Questions and Answers
Dear Anthony,
I would appreciate your insight on a magazine which I received 2 months
ago entitled, "A Voice Crying in the Wilderness," written by Brother
Michael Dimond O.S.B.. This author appears to have intensely researched the material,
having over 320 footnotes.
I have a few questions which I would like you to answer which I'm sure
many other concerned Catholics also share. I will precede each question with a
concise summary of each topic.
Question
#1. The first topic discusses
the prophecies of Our Lady of La Salette on September 19, 1846: "Rome will
loose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist... The Church will be in
eclipse." The author (of
"Voice in the Wilderness) proceeds to accuse the post Vatican II Popes, particularly
Pope John Paul II of many scandalous public speeches and deeds. For instance, on 10/27/86 in Assisi, Italy,
Pope John Paul II prayed with the leaders of 160 different religions, including
African animists who are devil worshippers.
Another instance was in Papua, New Guinea on May, 8, 1985 our current
Pope allowed an 18 year old American woman to read one of the readings during
his Papal Mass completely naked from the waste up! Along with the above allegations, our Pope also, supposedly,
lifted the excommunication of Martin Luther and apologized for the
mistake. Are all of these accusations
true? If so this would make the last
three Popes heretics. Does an heretical Pope automatically lose his pontifical
office or does he have to be deposed by the College of Cardinals.
Answer
First of
all it is necessary to make the distinction between a Pope who is personally
heretical and a Pope who officially proclaims heresy. Also we must make the
distinction between principle and strategy.
For instance, Pope John Paul II has officially taught the ancient dogma
of the Church that the outside of the Catholic Church it is impossible to be
saved. He has even quoted the Fathers of the Church: "He who does not have
the Church for his Mother cannot have God for his Father."
Nevertheless,
everything this Pope does seems to indicate that he believes other religions
and even pagan cultures have
value. Thus we have a situation like
Assisi where a statue of Buddha was placed upon the high altar in front of the
tabernacle and incensed as a god. This was done along with American Indian
tribal dances, African Voodoo "priests", Hindus, Shinto priests,
Muslims, the Dali Lama, Jews, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, Anglicans, etc. the opening speech of Pope John Paul II went
as follows: "Permit
me to begin by thanking you, from the bottom of my heart for the outpouring of
spirit and soul and good will with which you have accepted my invitation to
pray at Assisi... The fact that you come here implies no intention of finding a
religious consensus between us, or to negotiate on the convictions of beliefs,
because every human must honestly follow his right conscience with intention to
finding the truth and obeying it..." "The fact that we profess
different creeds does not take away from the significance of this day. On the
contrary, the churches, the ecclesial communities and the religions of the
world show that they profoundly desire the good of humanity." "From
here we will go to different places to pray. Each religion will have the time
and the opportunity to express itself according to its own traditional rite.
Then from our separate places of prayer we will walk in silence towards the
esplanade of the Lower Basilica of St. Francis. Once reassembled, each religion
in turn will present their prayer. At the end of the day, I will try to express
what this unique celebration has said to my heart, being as I am a believer in
Jesus Christ and first servant of the Catholic Church."
The Holy
Father chooses his words carefully even in caution when it comes to proclaiming
directly the truth that Christ and Christ alone is the only real means of
salvation. Does Pope John Paul really
believe that other religions have value? The answer is yes. But if I may be
permitted let me make what seems heretical, orthodox by daring to interpret the
Holy Father's actions in the proper light.
Despite
all the evidence that the pastoral directives of the Second Vatican Council
have failed miserably Pope John Paul is a firm believer that what the Second Vatican
Council attempted to do has immense value for the Church not only in the later
half of the 20th Century but throughout the next millennium. He was convinced
that before the Council the Church was
in a position of combat with the world. When Pope John XXIII proclaimed the
Council he lit a flame in the heart of Karol Cardinal Wojtyla. To change the
world by transforming the whole world by the love of Christ. To go into the
world as a missionary of love bringing mankind to the feet of Christ by reaching
out and embracing the world. Not hiding
behind the protective walls of the Church. Reaching out to the Muslims, the
Communists, the Nazis not directly but by appealing to the peoples under their
respective influence. He believes, as
did John XXIII, that it is possible to
transform the geopolitical landscape by interjecting the Spirit of
Christ into everything. The trick for Pope John Paul is not to mention our Lord
at all but just to represent Him and everything He taught.
This is
where the distinction between principle and strategy comes in. If you want to
convert the world through missionary activity do you go out and preach Jesus
Christ directly even to the point of death? (This was the way our forefathers
did it and they were quite successful.) Or do you go out and convince the world
to live by the teachings of Christ even though they do not know Him directly
and by so doing till the soil of their souls, plant and nurture the seeds of
truth in the hope that our Lord will do
the rest? I have found in my own experience that both means of teaching others the message of Christ have been
effective. As a teacher I use whatever method I believe will penetrate the
darkness of error for that particular person. The question then rests in which
method one should use to convert others to Christ. Do you beat people over the
head with the truth threatening them with hell and damnation if they do not
accept the truth you have proclaimed? Or do you embrace them and through your
loving example convert them to the love of Christ? On the one side you have
people like St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Dominic, St.
Anthony of Padua, St. Francis Xavier, St. Robert Bellarmine, and the majority
of the great missionary Saints who preached the truth fearlessly as commanded
by Christ. On the other side you have people like, St. Francis of Assisi, St.
Bernard, St. Bruno, St. Frances Cabrini, Blessed Margaret of Castello, St.
Therese of Lisieux, and Mother Teresa of Calcutta who preached the Word of God
primarily by their example.
There
has been a constant tension between these two strategies throughout the history
of the Church. Neither one of them is wrong but prudence may dictate which
method must be used in the particular circumstances one finds oneself. An
additional consideration along with these circumstances would be in one's
position in the world.
Now let
me make it very clear that I do not agree with the methods used by Pope John
Paul II at the Assisi meeting, his
meetings with the Jews and his embracing certain positions presented by the
United Nations which are Masonic and Humanist in origin. Nevertheless, Pope John Paul has the right and even the
duty of his conscience to use the method he thinks is most appropriate in
presenting the Faith of Jesus Christ to the world. We have the right to
disagree with him but as long as he has not come out and proclaimed heresy in
his official capacity as Pope and as long as he has not attempted to define a
new dogma based on error and heresy then we must give him the benefit of the
doubt, even though we may vehemently
disagree with his decision on how he sees fit to proclaim Jesus Christ.
It is
very important to reiterate the teaching of the Church concerning the
infallibility of the Pope. The charism of papal infallibility is very limited.
It does not mean that he is impeccable (sinless) or somehow immune to the
ravages and flaws of original sin. It does not mean that he will always make a
prudent or right decision. Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II
have proven that the office of the Papacy does not somehow instantaneously fill
them with wisdom. Nevertheless, we are bound in holy obedience to them as long as they do not lead us into sin.
Concerning
Luther, I know of no statement by the Pope which lifted his excommunication. In
fact, to do something like that would simply be a symbolic action aimed toward
strengthening any ties of unity that may already exist between us. Remember the Holy Father's goal is to bring
back our separated brethren to the one, true Church. In Germany, in June of
1996, the Pope said many things about Luther but he never lifted the band of
excommunication. According to Pope John Paul the Church recognizes that it made
mistakes during the 1500's which contributed to the Protestant revolt.
Nevertheless, Luther reminded the Church of two very important truths of which
it had lost sight. The importance of the Sacred Scriptures and the necessity of
personal conversion. But the Pope added that the Church also insists that Luther
allowed his passions to carry him far beyond reforming abuses in the Catholic
Church. His passion in fact led to a "fracturing of Christianity" in
the West that to this day has not healed.
There
have been several Popes who have held to heretical ideas. However, they never
officially taught these views and indeed they renounced them when informed by
orthodox theologians that they were in error.
The only time that a Pope can be deposed would either be if he attempted to proclaim a heresy as
an ex cathedra statement. This has never happened. Or if a Pope did things that
were so damaging to the Church or to Tradition that the Cardinals saw a threat
to the very nature of the Church. This
has happened in the past when an election has been so debated as to create
chaos and disunity throughout the Church.
Again I
must say I do not agree with Pope John Paul or the strategy of the Second
Vatican Council especially when it comes to the spirit of "ecumenism"
and embracing the world. In fact, I find it outrageous and disgusting that Pope
John Paul would tolerate the things he does, in what I believe to be his
misguided efforts to convert peoples
and cultures to Christ. If I
were Pope and had been there when they paraded out a topless woman at the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass to do the reading from Sacred Scripture no less, I would
have placed a blanket around her and escorted her away from the lectern. I
wouldn't care how much it "offended" the natives. All cultures are
not good and there are elements to some cultures which are downright evil. Nevertheless, I do not believe Pope
John Paul was attempting to promote scandal or evil by his tolerance. As sad as
it may be I believe he really thinks by tolerating such things he can transform
even evil into good. I am sure he did not even believe that his tolerance would
be as scandalous as it has been. Again
this is a perfect example that he is like any other man. He miscalculates,
misinterprets and makes mistakes just like the rest of us.
Question
#2. In the
second topic, the author maintains that the Church has always condemned all
forms of birth prevention, including the Natural Family Planning (NFP). Because
NFP withdraws the woman when she would be most inclined (when she is fertile)
to marital relations, it is contrary to the natural law. Married couples are
suppose to give as little thought as possible to the worries of conception and
leave the family planning to God. Can not NFP be used to space the birth of
children for the health of the mother?
Answer
The following
is from the Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii. It should answer your
question. It was published in 1930 and is considered completely orthodox.
"First consideration is
due to the offspring (of marital union), which many have the boldness to call
the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married
people not through virtuous continence (which
Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by
frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground
that they are weary of the children and wish to gratify their desires without
their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain
continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties
whether on the part of the mother or on the part of the family circumstances.
But no reason, however grave,
may be put forward by which anything
intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.
Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the
begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against
nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious."
"...through Our mouth
proclaims anew: Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated
in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the Law of God and
of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave
sin."
St.
Augustine states, "Intercourse
even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where conception of the
offspring is prevented. Onan,
the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it." (De
Conjugal Adult., lib.II,n. 12)
You will
notice that the Church has always taught that "deliberate
frustration" of the purpose of conjugal relations, or
"preventing" conception is both against God's law and against the
natural law He established. In other words, it is deliberately frustrating the purpose of sex and direct prevention
of birth that are against God's law not
"virtuous continence".
"Is it
wrong for the couple to abstain from sexual relations? In fact if both persons
in the marriage have a mutual consent not to have sexual relations it is
perfectly legitimate as long as they have done their duty in regards to the
consummation of the marriage. This, of course, is extremely unusual and we
should not make an example of the exception, however, it is important to note
that a couple is not forced by God or marriage to have sex. The obligation
which each party assumes is to render the marital debt upon the other's
request, but there is no obligation from the nature of the contract to request
relations."
"Is it wrong to restrict
intercourse to those times when it is most unlikely conception will
follow? Whatever may be the merits of
this physiological dispute, it is ethically certain that to confine intercourse
to a sterile period is not wrong, because no action intrinsically evil is
committed and the intention of avoiding conception is not in itself
wrong." (Man as Man, The Science and Art of Ethics by Rev. Thomas Higgins,
S.J. 1948)
Question
#3. The
author claims that the Novus Ordo Mass is a deliberate counterfeit of the
Tridentine Mass. A total of 35 prayers or about 70% of the Traditional Mass has
been replaced or discarded in the liturgy of the New Mass. In the 2nd half of the Consecration, the
words, "which shall be shed for many" was changed to "which will
be shed for all." Does this
invalidate the consecration and therefore, the Mass? Is it not true that as
long as the 8 words of consecration are unaltered "This is my Body."
"This is my Blood" the Mass remains valid regardless of what is done
to the rest of the rite?
Answer
This is
a false controversy. What you have said is correct. All that is necessary for
the Consecration to be valid is
"This is my Body." And "This is the Chalice of my Blood."
For as St. Thomas Aquinas states in the Summa Theologica (Q.78 Art. 3 Pt. III):
"Consequently it must be said that all the aforesaid words belong to
the substance of the form; but that by
the first words, "This is the
chalice of My blood," the
change of the wine into the blood is denoted, as explained above (Art.2) in
the form for the consecration of the bread;..."
Now
anyone can see by just reading the Gospels and St. Paul's letter to the
Corinthians that the form of the consecration (The words of institution given
by Christ at the last supper) vary from gospel to gospel. In fact, St. Luke and St. Paul do not record
the words "pro multis" "for many" at all. The form of the
consecration of the wine St. Luke records is: "This cup which is poured
out for you is the new covenant in My blood." (Lk. 22:20)
St. Paul's differs also:
"This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink
it, in remembrance of me." (1 Cor. 11:25)
Now we
know that every one of the forms of consecration described in the Scriptures
were all used in various liturgies throughout the world. If not using "for
many" or changing it to "for all" would actually invalidate the
consecration then even the Apostolic communities under St. Paul and St. Luke
were having invalid liturgies which is absurd.
Question
#4. In the
final topic the author discusses the Church's dogma, "Outside the Church
there is no salvation." He claims (with copious footnotes) that the Church
has never officially approved of the concept of baptism of desire and baptism
of blood as legitimate substitutions for baptism by water to become a member of
the Catholic Church. What about the eternal fate of the catechumen who is
martyred before receiving baptism by water? Or is it true, as this man claims,
God would perform a miracle, if necessary, to enable a person truly desiring to
become a Catholic to have the opportunity of being baptized with water?
Answer
First, I
would suggest that you go to my Web Site and read my article on "Extra
Ecclesia Nulla Salus" in my sample issue of The Hammer. It is a more
complete explanation of this controversial dogma. Go to http:\\www.roman-catholic.com
There are two important principles that must be kept in mind when dealing with this dogma. 1. "God wills all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth." Which means that He will use every opportunity to save men if they desire salvation. 2. God is Omnipotent and is never limited by the very laws He Himself has established. A miracle is proof of this. God can suspend His own laws to do what His infinite mercy desires. One must also keep in mind the distinction between God's ordinary means of salvation which is exclusively the Catholic Church and any extraordinary means He may choose to save someone of good will, a means unknown and unrevealed to us. =