebody else more than seriously. I had not noticed the activity until just now...near midnight on Friday.
Tom. Hi.
I have been busy during the work week at YOUR board, which you ignore all the time. I have been monologuing for the most part. I am not displeased with what I offered about Christian suffering. You will like the conclusion. A tiny bridge. Fragile. NOT a wall. No way that was a wall. I am admittedly always angling for a push RCwards. But I want bridges to you guys and everybody, even though I go to that Latin Mass which only makes Pharisees who hates everybody else and wants walls...so I can be separated from the unholy ones...according to somebody in Rome. I put it on the end of some thread about somebody in Brazil who was shot wielding a knife in a mission training center.
Things have changed in ten or fifteen years. In 2008, Barack Obama ran on a ticket that affirmed that marriage was between a man and a woman. That is in the deep and forgotten past. Who that is alive today does not pretend that they always believed that your sexual identity is mental more than it is physical? Screwballs who go to the Latin Mass. Your board is changed with the stupid times. Where are the "Latin Rite" LDS? The "haters" and "wall builders"? You had people who I thought I had much in common with. But the old "screwballs"...(people who believed in objective reality)...have left. Almost everybody that was interesting is gone including you, except for a few times a year. I am disgusted. It seems to me that the threads that generate interest need to be about sex, heterosex, homosex, those alphabet letter kinds of sex, and political ramifications of sexual rights. Before you read this post, there will probably be another thread about LGBTQ, whatever the hell that means. Suffering? Not as interesting I guess.
Sorry for not seeing your posts...and maybe sorry tomorrow for griping about YOUR board. But it is what I think when I haven't finished my last good Scotch late on a Friday night/Saturday morning. Perhaps I can jump in more seriously tomorrow or Sunday. Always good to see you, Tom.
Rory
Hello again Tom,
Thanks for the prompt response to my last post. You wrote:
==TOm: I am aware that Elder McConkie linked Catholicism to “the church of the devil,” (as have others) but this linkage has been largely rejected by LDS leaders, scholars, and members.==
Slight correction—Bruce identified the RCC with Babylon the Great/the Mother of Harlots as mentioned in the book of Revelation and D&C. Other LDS apostles prior to Bruce have done so too.
==“… this great and abominable church must be something far more pervasive and widespread than a single “church” as we understand that term today. It must be any philosophy or organization that opposes belief in God. And the “captivity” into which this “church” seeks to bring the saints will not be so much physical confinement as the captivity of false ideas.”==
Indeed. If you read the germane passages from the BoM, it would be any 'church', sect, group, 'philosophy' or 'organization' that rejects the claims and divine purpose of the 'one true Church'. Hence, the BoM clearly states that "there are save two churches only".
Think about this: if men and events like Padre Pio, Fatima, La Salette, Lourdes, Akita, et al. keep many Catholics Catholic and convert non-Catholics to Catholicism, how is this not problematic? Remember, "there are save two churches only". Do not such men and events in a very real and concrete sense promote the wrong 'church' of the "two churches"? Maybe I am dense, but this seems pretty clearcut to me.
==...the CESSATIONISM that I believe was condemned by God when He restored Christianity was the idea that Supernatural Public Revelation had ceased with the Apostles. The idea that the ancient Apostles could produce inspired scripture, but no church leader after them could. To me this “cessation” is the key to both the apostacy and the restoration.==
Fair enough. But, is your understanding of "CESSATIONISM" the foundational element of apostasy? It seems a bit odd to me that God would take the "keys" away from those early Christians who believed in all the basic doctrines of the Christian faith that were revealed and promoted by Jesus Christ and His apostles, save that idea that canonical Scripture can be added to after the apostolic period. I do not believe that the early Christians maintained (as some Protestants do), that revelation ceased, nor do Catholics.
I have more to say on these important issues, but would like to hear from you on the above before I proceed further.
Grace and peace,
David
Dennis writes:
Also my comments about co-redemption are valid if you read some of those articles. I don't think you can add to the work of Christ. However I believe the sufferings mentioned by Paul relate to Him suffering through us as we are in Him. As we share His mission His suffering is extended to our particular situation and we suffer as co-workers.
Non-Catholics are so scared that if a Christian does anything supernatural that it detracts from God's glory. On that LDS board I mentioned last night, I had explained something about patiently imitating Christ in our sufferings, and especially our deaths. The comment I received my proposition "sounded rather blasphemous". I believe the interlocutor was eventually softened up to the idea. But he seemed at first to have a visceral hostility to patient suffering as an imitation of Christ.
I should be satisfied with that, but I sense that there is no emphasis on the value of suffering in those religions, which include Protestants and Mormons, who cannot figure out what good there is in our suffering here and now. After all Jesus paid everything, they think.
You say above, "I don't think you can add to the work of Christ." Col. 1:24 tells us that there are sufferings of Christ that are "wanting". Christ doesn't accomplish the work without us! He said concerning His singular Passion and Death, "It is finished." He wills His next work to be completed through the Church. His sufferings need to be "filled up" by His disciples. We HAVE to insist on this truth, lest we slip into a damnable sola fide. We can't for the sake of supposedly detracting from Christ's honor, refuse to allow that He is glorified in us, as we are in Him. This is the salvific economy that is explained to us by Jesus Himself, St. Paul, St. James and the rest of the Apostles.
Luther and the Protestants took it upon themselves to decide that God is cheated if there is some mystical way in which the children of the Father, and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ, could be supernaturally elevated, by their participation in Christ's sufferings, to a place of eternal dignity and rank through Him and in Him. Actually I don't think they troubled themselves to humbly ask what was wrong with their novelties. Luther's offspring still teaches that the Fall made man objectively bad. But they are the ones who detract from God's glory by doubting that Christ's redemption restores man to an objective goodness that could possibly qualify him to "fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ".
Sola fide is an outrage, an arrogant and Satanic trick to lure away souls in to a "faith", that damns their souls while despising and making in to an ugly caricature, the way Our Lord really redeems us. In their blind and reckless willingness to disdain 1500 years of church teaching they have lost appreciation about the fulness of why the Son of God is deserving of infinite praise and loving gratitude from creatures most unworthy.
Dennis, what you explain seems perfect to me. It is exactly what Catholics have believed from the beginning as well as in Luther's day: "However I believe the sufferings mentioned by Paul relate to Him suffering through us as we are in Him. As we share His mission His suffering is extended to our particular situation and we suffer as co-workers."
Dennis, just a follow-up. I fear I "steamed" again
I hope to find time to look in to your articles relating to Padre Pio and the new liturgies.
I appreciate your comments above. I understand that you meant Christ was adding to His work THROUGH us. It was a true statement. But the phrasing you used to explain that we cannot add to Christ's work taken by itself, seemed to miss the importance of Christ's members as co-workers or co-redeemers. Christ's disciples are now as necessary to the completion of redemption history as Christ is. I won't say that without us, He can do nothing. But without us, He WILL do nothing. That is why He is up there, and His Mystical Body remains down here, so that as He obeyed the Father, being sent by the Father, so we, sent by the Son, obey and glorify the Son thereby.
Another thought. Does God the Father lose glory because He had a Son and gave Him ALL of His nature so that there is no ontological distinction? Surely we need not worry about that. There is a parallel here. The Son redeems fallen man. We are creatures and always will be an ontological distinction, but does it rob Christ of glory if He exalts the redeemed creatures to the maximum, Fathers and theologians not fearing to call His children "gods". By allowing the Body of Christ to partake of the divine nature the Son received from the Father, does it make Father and Son less worthy of praise? Does it diminish the amount of divine nature available to be shared. No more so than the generation of the Son by the Father.
This is preaching to the choir here, and I will stop "steaming". Heh...Liturgy next I hope. Thanks Dennis.
Rory
I should probably make a reply next to Tom's post comparing the problems of LDS claims versus those of Catholics:
Tom
That being said, this “internal conflict” IMO is like a single gnat flying around when compared to the roaring lion present within Catholicism when one takes seriously the view that Vatican II is not the 17th Ecumenical Council, the New Mass is defective (though valid or invalid), and Pope Francis profoundly misunderstands what it is to be a Catholic.
Tom, hi. I like your analogy between the gnat and the lion, but it seems to me to forget about a much bigger picture that has to kept in mind when we evaluate the times in which we live. I hope you can appreciate why I don't ultimately find the lion to be able to making much noise.
I did not quote your paragraph outlining what you consider problematic within LDS circles today. I read it but did not understand probably because I have never been very keenly interested in or aware of LDS "problems" except their problem of apostasy, what LDS think of the Catholic Church. My purpose in writing is not to alienate anyone from their LDS beliefs except because they are drawn to believe that Joseph Smith's "Restoration of the Church" was based on false assumptions and/or ignorance about the Catholic Church.
Your pointing to a crisis in the 20th and 21st Centuries that was predicted beforehand by a number of modern day Catholic prophecies does not establish that the Catholic Church was or is in need of Restoration. This "difficulty" cannot be an aid in making a Catholic wonder if the Catholic Church was apostate when LDS need it to be, in the golden age of the Christian martyrs who converted a pagan empire.
If these "difficulties" are in any sense a "lion", it roars out to the truth of a Catholic Church which in the times of Joseph Smith, and early days of the Restoration, was receiving accurate, but disconcerting revelations about the affliction that the Church would need to endure in the years ahead. The Catholic Church made known its acceptance and approval of the prophecies about grave circumstances for the Catholic Church in the near future.
One might as well say that a Catholic who lived at the time of these messages should have left at that time because they were unbelievable (even though the Church accepted them). THAT would be more reasonable than to say that the Catholics who are privileged to be alive and see for themselves the fulfillment of these modern revelations should be troubled about their faith.
Even if doubting these consoling revelations,(Consoling to those of us who believe in continuing revelation and are seeing these times) the Christian needs to evaluate, not 60, not 200, but 2,000 years of Church history. We cannot judge today with disregard for yesterday. If one did make that mistake, while also "despising prophecy", the best one could say about LDS claims is that they were premature. Such an already weak apostasy claim was never complete until the 21st Century anyway. Why would that lead anyone to wonder about a 19th Century Restoration?
Thanks for your consideration, Tom.
Regards,
Rory
Dennis, hi again. I still need to get over to that site you mention that would challenge my evaluation about Padre Pio as being a likely critic of the New Mass. I won't forget, but it might be a few days or even next weekend before I can comment. Thanks for your patience.
Rory
Hello Rory,
Glad to see you. I am behind now.
Your welcome to AF post suggested that I had failed to be part of “my board.” I am sure you mean MADB, and I fail a lot. At least I no longer post on your board (Catholic Answers).
I did read some of your posts at MADB and I applaud your emphasis upon “offering up” suffering. I connect that (and it might be connected at MADB, but I didn’t see it) to some of your comments in your post to which I am responding.
God can do all things, but I do not see a solution to the attitudes concerning same sex marriage that doesn’t involve HUGE miraculous activity unlike what God typically does to right human course. I often think that God’s case could be made by 100 intelligent, compassionate, and articulate folks dropped 60-90 years in the past. These folks would need to do two things. They would need to speak to those who desired same-sex relationships as if they had the flu or downs syndrome not as if they are evil. This I think would help. Secondly, they would need to arrest the changes in the way sex is viewed in society. When sex is for fun (even as the Fonz speaks of it in the sitcom Happy Days), it is impossible to deny sexual expression for those who have same sex attraction they have fun too. When sex is for selling products to us (even when conservatively dressed beautiful young ladies and young men ask us to buy beer or shampoo), it is impossible to not recognize the love and unitive aspects of same sex relationships are MORE appropriate than sex for profit. In fact as JPII very clearly foretold, when sex is completely divorced from procreation through contraception, it is pretty difficult to draw a line that allows this and restricts homosexual sex.
As a less important component of this teaching, there would be a discussion of “offering up” our challenges. This “offering up” would also demand that we not elevate our challenges to worship worthy idols. Today those with what was once called Asperger’s syndrome are still usually told to step out of their comfort zone and engage with nuerotypical people. Their atypical neurological makeup is not viewed a moral failing, but it is also not viewed as a badge of self-worth that demands to be celebrated/acknowledged/lauded by nuerotypical people. This is changing. Autism spectrum disorder MAY go the way of same sex attraction in that it is celebrated. The fact that it is difficult to live among neurotypical folks AND the fact that there is no strong sexual component of this disorder MAY result in continued sanity in this area, but I don’t know. If these 100 folks could teach people to “offer up” their suffering rather than demanding allowances and even celebration of their disorder, much error could be avoided.
Since I find it unlikely that God or anyone will drop these 100 folks into the past, I foresee a day when I embrace a pragmatic solution that recognizes that committed homosexual relationships are better than casual sex of any sort AND it is no longer productive to speak about dropping 100 folks 60-90 years in the past to “fix” something. That day has occasionally arrived for me, and I consider myself to be a very conservative Christian.
Anyway, I hope the above is an OK response to your post. I don’t think it has much to do with Padre Pio, but I will suggest this: To the extent our current societies trajectory makes it impossible for inspired Prophets and/or the Vicar of Christ to speak (no, not “speak” but “communicate”) the truth to Christians (not to mention the truth to non-Christians) the activity of a Padre Pio that could slow/arrest/reverse this trajectory would be a divine positive even if Joseph Smith was God’s prophet and the Pope was a political position occupied usually be a God-fearing Christian man. I think there is more that unites us than that divides us.
Charity, TOm
Hello again David!
I hope you can forgive my mostly off topic comments to Rory!
You said: Think about this: if men and events like Padre Pio, Fatima, La Salette, Lourdes, Akita, et al. keep many Catholics Catholic and convert non-Catholics to Catholicism, how is this not problematic? Remember, "there are save two churches only". Do not such men and events in a very real and concrete sense promote the wrong 'church' of the "two churches"? Maybe I am dense, but this seems pretty clearcut to me.
TOm: The way I read Elder Oaks comments that I linked is that there are two churches only. There is genuine devotion to God and non-genuine devotion to God. I would like to believe that the CoJCoLDS is especially good at creating Christians who are not self-serving in their religious activity, but I have little doubt there are LDS who are not part of the “one church” in this “two churches only” division. To be a LDS and be part of the “church of the devil” is to be prideful, to seek positions for one’s own glory, to do one’s alms in public, to love God for what God can do for you, …. Likewise, I believe there are folks who are genuine disciples of Christ within the Catholic Church. If Padre Pio’s life moves him and others across the “line,” then God is served by the divine activity He initiated with Padre Pio.
My view here does not change the fact that I believe God is in some ways is uniquely at the head of the CoJCoLDS. I am not sure if the pre-Vatican II Catholic can embrace the Vatican II understanding of “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.” (My opinion is “yes, but not as some Catholics do.”). But, as a LDS I say that there is no salvation outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not because all must be visibly united to her, but because salvation is in and through the CoJCoLDS. I mean this in two ways. The first way is directly analogous to be the valid (IMO) way a Catholic might view this. The second way is that the CoJCoLDS has the unique position that we believe non-LDS will be given an opportunity to join post-mortally AND we are busy performing Baptisms for the Dead (and other ordinances in order to communicate/demonstrate (and even “open up”) this truth to those who live and those who have died without being visibly united to God’s Church.
It is my position that Rory will know after he dies that Pius X was not at the head of God’s Church in the full way President Joseph F. Smith was. But it is also quite possible that he would be a luke-warm LDS who always questioned if the God who didn’t create ex nihilo is really any type of God at all; thus his on fire Catholicism is essential to his salvation.
Cont…
David: It seems a bit odd to me that God would take the "keys" away from those early Christians who believed in all the basic doctrines of the Christian faith that were revealed and promoted by Jesus Christ and His apostles, save that idea that canonical Scripture can be added to after the apostolic period. I do not believe that the early Christians maintained (as some Protestants do), that revelation ceased, nor do Catholics.
TOm: I do not know WHY God didn’t ensure that the successors of the apostles were able to receive “public/corporate revelation” and write scripture. My best answer derives from a lengthy essay by Val Larsen: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/a-mormon-theodicy-jacob-and-the-problem-of-evil/
Essentially, before people of faith (Catholics primarily) had communicated that “God is no respecter of persons” the feudal elevation of churchmen (and royals) combined with the unique ability to receive public/corporate revelation would be unsustainable both for “pride in the leaders” and “undue worship in the followers” reasons.
I do not believe that the early Christians maintained that “revelation ceased” until they were confronted with “the new revelation” that Tertullian embraced. I do not suggest that the “new revelation” was divine in origin, merely that Tertullian and many others had no idea that revelation ceased. In confronting the Montanists the Church made it clear that sometime after the apostles public/corporate revelation had ceased.
But, I do not believe the Pope receives “public/corporate revelation” and I do not see that as a consistent view of Catholic teaching. I do not believe he is the successor of the apostles in this important way. I recognize that Catholic’s teach that private revelation has not ceased, but I think Catholic’s teach that “public/corporate revelation” ended after the apostolic years. Patrick Madrid has one of the most succinct statements of this “truth,” but I think it is a pretty consistent teaching from Tertullian till today.
It seems that you (and I know Rory also) reject some of the above as a mischaracterization of Catholicism by me a non-Catholic / ex-Catholic. I am sympathetic to this criticism and I respond with two things. First, I do not invite Rory to believe about his faith what I believe about his faith. He is the world authority on what he believes! Second, despite this, I cannot weight Catholicism based on a view that I think is at odds with the consistent teaching of Catholic leaders for many centuries: many centuries after Tertullian and before the Reformation, and many centuries after the Reformation. There are many places (including Patrick’s book and Vatican II) where Catholicism and Catholics appear to me to be assuring Protestants that they do not believe in new public revelation. Perhaps you will know of some place were some Catholic deals with “no new public revelation” and yet God guides His church with new corporate revelation. I will of course consider this.
Charity, TOm
And to Rory’s next post to me:
Rory: Tom, hi. I like your analogy between the gnat and the lion, but it seems to me to forget about a much bigger picture that has to kept in mind when we evaluate the times in which we live. I hope you can appreciate why I don't ultimately find the lion to be able to making much noise.
TOm: Lion’s and gnats on the other side of bars and glass are not troubling at all. I am not saying that you should be concerned about how the problems I list for Catholicism effect the truth claims of Catholicism. As Newman said, “10000 problems do not a doubt make.” I am saying that those who have not been told by God to be Catholics and those who have not concluded that Catholicism must be true have a Lion outside of a cage they must negotiate before their intellect tells them to be Catholic or they hear God’s voice telling them to be Catholic.
I am a committed LDS. I view the fact that there is a disconnect between folks who have no idea Joseph Smith practiced polygamy and me as not threatening at all to the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS. Where it becomes a problem is that a small but significant percentage of people discover truths they thought were anti-Mormon lies and become less committed and or leave the faith. Folks who are considering join God’s church see the disconnect between folks like me who know anti-Mormon talking points and folks who might claim they are 100% lies and view this as problematic for the truth claims we both espouse. This gnat is not contained, but is smaller than the non-contained lion.
I hope that makes sense.
Further, I do not suggest that Vatican II happened and the SSPX became estranged is when the apostasy began. When Vatican I declared the pope infallible and Dollinger left, I do not suggest that is when the apostasy began. I could point to other ECs with similar post conciliar splits some of which still exist today, but these are not the beginnings of the apostasy. Instead, I suggest that Conciliar Infallibility AND the preservation of the faith once delivered have never been true. When Pope Francis the head of the Catholic Church teaches things antithetical to Catholic truth claims this is a barrier to conversions and a threat to folks with less fixed faith.
Newman lamented the decision to declare the Pope infallible, not because Newman didn’t believe it to be true, but because of the difficulties that would be involved in inviting Anglican’s to God’s church after this definition. Newman is the committed Catholic who knows that a Lion in the cage is nothing to fear, but also knows that to become Catholic for intellectual reasons one must navigate past uncaged difficulties.
I believe faith is real and powerful, but if my faith was enough for you to be a LDS or your faith was enough for me to be Catholic, we would joyously embrace on the same side of the issues that separate us. But what I see as the scandal of Pope Francis serves to confirm in me the view that Catholicism was never quite what it claimed to be (and it surely isn’t what Pope Francis claims it to be either). Good men who are not the infallible Vicar of Christ have prayed for guidance and done wonderful things, but they are not infallible (alone or in concils).
I hope for the day when the things that separate our faith commitments vanish, and I expect it will (though if my understanding is correct, it might arrive after we have died, which is really not that long to wait in an eternity of time). Until then I will pray for you, hope you pray for me, and enjoy our discussions (though perhaps my enjoyment is occasionally sinful enjoyment).
Charity, TOm
More substantive when it isn't Fat Tuesday, my friend.
"Until then I will pray for you, hope you pray for me, and enjoy our discussions (though perhaps my enjoyment is occasionally sinful enjoyment)."
Thank you for your prayers. It appears that is God's will that He save us, greatly because we pray for each other! As it is reduced to in the Apostles Creed, "the communion of saints". Maybe I will enlarge on that another day. Part of my usual daily...for Peter, Peter, Peter...Michael, Frank, Michael...Dave, and Tom. Yeah, I see you. You are there in the list. Sometimes one has to purge. You are there in 2020. It is okay that some have to get covered with "all those for whom I have intended to pray..." You are in the list. With your now expressed hope it is sealed, you are in for my remaining time, you stinking lapsed Catholic.
Rory
Hi guys,
I have been out of town since last Tuesday, so I am just now reading the comments that were posted during my absence.
Tom, you have certainly given me much to ponder over. I want to process your reflections, and then, may share some of my musings over the weekend if I become convinced that to do so enhances the topics at hand.
Rory, some thought provoking responses to Dennis whilst I was gone. I sincerely hope that Dennis will take the time to share some of his thoughts on what you have posted.
Grace and peace,
David
Dennis writes on Feb. 13:
Also there is some ambiguity about Padre Pios rejection of the Norvus Ordo (I looked it up on google). This website makes a good defense for it: https://crc-internet.org/our-doctrine/catholic-counter-reformation/catholic-mass.html
Hi Dennis,
I read the entire article, and missed any reference to Padre Pio. Perhaps there is a different article that would question whether I have all my facts right in suggesting the Padre Pio rejected the liturgical reforms that he lived to see?
Dennis writes on Feb. 19:
Lastly for Rory, I think that link I supplied on the Counter Reformation website is a good defense for the Novus Ordo. As a High Anglican I think our church uses elements from both & as liturgy has developed across East & West I think one can get bogged down in defending something that is allowed to change over time (as long as the change isnt destructive to orthodoxy).
I am afraid that I would have to say that the article gave no more of a "good defense for the Novus Ordo" than I would. I thought it was very well balanced taking all care to avoid bitter zeal, excess indignation, and exaggeration of the value that a reverent Novus Ordo Mass might have for individual Catholics.
On the occasions would I need to visit a Novus Ordo Church, I always genuflect. I say that with a proper intention of an ordained Catholic priest minister who uses the proper matter and the form (words) of the Novus Ordo, that there is a valid consecration of the bread and wine in to the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. I grant the formal validity of the rite. Is that a "good defense for the Novus Ordo"?
It most assuredly is not. I do not suggest for a moment that Padre Pio thought the liturgical reforms resulted in formal invalidity. Catholics also believe in the formal validity of what is called a "Black Mass" said by corrupt priests where the consecrated species are used in Satanic rituals. The article you cited agrees with me about the formal validity of the New Mass (and probably the Black Mass). This is still very far from a good defense for it.
Below I will supply a few quotes from the article which highlight some of my own reasons for contending that the New Mass is valid, but defective. Of course the Novus Ordo isn't as obviously evil as a valid Black Mass, but it does arguably accomplish the work of the Evil one as well. If a valid Catholic rite masks and diminishes distinctive Catholic doctrines regarding the Mass, as can be argued in the case of Pope Paul's Mass, the fruit of such a rite will infallibly result a diminution of faith in those same distinctives, such as the Real Presence of Christ as our Sacrificial Victim.
---to be continued
From the article you cited upon which I think I need not comment except by providing bold highlights where it might be helpful to see that this article, which refrains from imposing its authors' private judgment upon it, argues for why the author is extremely critical of the New Mass.
"Can the canonically licit Mass of Paul VI be said to give instruction on the truth of the Mystery of Faith and to dispose its participants to receive its fruits? Is it free from all error and exempt from all malice? Since Tradition has not yet wrought its work of assimilation and rejection, we cannot be certain about this. It remains a matter of human opinion based on the customary trust placed by the faithful and their Pastors in the Pope and the Church of Rome – a trust which could in exceptional circumstances be deceived…"
As for us, we consider the Missal of Paul VI to be the work of men’s malice. Its definition of the Mass is perversely heretical, its inventions are copies of protestant rites, and its minor alterations are inspired by a doctrinal relativism and an infectious spiritual lethargy, which gradually poisons and misleads those who make use of it. Finally, it has given the green light to every kind of degradation of the sacred rites, even the very worst profanations. Such at least is our opinion, demonstrated, proclaimed, and never refuted.
The authors took great care, and correctly so, in affirming that the Rite of the New Mass is "licit". This means it is promulgated under proper channels of authority. They then proceed to affirm that the essential form of the Mass is valid.
They do this because it is a common practice among opponents of the Traditional Mass to throw up smoke screens whenever they hear criticisms like what follows at the end of the article. They will argue that the New Mass was given by proper authority; it is licit. They will argue that the New Mass contains the essential words; it is formally valid. What they never admit to their followers is that it is something else about the New Mass that cause Traditionalists to be wary and critical. And they hope that their followers will take satisfaction that the New Mass is licit and valid.
I heartily share the reasons these authors give for why liceity and validity are inadequate.
Dennis, I fear you could not have to read the article to the end. I don't blame at all. I don't read every article word for word. Like many who are pleased with liturgical reforms, you understandably figured that if it is licit and valid, there is no other criticism which could be made.
It is a reasonable assumption in many ways. I once rested upon the firm knowledge that the Novus Ordo was valid and licit. What could I want more? I made the assumption that those who criticised the New Mass doubted its validity. It took some exposure to the Traditional Mass before I could begin to appreciate how a valid Mass might detract from the glory of God, and be detrimental to my Catholic faith.
Perhaps you will still disagree with the authors (and me) on this question. But at least you should now see a little better the grounds on which credible opposition to the New Mass usually rests.
To those who have not viewed it---The article concisely covers all the high points from beginning to end. Highly recommended for anyone wishing to understand the position of those who have decided for the Traditional Mass. I might even send it to my dear and devout "Novus Ordo daughter" who often calls her father after her Friday Holy Hour. I hope my ringer has been on! I sure have every reason to hope and believe like the authors, that in spite of deficiencies, that the New Mass can still be an occasion of grace for many.
Rory
---for your convenience, here it is again: https://crc-internet.org/our-doctrine/catholic-counter-reformation/catholic-mass.html
Hi Rory,
I guess you are correct.
I was looking for an online article that had somethiing positive to say about the Novus Ordo amongst all the other articles that trashed it.
That article doesnt mention Padre Pio but doing some google searches I found some blogs refuting his supposed "demonisation" of the Norvus Ordo.
Personally I find the High Anglican liturgy more enriching than the Catholic Charismatic one I occasionally attend. But I guess my take on the new Catholic liturgy would be equivalent to this article: https://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2018/09/29/east-meets-west-in-liturgy/
Since liturgy is a manifestation of the Development of Doctrine through the ages, I dont feel I need to lock myself into a "form". Anything can become corrupted and dishonor God. If you read the Didache or Justin Martyr's comments about the gatherings of the faithful, at the start they were quite simple and unelaborate.
What is more destructive to God's church, the form He is worshipped with (as long as it is orthodox & conveys the mysteries) or the integrity of the priesthood ?
I can say that the Catholic Charismatic priests I know are men of integrity, sound doctrine & mirror the love of Christ. Are they deficient because they use this new liturgy ? Or more importantly, is the love of God not manifest correctly in the mass ?
As much as the mass is a beautiful thing and a vehicle for worship, it is in a sense a transcendental means of connecting with God through ritual. This doesnt come naturally to the "average Joe".
The incarnational aspect comes through the relatability of the priest. Can he image the love of God relationally ? If he can, this becomes an evident welcome to the Eucharistic table. If for instance he is a known practising sinner, he has not discerned the Body (as Corinthians 11:31-33 says) and condemns himself and causes weakness and judgement. I think verses 20-22 are hyperbolic & that is what congregants would see if they know a priest is in sin.
The same could be said if the mass is cold, formal and simply reflects an institution of dogma. The priest may be voraciously wanting to consume the mysteries simply to "tick the boxes". Unfortunately that isnt discerning the Lord's Body.
Cheers
Dennis
The deletions are due to technical difficulties. I am satisfied with what follows...hopefully...heh.
Tom
I have long said that I am a “spiritual inclusivist.” This is as contrasted with a “spiritual exclusivist” or a “spiritual pluralist.” I do not believe that the spiritual experiences present in non-LDS traditions after the restoration of the gospel are always from the adversary...
Rory
One of the principle obstacles to my willingness to consider the possibility of a Restoration would be if God was a "spiritual inclusivist", as you seem to claim Him to be. You use an expression about "spiritual experiences" in non-LDS traditions. I think this would ordinarily be private, an interior subjective witness which gives an individual peace of mind. Such a limited "spiritual inclusivity" is not what I cannot fathom, nor is that what is being presented as evidence that the Catholic Church alone is Apostolic. Padre Pio and the public miracles that are claimed about him in our lifetimes is not a "spiritual experience." It is exterior evidence that has been objectively evaluated and as David has pointed out, it has led lukewarm Catholics to fervor, and non-Catholics to conversion.
You theorize that God mercifully doesn't show the truth of the Apostasy and Restoration to someone like me because I could never accept the true God, as he is. Miracles are for the purpose of witness to the outsider from the true faith to change, not to stay the same. God wasn't working miracles for the scribes and Pharisees. I have not heard much of publicly witnessed LDS miracles. But it is MUCH worse than that for the LDS spiritual inclusivist. Your God speaks out of a Catholic tabernacle where St. Thomas Aquinas thinks Jesus Christ is dwelling, when it is only a piece of bread, and tells him that he has written well concerning the Eucharist. Volumes of books have been written about the Eucharistic miracles that your God has performed throughout the Apostate centuries which confirm Catholics in the truth of the error which your God spoke to St. Thomas! What is the result? Kneeling to worship an idol. Long processions through the streets carrying an idol that the apostates worship. Unwillingness to consider a Restoration.
How are we supposed to evaluate who is apostate and who is an impostor if God is the author of convincing credible miracles equal in abundance to Apostolic times to a church that is actually apostate? If I were to be LDS, I could never believe that your God would do this. Your founding fathers did not believe that your God did this. They were ignorant of the faith claims of the Catholic Church. For that reason, they were spiritually exclusive.
I have not studied it, but I have to speculate that in the Restored Age of Mormon Apostles, Latter-day faithful rely MUCH more on "spiritual experience" (subjective and interior) than they do on continuing credible exterior witness in the form of public miracles. I have to wonder whether if you did have the exterior witness and the apostates did not, there would have been this need to develop a theory of "spiritual inclusivity."
---to be continued
Catholics have been warned for many centuries about the dangers of trusting in "spiritual experience". Corresponding with St. Paul's warning that Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light, St. Ignatius of Loyola's rules for "discerning the spirits" are important. They are written for individuals who have experienced the different ways that the enemy of our souls can deceive us. Tom, you probably saw my remarks over at "your board" about how the Church never permits anyone from making extraordinary penance without spiritual guidance. This is precisely the reason. We are foolish who are confident that we can individually, without help from the communion of the saints, understand whether our interior movements are from interactions with God, the Evil One, or our own motions and emotions.
Knowledgeable Catholics will be immune to a belief that some kind of subjective interior witness is adequate to maintain the kind of persevering faith that saves. Even less would such an one believe that such a witness that is exclusively interior, not subject to exterior analysis, would be the way that God would ever use to convince souls of His truth claims. It is unthinkable that a Catholic would tell someone to go pray to get a "witness" to Catholic claims when we have exterior evidence. How did John the Baptist learn from Jesus' disciples to know that He was Christ, the Son of God? Not interiorly. The deaf hear, the blind see, and the dead are raised to life. Exterior witness.
My dear friend, I pray you will be a Catholic again. You have no fear for my soul, as an inclusivist. I cannot but fear for yours as an exclusivist. I speak plainly. I cannot analyze your spiritual experience, but I find it completely incompatible with Catholic exterior experience. Further I find it incompatible with the Catholic wisdom, of having distrust over a strictly interior witness, especially since it must hope to thrive in an environment in which the weight of the external evidence points at best, to the idea that the God of your interior witness gives external witness to non-LDS. I do not lightly write something that might upset your inner peace; I do not wish you to experience any spiritual anguish, but I must pray that you will.
I am familiar with centuries of credible stories of miracles associated with the canonized saints of the Catholic Church when she was supposedly apostate. Even if the so-called Restoration could merely match what the Catholic Church has seen for the last 200 years, I would need to reevaluate everything, including creation ex nihilo. Instead, we are supposed to seek an inner witness that contradicts and overrides exterior evidence while failing to recognize clear warning signs against trusting in a strictly interior witness. I hope you can begin to see why I see the footprints of the evil one with regard to LDS claims.
Your friend in Jesus,
Rory
Dennis
I can say that the Catholic Charismatic priests I know are men of integrity, sound doctrine & mirror the love of Christ. Are they deficient because they use this new liturgy ?
Rory
One would expect that priests who use a liturgy that was fabricated for the purpose of appealing to non-Catholics to be affected by it. The emphasis is on a community meal, not an alter Christus (the priest) offering the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary. The Church uses a maxim, "lex orandi lex credendi". It means that the law of prayer is the law of belief. You will tend to believe how you pray, whether you are a priest or not.
The Reformers knew this. I have a book called Cranmer's Godly Order, by Michael Davies, which compares what Archbishop Cranmer did to the Mass in England in the late 1540's and 50's. The parallels between what he did and the New Mass are striking.
You ask if the priest is necessarily defective. There are men of character in the Novus Ordo. But they will not be getting the spiritual riches that they should get. The New Mass is about the people of God. The Traditional Mass is Christ-centered. With the Novus Ordo you don't even have private Masses (where the priest says His Mass alone or with a server. Why? The congregation is necessary. In the Traditional orders, the priest says his Mass every day from the day of his ordination whether there is a community or not. The value of the Mass does not require a congregation. The New Mass thus devalues a priest saying His Mass alone. Any priest will be affected by whether he realizes that his Mass can be skipped if there is no one to hear it except God and His Angels, or he will be affected by realizing that even if he is alone, Mass cannot be skipped because it will be heard by God in heaven and a multitude of angels hovering in awe over the holy sacrifice which a mere man is able to celebrate.
That is just one example of what is wrong about the New Mass, if the Traditional Mass of all the saints up to Padre Pio is true. I do not speak against their character, but a Novus Ordo priest will be deficient because of the lessons which he is not learning.
Not to beg the question. These are two different liturgies with entirely different emphases. If the Novus Ordo is the right way to go, then Traditional priests are deficient. But of course you know what position I take.
I hope to reply some more to your last interesting post, partly quoted below. But not today.
Cheers back to you mate!
Rory
Dennis
Or more importantly, is the love of God not manifest correctly in the mass ?
As much as the mass is a beautiful thing and a vehicle for worship, it is in a sense a transcendental means of connecting with God through ritual. This doesnt come naturally to the "average Joe"."
Hello Rory!
When I first met David and soon after you, I held a more simplistic view of God’s work on the earth. I believed that he called all peoples to embrace the restoration of the gospel and become LDS. That this call should be heeded in this life if it was herd. And that the hearing of the call involved an openness to follow God and reasonable contact with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. An added complexity to this was then and is now that as a LDS I recognize that those who did not have a “fair and just” opportunity to hear the gospel message in this life would have a “fair and just” opportunity after death (I now added a further caveat to this after engaging this question for a period of time).
I was a former Catholic. I grew up in a very liberal parish. My mother was a liberal Catholic nonetheless had attended Catholic high school and a Catholic women’s college. I was largely a cessationist and I much later when reading the book Eucharistic Miracles, I discovered my mother was a thorough going cessationist (she told me that book was filled with medieval superstitious things or something to that extent).
As a LDS, I of course was not a cessationist. I came to discover that the liberal and cessationist Catholicism were not what I considered to be the “most likely to be true” form of Catholicism. This did lead to a reconsideration of Catholicism. I was told by Catholics (and Protestants) that I was going to be Catholic again and I was not sure they were wrong, but so far they have been.
Through all of this I had to take seriously a few things.
1. I needed to recognize that as best I could tell David had engaged the CoJCoLDS more seriously than I had and more seriously than just about anyone had and yet he was not told by God to become a LDS.
2. I have seen critics bend over backwards to deny the supernatural experiences that I think demonstrate that Joseph Smith was called to restore the gospel. The arguments they make seem weak to me, but I have seen these arguments made by those who deny Fatima (and I glanced through anti-Padre Pio arguments 2 weeks ago). It is my opinion that if one demands that the parsimony is important and the least parsimonious thing conceivable is “God did it,” one can come up with alternative explanations. Since I refuse to be swayed by this as a LDS, perhaps I shouldn’t lean upon such when it is Catholic miracles?
3. “The Devil did it” is simple, but IMO unsatisfying. It may be true for all I know of all the Catholic miracles. Or it may be true for all the LDS miracles, but it has no power. It offers no clarity. For this reason I like to avoid suggesting that the devil did it. I think there are devil tests. Does the thing lead to hate and hurt and cruelty? But folks who attempt to follow Christ (with very few exceptions) do not point to things that lead to hate/hurt/cruelty and claim it is God (and supportive of their truth claims). To assert the devil did this and not that becomes quite arbitrary. (And I am not offended when you say “the devil did it,” it does offend some. I agree that if I one is headed to hell where they will suffer for an eternity, then being offended by well-meaning Catholics is the least of ones worries). Finally,
4. I have come to believe that our individual interactions with God are the ONLY thing that can overcome such arguments as “the devil did it.” I hope to expand upon this. I typically look secondarily to what I view as
Charity, TOm
Hello again.
Last sentence should have been, “I typically look secondarily to what I view as miracles.”
And cont…
Rory: Miracles are for the purpose of witness to the outsider from the true faith to change, not to stay the same.
TOm: Why do you believe this? Is this Biblical? It seems to me that your argument is that miracles are the reason I should be Catholic. I suppose the books I have read on Marian miracles and Eucharistic miracles strongly intimate that this is true. Still I am not convinced. Since we both agree that the things that we cannot explain that came as part of what I consider to be the Restoration of the Gospel through Joseph Smith COULD (logically) be satanic, how can miracles be used like this?
I submit that if you wish to believe that miracles are "for the purpose of witness to the outsider from the true faith to change” you MUST BELIEVE that the Restoration miracles were not miracles at all. Your position that the adversary worked these miracles is inconsistent. If I follow your prescription I am stuck hopelessly unable to decide because both traditions have miracles. To break this tie if I embraced your “for the purpose of witness to the outsider from the true faith to change” (with more gusto then I think it warrants) I would do assert two things. First, the LDS miracles DID cause me an “outsider from the true faith to change.” I was a Catholic so I could only believe that my exposure to LDS miracles was for the purpose of calling me to God’s church (this is not really my position). Second (and this is my position), the LDS miracles were/are foundational. They are clearly part of a call to convert from apostate Christianity to Restored Christianity. It is difficult or impossible to do to the LDS miracles what I believe I do to the Catholic miracles. I suggest the Catholic miracles indicate not the CoJCoLDS is not God’s ONE Church, but that God desires all to increase in faith and miracles are part of this. The fullness of the gospel will be evident later in life or in the next, but faith is important.
Let me say this again. I submit that if you wish to believe that miracles are "for the purpose of witness to the outsider from the true faith to change” you MUST BELIEVE that the Restoration miracles were not miracles at all. Your position that the adversary worked these miracles is tough to square. As I think about this, I will assert that “answers to prayers” are the primary (and Biblical) way to know what faith we should walk within. I must (and will) offer a few caveats to rescue my position from my “tough to square” criticism, but here I just want to acknowledge that there is some “tough to square” aspects of my position too.
More eventually hopefully.
Charity, TOm
Tom.
Thank you for such thoughtful consideration. I await your closing remarks before trying to extricate myself from the difficulties you have presented.
Rory
Dennis
As much as the mass is a beautiful thing and a vehicle for worship, it is in a sense a transcendental means of connecting with God through ritual. This doesnt come naturally to the "average Joe".
Rory
I would argue that no one is exempt from the rule that you propose for the "average Joe". Appreciation for the Mass must be reachable to people with ordinary wants and even below average intellect. I hope to explain why the 1960's liturgical reforms fail in one respect in this post, and in another respect in a post that follows. This post will touch lightly on one part of what needs to be emphasized in our sacramental liturgies, and what the result of its omission causes. I intend that the following post should be dedicated to a question of theway liturgy needs to be celebrated.
St. John Chrysostom insists that after having dined at the heavenly banquet, we should "return from that table like lions breathing fire, having become terrible to the devil; thinking on our Head, and on the love which He hath shown for us." (Sermon 46, 3 on St. John's Gospel). It is certain to me that none of this comes naturally to any of us, but it must be within reach of virtually everybody. For an average Joe traditionalist then, the question to be answered is about how to use liturgy to make it easiest to achieve the sanctified excellence which strikes fear in to Satan, while elevating human nature to greater and greater heights.
Many reasons have been given for why the liturgical rites had outworn their use. I have certainly never heard it suggested from corners supporting liturgical reform that the new liturgical ceremonies will frighten the powers of hell to a never before reached extent! They have omitted all of the ancient exorcisms in the new baptismal rite. The Traditional rite uses 255 words, and addresses the devil five times. The new rite doesn't mention him. Maybe the proponents of the liturgical reforms think that the devil actually likes babies?
The reformed Mass, as well as the reformed divine office, downplay any mention of the Evil One. They have gone so far as to remove from the recitation of the Psalms in the daily office, any mention of the continual conflict we have with our eternal and malicious enemy.
When they read the Psalms, perhaps those who originally snipped them misunderstood how the Christian needs to read the words of the Royal Psalmist? It does not seem to cross their minds that the imprecations against our enemies can be applied to the devil and his followers. Or, maybe the liturgical reforms were implemented because of embarrassment over outdated concerns for demonic activity? Whatever the cause of the Scriptural eraser, because of grave mistakes like this one, the tone of the reformed liturgy loses all of its militancy. The average Joe and especially our priests need these continual reminders that all of the baptized (including the cute little babies) are in a battle with a dread foe.
But lets put aside priests and the average Joe for a moment. What about the "average bishop" in 2020? By this time, any exposure to a militant, battle-ready Catholicism, would only have come from teen years and earlier. His formation as a priest ordinarily excluded patristic studies and scholastic theology. He cannot gain from his Mass, or daily office, a proper awareness of his role as bishop in keeping his flock safe from wolves. He doesn't easily appreciate like he could have a hundred years ago, that through humble prayer, and God's merciful grace, he should be continually watchful, warning his priests, and the faithful under his care, about the devices of our infernal enemies, and where safety can be sought.
Rory:
We are foolish who are confident that we can individually, without help from the communion of the saints, understand whether our interior movements are from interactions with God, the Evil One, or our own motions and emotions.
TOm:
I believe two things are very important with respect to this. First, it is true that we cannot let our inner emotion / interior movements / our own motions and emotions cause us to sway too in fro like cats chasing shiny objects. We must find truth and embrace it. From this place bad days and cool stories shouldn’t dislodge us. We must “remember” the truths we have found. But second, when trying to find a communion of saints, a church to worship within, how to follow God (be it Bible and me, Catholic Church, or CoJCoLDS), we should bring to bear all of our faculties and in this our sincere prayers to God are invaluable.
While I am unsure where in the Bible (our shared text that we both believe to be inspired of God) it says that we should look to miracles to determine where the true faith is, I think it does strongly suggest we ask of God. And asking of God is praying. The CLASSIC LDS scripture for this is, James 1:5. “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” And God is a good Father and will not give us a rock instead of bread.
I don’t propose that the adversary cannot whisper in our ear, I just suggest that the idea that we are to ask God (and that this is through prayer) is in scripture. It must be a way to knowledge/wisdom.
I was a LDS before I had much of a spiritual witness. When I needed answers to prayers I was comforted within 30 hours and received answers over the next 1.5 months or so. I don’t know why my experiences are as they are and others are not like mine, but I believe the Bible provides support for the idea that we are to pray to know. And having done this, I think the answers one receives are important.
Can I believe others have received other answers? I think it is possible that the whole world is deceived save me only. My intellect tells me that “praying to know” is a solid divinely sanctioned way of knowing. My experience with prayer tells me I should be a LDS (my experience with study tells me I should be a LDS too).
But, my experience with prayer and evidence does not tell me what to do with those who claim to have sincerely prayed to KNOW and who then claim to not agree with me. Must I believe they are lying or deceived by the adversary. I do not think it MUST. Instead, I recognize that God’s plan is perhaps more than I would have original supposed. I in this I could be wrong, but I don’t place much weight upon those who tell me that it is impossible God told me to be a LDS so how can I demand other deny what they claim to have received.
Cont…
Let me offer one other thing that is more challenging than the above. When you, Rory, tell me of the ecstasy you experience at the Eucharistic feast, I find that beautiful and I have no need to suggest perhaps you have missed something (at least no need to explicitly say this, perhaps my lack of communion or temple attendance or … says something). When you attempt to suggest that praying to KNOW is the path to being deceived by Satan, I am much more troubled for you. I think Satan is well served when folks are told that praying to know is not something that should be done. I do not think folks who KNOW must constantly pray to discover if what they KNOW is wrong, but you who claim to KNOW IMO should not be telling anyone that praying to KNOW is a wrong path. In my mind this is the largest reason to believe perhaps you do not know and perhaps it is you have been deceived.
I hope that is not too offensive. I am aware that letting people pray for guidance has led to many horrors. I respond in a few ways. First, it is God who lets people pray and I think God who calls them to do so. God could surely eliminate many or all of these horrors if He acted more forcefully in our lives. Second, I do not know what sort of answer came when Abraham was told to sacrifice his son. It is my position that Abraham was a PhD in talking with God AND he existed in a different time and culture. My most powerful responses from God could get me to leave the CoJCoLDS, leave the Catholic Church, maybe leave my family (at least for a while), but not kill my son. I have yet to have some “answer to prayer” that I had to question. I have faith that when and if God asks for Abrahamic obedience there is extraordinary clarity produced via years of close divine communications. And third, salvation is in and through the CoJCoLDS those who have sincerely followed God will embrace God’s truths in this life or in the next. Why some folks don’t hear God call them to be LDS in this life is not something I perfectly know. I just have faith that God knows.
Charity, TOm
Hi Tom.
I encourage prayer for light, wisdom, and understanding.
I oppose what the First Vatican Council anathematizes:
If anyone shall have said that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and for this reason men ought to be moved to faith by the internal experience alone of each one, or by private inspiration: let him be anathema.
Session III, Canon 3, On Faith
"...in order that the submission of our faith should be in accordance with reason, it was God’s will that there should be linked to the internal assistance of the holy Spirit external indications of his revelation, that is to say divine acts, and first and foremost miracles and prophecies, which clearly demonstrating as they do the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are the most certain signs of revelation and are suited to the understanding of all.
---Session III, ch. 3, Vatican Council I
I already cited what Jesus' disciples were told to say to John the Baptist. They appealed to the kinds of evidence the Council recommends above as being certain, and suited to the understanding of all so that the Baptist would know that Jesus was the Messiah that was to come. I never said not to pray. But if an answer to prayer does not take in to consideration exterior evidence it is a false and unbiblical path of discernment.
The following passage gives a solemn warning against lightly dismissing the miracles:
Woe to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida: for if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had long ago done penance in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you. And thou Capharnaum, shalt thou be exalted up to heaven? thou shalt go down even unto hell. For if in Sodom had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in thee, perhaps it had remained unto this day. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.
---Mt. 11:21-24
I only have time for one more.
Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? Otherwise believe for the very works' sake. Amen, amen I say to you, he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he also shall do; and greater than these shall he do.
---Jn. 14:11, 12
The signs and wonders which have followed the Catholic Church from St. Peter to Padre Pio, are not lesser miracles. Jesus told them that the greater works shall they do, and indeed they have. Christ even admonishes the apostles to believe HIM for the sake of the miracles He wrought!
I see nothing to indicate that those towns which witnessed miracles were excusable. Miracles are an indicator of God's truth. They are more than that. But that is part of the reason God uses miracles and why the Catholic Church does not subscribe to a kind of faith which relies on interior evidence alone. A Catholic should be praying for light about where to find the truths of God, when miracles are in our faces. For all I know, the people Jesus condemned in those cities decided to pray about it, and got a negative answer about the nature of the miracles. Maybe they ascribed them to the devil. Others did. Maybe they thought God does miracles, but they don't necessarily indicate the veracity of the truth claims of the miracle worker. That seems to be your position Tom. (Thinking of Aquinas and the Tabernacle)
I do not believe the devil does miracles. That will have to wait for later. Sorry to be doing this piecemeal. No time. Have to run. Yes...I think my position is overwhelmingly biblical.
Rory
A Catholic should NOT be praying for...when miracles are in our faces.
And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues. [18] They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover. [19] And the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God. [20] But they going forth preached everywhere: the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed.
Mk. 16:17-20
In context, verse 17 speaks not of the Apostles, but even of those who should believe the Apostles' preaching. Signs were intended to confirm the spoken word. They speak to the veracity of the doer of the miracle.
Hi Rory and Tom,
You two have been publishing some informative—and high level—posts over the last few days. Given some of the content of those posts, I thought now would be a good time to provide a few quotes from the Bible that touch on the issue of ‘signs and wonders'. Note the following:
Positive
Mark 16:17 - And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mark 16:20 - And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
John 3:2 - The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
John 4:48 - Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.
John 6:2 - And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.
John 6:26 - Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
John 7:31 - And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?
John 9:16 - Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.
John 11:47 - Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
John 12:37 - But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:
John 20:30 - And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
Acts 2:19 - And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
Acts 2:22 - Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Acts 2:43 - And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
Acts 4:30 - By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.
Acts 5:12 - And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.
Acts 6:8 - And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.
Acts 8:6 - And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
Acts 7:36 - He brought them out, after that he had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years.
Acts 8:13 - Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
Acts 14:3 - Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.
Acts 15:12 - Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
Acts 19:11 - And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:
Romans 15:18, 19 - For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
cont'd
cont'd
1 Corinthians 12:10 - To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
1 Corinthians 12:28 - And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
1 Corinthians 12:29 - Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
2 Corinthians 12:12 - Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.
Hebrews 2:1-4 - Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
Negative
Matthew 11:20-23 - Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
Matthew 13:54 - And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
Matthew 13:58 - And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.
Matthew 24:24 - For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (see also Mark 13:22)
2 Thess. 2:7-9 - For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
Revelation 13:13, 1 -4 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
Revelation 16:14 - For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
Now, some of my own thoughts on the above references:
First, God clearly granted unto Jesus Christ and His apostles the ability (i.e. gifts) to work miracles, signs and wonders as evidence/s that they were commissioned/sent by God.
Second, Satan and his followers have the ability to perform counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders.
Third, I see no solid evidence from the Bible that miracles, signs and wonders were to cease at the end of first century.
Much to reflect on…
Grace and peace,
David
Dennis
As much as the mass is a beautiful thing and a vehicle for worship, it is in a sense a transcendental means of connecting with God through ritual. This doesnt come naturally to the "average Joe".
Rory
I would argue that no one is exempt from the rule that you propose for the "average Joe". Appreciation for the Mass must be reachable to people with ordinary wants and even below average intellect. I hope to explain why the 1960's liturgical reforms fail in one respect in this post, and in another respect in a post that follows. This post will touch lightly on one part of what needs to be emphasized in our sacramental liturgies, and what the result of its omission causes. I intend that the following post should be dedicated to a question of the way liturgy needs to be celebrated.
This is that "following post" which I have intended since last week.
Hi again Dennis. I like your concern for the "average Joe". The Eucharist is certainly the deepest and difficult to fathom/appreciate of all of the sacramental mysteries. Ultimately, we are required to suspend the use of the senses in discerning the Body and Blood of Christ, that we might worship according to the words of Jesus to the woman at the well, "in spirit and in truth".
In the hymn of St. Thomas Aquinas, Pange Lingua, he refers in one of the verses commonly sung at Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, the necessary difficulty of worship "in spirit."
Tantum ergo Sacramentum
Veneremur cernui:
Et antiquum documentum
Novo cedat ritui:
Præstet fides supplementum
Sensuum defectui.
A literal translation of the hymn refers to the failure of the senses, from which we ordinarily rely upon for discerning the true natures of things. Here, we can more easily see St. Thomas assuring us of the impossibility of detecting our Lord in the Holy Eucharist through the senses:
Hence so great a Sacrament
Let us venerate with heads bowed [cernui]
And let the old practice [documentum]
Give way to the new rite;
Let faith provide a supplement
For the failure of the senses.
At this point, I would like to make a side remark regarding a comment my friend Tom made in this thread. He probably has a better memory of remarks that I have made than I do. So I am not denying that I said this. But if I did I would like to make a correction. Tom recently wrote about the ecstasy I have experienced when receiving Holy Communion. As I understand it, the word now has many meanings, but has been borrowed from religious mystical experiences that literally meant, "out of the body", which is indeed a not undesirable state for one who is attempting to worship "in spirit and in truth". I don't remember ever having such an experience as that, and I think Tom probably meant that I have sometimes experienced deep consolations from my communions. A few times, yes. Our good God has condescended to make us worthy to receive Him, even if we present obstacles as most of us do. Because I do have a lively faith in the Sacrament of His Love, Holy Communion is more often a humbling reminder that I am truly an "Average Joe". I ain't no saint.
Hopefully, my next post will continue with problems which can hinder the Average Joe's opportunity to gain the full potential of Holy Communion. We will see that there is much that the Church can do. However, much of the responsibility will always lie with the Average Joe.
The Church is adamant in the truth that no one is exempt from the obligation to give their Creator His proper and due reverence and to attain to a degree of perfection that is proper to the unique gifts and calling to which God wills for every individual soul:
"It is an error, nay more, a very heresy, to seek to banish the devout life from the soldier’s guardroom, the mechanic’s workshop, the prince’s court, or the domestic hearth. Of course a purely contemplative devotion, such as is specially proper to the religious and monastic life, cannot be practised in these outer vocations, but there are various other kinds of devotion well-suited to lead those whose calling is secular, along the paths of perfection."
---St. Francis de Sales, An Introduction to the Devout Life, p. 18,
https://www.catholicspiritualdirection.org/devoutlife.pdf
God desires for the soul to be gradually elevated to a state of perfection that is beyond human nature. The human soul must transcend, to use your term, her own humanity. Returning again to St. Thomas, we read in the fourth lesson for the second nocturn of Matins for the Feast of Corpus Christi where he vividly explains this:
"The immeasurable blessings of divine bounty, which have been shown to the Christian people, confer an inestimable dignity upon it. For neither is there, nor ever was there, any nation so great, that hath gods so nigh them, as our God is present with us. For the only-begotten Son of God, wishing that we should be partakers of his divinity, assumed our nature, and was made Man, that he might make men gods."
Any average Joe who ponders this reality, with the eye of faith, will have ceased being "average" in the pejorative sense. While retaining his ordinary character and the good nature with which he was blessed, he begins to see the sublime purpose of his life. He realizes that the precious gift that is being offered to him is valuable beyond anything he could have in the world. He begins to aspire towards this supernatural reality.
---to be continued
---continued from above
Any average Joe who ponders this reality, of our deification, with the eye of faith, will have ceased being "average" in the pejorative sense. While retaining his ordinary character and the good nature with which he was blessed, he begins to see the sublime purpose of his life. He realizes that the precious gift that is being offered to him is valuable beyond anything he could have in the world. He begins to aspire towards this supernatural reality.
One of the problems for the average Joe, is that he lives in a world that constantly calls him away from the call of God that he should have pondered on Sunday. Besides use of the Sacraments, our spiritual growth also depends on exercising our souls against temptation. I do not even think I need to speak of temptation to sin, to do something always evil in itself. We know that will separate the soul from her love of God. Additionally to sin though, any immoderate attachment to any created thing will inevitably erode the fervor to which Joe might have been elevated on Sunday. We are easily led to love things that are good too much. The other six days of the week are vitally important to Joe. His next Holy Communion may be more fervent than the last, but only if he is willing to sacrifice to get it. This is a reason why the Church advises us to give up some good things, according to our state of life.
A love for bodily comfort (bodily comfort is a good we are allowed to seek in moderation) prevents Joe from rising early enough before work to place himself in God's presence, make a meaningful meditation, and pray that God would help him to have light to discern what is happening to him throughout the day to come, and to give him his "daily bread". As the body needs to be fed, so the soul needs daily spiritual nourishment. Nobody is possessed with a body or a soul that thrives on a diet where it is fed only one day a week. Ordinarily, that would seem to be a bare minimum for survival. We get distracted. We get lazy. We finally forget to eat (pray), and our appetite for spiritual things is greatly diminished. "Watch and pray," said our Lord. If we are not alert to the dangers which surround us, especially six of the seven days of the week, we will become weak again when Sunday rolls around.
The average Joe ultimately bares responsibility for organizing six days of his week in a fashion that will keep him spiritually strong according to his state of life. Joe needs to remember that this is the biggest and most important problem that he will ever have to solve in his life.
Holy Mother Church is ever solicitous to come to the aid of all of her children. When she emerged once and for all from the catacombs in the 4th Century, she immediately began to build monumental temples where the faithful gathered to worship, pray, preach, and receive the sacraments. Was this an unworthy aspiration? King David longed to build a house worthy of God, who had taken him from the sheepfold, and made him the shepherd/king of His chosen people. Of course, that privilege was granted to his son, King Solomon.
Because the apostles necessarily used domestic houses for the first "churches", there are some who foolishly argue that this pattern should be maintained. But that would be as ridiculous as it would be for a Jew to argue that there should be no Temple in Jerusalem or synagogues among the nations because when Moses led the people out of Israel, he spoke to God in a tabernacle that was covered by a tent.
It is most important that Joe, who may be spiritually exhausted from his week, make his Sunday obligation with the least difficulty. Of first importance is that He consciously, or at least unconsciously "places himself in the presence of God", an expression of spiritual writers like St. Francis de Sales. This does not mean that we deny that God is omnipresent. It is to recognize that our senses are again defective in detecting God's omnipresence, just as they are defective in detecting the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If it was right to make an ornate and beautiful Temple for the priests of Israel to offer their sacrifices, how more for Joe to observe and partake of the Holy Sacrifice, of which those were a mere figure?
