Footnote Footsies - In Unitate Fidei's Pinch Of Poison

The body of Unitate Fidei reads as an apologetics exercise for religious indifferentism.  In it, Leo opines, "we must therefore leave behind theological controversies that have lost their raison d'etre in order to develop a common understanding and even more, a common prayer to the Holy Spirit, that He may gather us all together in one faith and one love".  It truly is wondrous how so much error can be crammed into one sentence.  Time does not permit me to unpack this mess completely.

Now go to UT's footnote 10.   It states that the phrase "and proceeds from the Father and Son (filioque) is not found in the text of Constantinople; it was inserted into the Latin Creed by Pope Benedict VIII in 1014 and is the subject of Orthodox-Catholic dialogue."  Italics mine.

Now why, oh why, is it the subject of all this "dialogue"?  The Council of Trent, held in the late 1500s and presided by Pope St Pius V, set the filioque in stone.  Recall please, that unlike Vatican II, Trent was a dogmatic council, convened with the express purpose of correcting various Protestant heresies.  A decree from the third session of that council was issued February 4, 1546.  It set forth, word for word, the creed recited at all Catholic Masses today, both Traditional Latin and Novus Ordo.  "Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son" is very plainly stated.

After the Council of Trent, St Pius V was quite solicitous to put the proceedings of the council into a format that could be taught to the Catholics in the pews at the time.  He, assisted by St. