Thursday, July 05, 2007

Rorate Caeli Making the Complicated Simple

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet according to Shakespeare but the Liturgy according to the New Rite... well I'll let you decide.

Don't miss the comments. There are some decidedly unhappy apologists for the Novus Ordo. But if ths does't convince them I really don't know what will.

To the charge of triumphalism I plead guilty.


NCTradCatholic said...

Now stop that!!

bill bannon said...

Divisive and silly. The world is going to hell in a handbasket and we are forever worrying about the non essentials. Christ went looking for the lost sheep and we go looking for liturgy trivia to bicker about. Imagine if we find out in the next world that this whole dispute was a crock.

NCTradCatholic said...

Spare us, Bill.

bill bannon said...

You both posts can't qualify for a haiku contest. By the way, neither old nor new make clear that the ministers of Matrimony are the couple and that the priest is the Church's official witness not the minister.

Anonymous said...

Bill said..
"...Imagine if we find out in the next world that this whole dispute was a crock. "

Better yet, Bill, Imagine if we DON'T!

bill bannon said...


Another short paragraph poster with no real name. Well show us Christ being worked up over liturgy issues at all. His anger at the temple traders involved making money exorbitantly in a precinct of the temple reserved for Gentiles. That's not a liturgy question....that's a selfishness-hogging issue two ways. Show us Christ interested in this liturgy area of religion as though it were critical...or at all. To the Samaritan woman who mentioned that her people worshipped on the mountain, Christ said: Jhn 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Sounds like He's more concerned with the center of the soul than the outer reaches.

NCTradCatholic said...

It isn't just "liturgy", Bill, it's the holy sacrifice of His sacred body and blood at Calvary, for the atonement of our sins. Read Malachi 1:11.

You can find "liturgy" in many (heretical) protestant assemblies. You can only find the holy sacrifice of the Mass in His mystical body, the one holy apostolic Roman Catholic Church. Hardly the "outter reaches" as you claim. Time to break open the Catechism.

Is that a long enough post for you?

bill bannon said...

I'd be fearful of entering hell for insulting protestants if I were you.
The essence of the Mass has zero to do with which language is used. As for your comments on heretical prots, you ought to break open Vatican II which does not say that have anything close to the Mass but does say that they have liturgies that have graces from God since He and the Council do not regard 21st century people born into such groups as intentional heretics:

Vatican II's Decree on Ecumenism which states in I-3:

"The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."

Indeed, without having a Latin liturgy, the Quakers were able to denounce all slavery several hundred years prior to our really excluding even just titled slavery (which we kept after the Papal bulls against the trade) which just titled slavery appeared as late as 1960 in one of our moral theology book's fifth printing...Theologia Moralis by Tommaso Iorio. And we had that slowness to change while having the Latin has no magical powers in se but depends like the English Mass on Catholics cooperating with grace.

My point is that the fullness of the means to salvation are only in the Catholic Church but outside of MEANS and in the area of morals or conduct, God saw fit to have others as leaders on various topics. Calvin had our answer on usury in 1545 not in the 19th century like us (Luther went stricter than us on the issue). And Quakers led on slavery because our theologians were very tied to inherited Roman law on such matters and continued to justify slavery of someone born to a slave mother even after repeated papal bulls against the trade while the Quakers had English law that was not as supportive of slavery as Roman law. God has arranged it so in order that one should not vaunt itself as best in everything....means and moral record. But what happened? We continued to insist that we were better than prots even in morals. So God's permissive will which permits catastrophies that are daily in the TV news....He permitted us to have a huge scandal...and still we are not humbled but continue to vaunt our fictional moral victory over all other baptized people. In short, God has the same problem with us that He had with the first People of God...narcissism.

M. Alexander said...

Bill, you're not in the seminary are you? I certainly hope not.

The Quakers are now pro-abortion so their anti-slavery position was apparently a fluke and not based on divine law.

If the protestants are so far ahead of us why don't you apostasize?

Is it an insult to call someone a heretic? Maybe it's the wake up call they need.

bill bannon said...

M. Alexander

Where did I write that Quakers were correct on everything??? That was your non sequiter. You'll see below Jerome and Augustine change on abortion and why.

Rome exercises no supervisory control over Catholic blogdom. The result is your last post on heretic protestants. The NT says that the evil tongued shall not possess the kingdom of real careful. Here is what Vatican II said about Protestants:

Decree on Ecumenism Chapter I-3

" The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect."


As to Quakers and abortion, you may not be aware that Jerome and Augustine basing themselves on the Septuagint version of Exodus changed not on its being a sin.... but on its being murder prior to the pre born being
"formed". This unfortunately probably led to some of the liberal attitudes within later English law on the matter. The pertinent quotes follow:

The Septuagint...the bible that was used for several centuries and up into the time of Christ by many Jews and the NT writers for the most part:

Exodus 21:22-24 " And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty:as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot...."

Obviously the passage is seeing the preborn as life only when it has the form of a person discernible by sight which they would have known about by tragic circumstances when they saw unformed and formed from different cases of deceased pre borns.

Now here is Jerome when younger and seemingly prior to reading the above Septuagint since he favored the Hebrew while Augustine favored the Septuagint:
Epistle 22 to Eustochium

"...Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder. "

Now here is Jerome after reading the Septuagint...he drops the murder charge if the pre born is not formed:

Epistle 121.4 to Algasa
"...seeds are gradually FORMED in the uterus, and it is not reputed homocide until the scattered elements receive their appearance and members".

Augustine went through a similar two pieces of writing change. Later the Trent catechism was to imply delayed ensoulement due to the Exodus passage in part and due to Aquinas' acceptance of Aristotle's delayed ensoulement:
Trent's catechism:
Article 3/8th paragraph
(section on the Incarnation)

"the most sacred body of Christ was immediately formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason; and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time."

So if two Fathers could be confused on this issue and Trent's catechism could see ensoulement as to when the pre born has a soul or not, then it is no wonder that Quakers are confused.

M. Alexander said...

Dear Bill,
I think you've answered my question. You are in the seminary.

bill bannon said...

M Alexander
No...never was I clergy (God needs special ops people that will say what the clergy cannot or don't know)....I'm a long short investor using leveraged instruments to double the movements of the market up or down....don't worry...I'm mostly in callable long CD's at high interest. I'm my own trust fund ...not rich but just okay and it gives me freedom to start a business of selling my own realist maritime art to businesses (I'm with a martime art gallery but would rather be on my own).
Long short investing: Buy the etf's...DDM and DXD in equal amounts to try long short investing (you buy them just like stocks). DDM doubles the good up movement of the Dow and DXD doubles the bad movements (makes money when stocks go down).
A person buys a lot of both and next day there is a terror incident in the US. DDM goes way down and DXD goes way up as the market goes down. Your principal or total stays the same roughly. What has happened though is that one of your accounts is way up (DXD) and one is way down DDM. You wait and watch as this continues for two weeks or so then you sell the one that is up and put the money aside and next DDM will recover starting at about the two week point and continue for some time and now that too is up so you sell that and now both accounts have made in the bad period and one in the good period. You can do the same thing with for example the real estate sector...long it and short it if it is channeling up and down. Harder than it sounds but the terror example delineates it in bold relief. Unfortunately 401K people can't short the market and many lost much money from 2000 to 2003 because they stayed in the market without the ability to short it simultaneously.
If you buy two stocks...both may go down. If you buy DDM and DXD, your total will not go down as long as you sell neither. The trick is to know when to sell one or the other.

NCTradCatholic said...


Getting back to previous topics, as you have demonstrated, the Catholic Church has always had theologians and even church fathers who were wrong on various topics (Augustine on the souls of unbaptized babies suffering great torments in Limbo, for example). Fortunately, neither Augustine, Aquinas (mistaken re the Immaculate Conception), nor any of the theologians you cited regarding slavery constitute the Magisterium. Even the catechism of Trent isn't, though it cites many teachings of the Magisterium. Only the consistent dogmatic teachings of the popes and the dogmatic councils in union with them constitute the Church's Magisterium, which teaches infallibly. Thus we've never had a pope or dogmatic council teach the wrong position on abortion, slavery, contraception, the holy sacrifice of the Mass, or any other issue. (Vatican 2 was not a dogmatic council, but that's another topic.)

Heresy is the post-baptismal denial of a defined dogma revealed by God. Any protestant adult is going to deny at least one of the teachings of Our Lord, otherwise they would be Catholic. (Baptized protestant babies are actually Catholics that have not yet fallen into heresy.) You assume I'm passing moral judgement on them by calling them heretical assemblies. I am not, anymore than by calling them protestants. I am simply using a term objectively that has been used by the Church throughout her existence. I leave the judgement of individuals to God alone. I have many godly protestant neighbors and co-workers and wouldn't think of passing judgement on them. But to the extent that they follow the false or incomplete doctrine of their assemblies, they are wrong.

My whole original point, which has unfortunately been lost, is that what we call the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is much more than a liturgy (which is merely something we do), it is something Our Lord does, i.e., He continually offers His wounds and precious Blood to His father to plead for us (see the slain lamb in Apocalypse 5:6 and the pure, spotless offering in Malachi 1:11). Thus, although we, through the ordained priests, participate in this offering, we are not the principal players, Christ is! The awareness of that reality has been mostly lost in the Novus Ordo, so that most of the focus is on what we do, when that really doesn't mean a hill of beans. I pray that the gradual return to the Mass of our fathers, which in its essential form goes back at least to the 6th century, will restore Our Lord to His proper place of honor on our altars, and restore the faith that has withered among so many Catholics.

bill bannon said...

You wrote:
Thus we've never had a pope or dogmatic council teach the wrong position on abortion, slavery, contraception, the holy sacrifice of the Mass, or any other issue.
But you are incorrect (contraception is different because it has never been the subject of an infallible statement despite a small group thinking it has ...Brian Harrison, Germain Grisez, John Ford etc....and these last two popes have shown zero interest in writing an ex cathedra encyclical on it because the research would be filled with land mines of bizarre sexual statements by the key sources like Augustine and Jerome). Popes who did not censure moral theology books of St. Alphonsus Ligouri which accepted just titled slavery in effect taught slavery....dozens of them. Popes have been wrong on many moral issues...they have never been wrong when they spoke infallibly which is rare. But the Magisterium and Popes have been wrong on moral issues. They are protected by the Holy Spirit when they speak infallibly not otherwise. In 866 one Pope condemned 1252 another Pope reinstated it. Which one was being protected by the Holy Spirit? In the 19th century another Pope condemned it.
The current anti death penalty position of these last two popes is a perfect example. They're wrong...pure and simple. And Pius XII was right in 1952 supporting the death penalty and he had safer modern penology than we now have as to life sentences. The subject has never been the subject of an infallible statement but the Bible is inerrant by definition and supports it for Gentiles in Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13:4 both of which went completely uncited by John Paul II in any of his writings on the matter.
As to the Mass and its essence as to what is happening, that has more to do with each person and how they pay attention to Mass and nothing to do with Latin which I studied for 6 years. The NO does not obscure what is happening at the consecration...people do. This whole issue will vanish eventually because the number of people who are serious about it is small and some parishes are overburdened as it is with two languages already for 3 Masses. In the Dakotas, one priest will cover 4 parishes on Sunday...they'll be no window of opportunity for the minority view there.

You resent the communal emphasis of the NO while the original Mass was communal with everyone talking to each other...the Last Supper...where they had communion in the hand. Catholicism needs far more communal sense. When my mom was dying for 7 weeks, her Catholic neighbors on all three sides never showed at the hospital...2 showed at the wake). They were perhaps afraid that if she survived, they might have to help her now and then with chores. When my protestant relative died, 20 choir singers showed up at the wake who knew him little and then went to the grave. That is what the great historian Arnold Toynbee meant by Catholicism suffering from some not all aspects of an arrested culture. And that is what Christ meant when He said, "The children of this world are more prudent in their generation than the children of light." Lk 16:8 __________________________________

On heresy and the use of the word, you saw the Vatican II passage...that the word was used in the past freely will not be an excuse for you when you arrive at the particular judgement. It seems to indicate that God does not want you using that term for now. You could say when needed to your children e.g. that Protestants hold some ideas that are deeply wrong and destructive to what God is actually saying.
If you think you are above the passage because the Council was pastoral largely and you think you can treat the passage lightly and continue to throw around the phrase "heretical assembly", then be prepared to make that case to Christ in Person after your last exhale. Since Ananias and Sapphira were killed by God soon after they lied to the Holy Spirit, I don't recommend any use of such words that simply satiate your ego as not being a protestant.... really beneath the surface of this whole discussion.
Christ told of the pharisee who in the temple thanked God that he was not like that publican over there in the other part of the temple:

Luk 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men [are], extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
Luk 18:12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

Edward said...

So Bill,
If I follow you correctly, there was never any perfect and consistent Church moral teaching BEFORE Vatican II, and of course THAT Coucncil is utterly devoid of even the slightest error whereas Councils before were not?
Isn't that like reverse sedevacantism?
Or if this is NOT true, I may assume that VII could have been incorrect on some things (JUST LIKE previous Councils, according to you) as well?

It's one way or the other, my friend.
Which is it?

bill bannon said...

What you did was address no points in detail. You simply asked more questions which takes little work. Another shortie like that and I'll ignore it.
Vatican II was very wrong to leave husband headship out of the sections on marriage as does the current Catechism which John Paul had said was a complete guide to the faith and is not when it omits something that God repeated 6 times in the NT by 3 separate human authors. Read section 74 of Casti Cannubii where Pius XI notes that anyone who undermines the obedience due from the wife to the doing the work of false prophets. It's on line.
Vatican II could have said a lot more about Islam rather than stop at the flattering part.
The Council of Vienne was very politically incorrect and refreshingly so in talking about how greedy a substantial number of bishops were at that time. Vatican II does nothing but compliment the clergy and speak in the ideal mood as though the best is what they are really doing all the time. That set people up to be even more cynical after the sex abuse scandal.
But the way Vatican II spoke about Protestants was an attempt to counterbalance the Council of Florence....even using Florence's phrase about the shedding of blood against Florence without ever naming Florence. It was an inside jab at the past for the intellects of those who read and memorize.

Here's Florence and then Vatican II:

Here's the Council of Florence:

It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.

Here's Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism correcting the partiality of the Council of Florence by using Florence's phrase...."shed his blood".....but now in reverse and to the benefit of Protestants...

"Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments from our common heritage which are to be found among our separated brethren. It is right and salutary to recognize the riches of Christ and virtuous works in the lives of others who are bearing witness to Christ, sometimes even to the shedding of their blood.

Obviously theologians and bishops see Ecumenical Councils as more human than the less read laity do.

Edward said...

And you go to very much work in giving no answers.
Ad hominem on both our sides, I guess.
But at least I'll own up to it, while you are way too impressed with youeself.

bill bannon said...

Mine was not ad was fraternal correcting. Yours was ad hominem...yes. One person works on posts and another comes along and with no work commensurate to what they just read...simply asks a few questions so that the worker does more work... while the questioner does next to nothing. And you ended the same way. Bye. Will not be checking for yet another burp. That was either rebuke...check Christ on the difference.

Edward said...

WAY too impressed with yourself.

Edward said...

Oh, and one last thing (as we ALL like to have the last word).
Know that I don't take issue with anything you have written.
You are right, and I was utterly in the wrong.
You have convinced me completely, and I shall try reforming my character to more closely proximate the standard which you think it should reflect.
Fair enough?
Have a nice day:)

Edward said...

And to all who may have followed this, herein is an ensample and a lesson.
In response to this:

"...simply asks a few questions so that the worker does more work... while the questioner does next to nothing."

You see, friends, this is the single most effective way of teaching and helping others. In doing so, one does not do "next to nothing", for the work involved is asking the right and appropriate questions - indeed making the other "do the work": thinking about what his position is, and much of the time allowing him to contradict himself, trip up or otherwise reveal the error in his thinking or presentation.
For Truth is always simple and direct, while in a multiplicity of words comes pride, error and deceit.
This was Our Lord's own manner in dealing with His people: allowing THEM to come to the conclusions He already knew they were either searching for or trying purposely to avoid.
'And they found Him in the Temple in the midst of the scribes and doctors, LISTENING to them, and ASKING them questions'.
I suppose this was an occassion when Our Lord was doing "next to nothing"?
And later on as well, one will find Our Lord very often correcting the Pharisees by first asking a question.

NCTradCatholic said...


Anonymous said...

Yep. Double 'yep' from me,nc.
Count my vote for the Seminary...a Novus Ordo one...and summarily booted out. Couldn't handle simple 1+2=3, a+b=c logic without coming backwards from z-y-x-etc to get to the answer.
Short questions, short answers are signs of a brilliant organized mind. Long-winded diatribes are so much spit in the wind!
Plus, information overload clouds the point!

By the way, "bill bannon" may not be this sycophant's real name...might as well be anonymous like me!

John C. Hathaway said...

Where is the infallible declaration of the Church that says, "Don't be divisive"?
Oh, wait! There is none! There isn't even a non-infallible statement.
After all, Jesus Himself said we're *supposed* to be divisive!