I had a Catholic friend in high school and we did things that weren't very "Catholic" together. My first visit to a Catholic Church was when he and I went in to St. Joseph's Church when they were having their annual Octoberfest. It was very brief, and I have no recollection of anything really except darkness. I wish I had known to genuflect then, and had some appreciation for what he was trying to show me. Now I know, and am thankful. Here was a child of the Church, who was not practicing, with someone who was not a child of the Church. Even so, he knew that there was something special about that place, so much so, that he mistakenly thought that one like me, might surely gain some sense of the transcendent nature of the place. Alas, that was naive.
However, my friend had been raised from childhood in that place, and even if as a dissipated young man, or wherever he is today, he will never fail to recognize the significance of the place that houses the Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. This is why ornate, "vertical" houses of worship, have been built to the glory of God, and the edification of the faithful from the times of Constantine the Great, until Vatican II. St. Joseph's Church was torn down and replaced with a more "horizontal" form of architecture that seems embarrassed of how Catholic churches used to look. Christ the King is always elevated, occupying the highest place above everyone else in traditional church architecture. The faithful at St. Joseph's now have theater seating where everyone looks down at their Lord. I have to wonder if my friend would have troubled to try to show me something awe-inspiring in this new structure if it had been there in the 70's. I seriously doubt he would.
In addition to making the place of worship as architecturally suitable as possible, there are customs which help Joe to be better aware of what he is doing and why the Church obliges him to go to Sunday Mass. It is still customary in the churches that use the Traditional Mass for a great silence to be maintained. Chatter in the pews is not conducive to a preparation for the truly stupendous event that one should be awaiting with a singleness of purpose that would crowd out any other thought.
Perhaps the priests ought to discourage the noise that seems to prevail at many "Novus Ordo churches"? Look online and you can find that some priests seem to think that Mass is nothing less than their own private comedy act where he gets to say or do something shocking to get a chuckle. From clowns, to motorcycles, to dancing, to animals, to trapeze in the sanctuary, you would think any priestly formation they had must have mistaken Johnny Carson for Jesus Christ.
But don't take my word for it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQPkYwIOCRM
Another good custom which has fallen in to disuse is that of wearing one's best whenever going to Mass. It seems like that is a sacrifice that few seem to consider anymore. Would one wear flip flops and a T-shirt if they were going to visit an important political figure, or a potential employer? I suppose there are some today who would. But it would be inappropriate. Those who aspire to the supernatural benefits of Holy Communion will not, can not, find what they want with a casual attitude. For that reason, they will not want to wear casual dress to Mass. There are occasions when a workman necessarily appears for daily Mass in work clothes. But he does not WANT to be in work clothes. He is wearing the best he can manage at that time and still go to Mass. If anyone is wearing their nicest clothes possible, no matter how shabby, it will help them to avoid being casual at Mass.
Dressing well doess not from some kind of aim at impressive uniformity. It stems from knowing that it is best for each soul to understand why we should make the sacrifice to "dress up", if possible, when we make a visit to the King of kings and Lord of lords. Who likes to bother with a tie? It is good for the soul to do what one does not like to do for the sake of their Blessed Lord and Saviour.
The youtube video that I recommend offers some insights from learned Catholics who explain why the liturgy of the Novus Ordo is inadequate. I don't understand how promoters of the Novus Ordo do not take issue with Cardinal Ratzinger's complaint about it being a "banal, on-the-spot product". At least as Pope, he officially freed the Traditional Mass. He should have shut down a "banal product" that masquerades as liturgy. Masquerade indeed. Take a look if you haven't yet at the pictures of idiotic or blasphemous Masses that should inspire wonder at happened to the Catholic Church in our lifetimes. These photos show Masses permissibly celebrated according to the Novus Ordo that range from silly, to mockery, to immodest, to pagan, and more.
I have little more time this weekend for what appears to be a filibuster. Perhaps everyone else has "things to do" on the weekend. Anyway, I will wait a while for any possible feedback before continuing on this theme.
Hey Dave,
Thanks for the long list.
I think you did miss several good ones from Acts which show that when people believe a miracle has happened, whether they see it or not, it should inform their consciences of the truth of the words of the doer of the miracle. I think it is significant that there seems to be no idea in the Scriptures of Apostolic warnings that God sometimes does miracles with people who are teaching error, or that the devil could do these same works. There does not seem to be any need for the observers of miracles themselves, or those who hearing about the miracles, believe, to retire in to a prayer closet to gain confirmation that the words of person working the miracle are true.
Here is a good example of what I am talking about:
And Philip going down to the city of Samaria, preached Christ unto them. And the people with one accord were attentive to those things which were said by Philip, hearing, and seeing the miracles which he did. ---Acts 8:5 and 6
Those are observers of the miracles. But faith cometh by hearing as we know, at least usually. What about those who only hear about the miracles? Most miracles are not observed. Are they who do not observe not obliged to act upon the evidence of the miracle? Not according to the next Scripture. This would be the raising from the dead of the holy woman Dorcas at Joppe by St. Peter. Lydda was not far from Joppe, conversions in Lydda had occurred after the curing of a man eight years with the palsy in Acts 10:34, 35. The disciples at Joppe, hearing of this wonder, had sent emissaries to request St. Peter to come hastily from Lydda:
"And in Joppe there was a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas. This woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did. And it came to pass in those days that she was sick, and died. Whom when they had washed, they laid her in an upper chamber. And forasmuch as Lydda was nigh to Joppe, the disciples hearing that Peter was there, sent unto him two men, desiring him that he would not be slack to come unto them. And Peter rising up, went with them. And when he was come, they brought him into the upper chamber. And all the widows stood about him weeping, and shewing him the coats and garments which Dorcas made them. And they all being put forth, Peter kneeling down prayed, and turning to the body, he said: Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes; and seeing Peter, she sat up. And giving her his hand, he lifted her up. And when he had called the saints and the widows, he presented her alive. And it was made known throughout all Joppe; and many believed in the Lord. ---Acts 9:36-42
A quick note for a clarification above. I mistakenly wrote that most miracles are not observed. What I meant was that most of those who should be affected by miracles are not the observers.
-------
I would make a comment regarding the negative signs you posted, Dave. I would not include the signs referenced by our Lord that took place when he visited certain cities of Judea that were not receptive to His message as "negative". Those were signs, that His miracles and His message should be believed, on the basis of the miracles. Secondly, that the really negative miracles, the false signs and wonders attributable to the enemy, seem to be confined to the Latter-days.
For any who think that the Evil One has constantly worked signs in a false Catholic religion to fool the elect, it will not do to dismiss 400 post-apostolic instances of Catholics raising the dead to life or multiplication of loaves in religious houses as attributable to Satan. He is not allowed to do such things for the entire era beginning with the Apostles until the Judgment Day. He gets a narrow window.
For Tom, neither will it work to say that the LDS God does wonders for Catholics whose beliefs are false, and who indeed, believe in a "god" (idol) which Latter-day Saints affirm to be philosophically absurd. We have seen from the Scripture, that outward signs that we have seen or in which we believe, not interior movements of the soul, confirm the truth of what we should believe.
I conclude that the only refuge for any Bible believer committed to the idea that the Catholic Church is false, would be to insist that the innumerable claims of signs and wonders in the twenty centuries of the Catholic Church, are 100% lies or hoaxes.
Hi Rory,
Thanks much for your posts over the last couple of days—so much to ponder and reflect on!
In one of the posts directed to me, you wrote:
==I think you did miss several good ones from Acts which show that when people believe a miracle has happened, whether they see it or not, it should inform their consciences of the truth of the words of the doer of the miracle.==
I did leave out some of the miracles recorded in the book of Acts. The events I selected focused on the miracles, signs and wonders performed by Jesus and His appointed apostles. Though certainly not exclusively so, I believe the miracles, signs and wonders performed by the apostles were foundational in nature, with an emphasis on the establishment of their unique authority and the building up of Christ’s one true Church.
As such, I would like to suggest that Scripture has given to its readers enough information to discern true apostles from false apostles. The apostle Paul himself appeals to his application of the apostolic signs and wonders employed by the apostles that Jesus had appointed before His resurrection.
I am certainly not attempting to diminish the work of the Holy Spirit in identifying Christ’s chosen representatives, but rather, arguing that one must not discount the important role apostolic signs and wonders played in the early Church.
In the last paragraph of your last post you wrote:
== I conclude that the only refuge for any Bible believer committed to the idea that the Catholic Church is false, would be to insist that the innumerable claims of signs and wonders in the twenty centuries of the Catholic Church, are 100% lies or hoaxes.==
I can think of no consistent reason to disagree with the above. Your assessment brings to mind a book I read decades ago by B.B. Warfield:
Counterfeit Miracles
Grace and peace,
David
Post a Comment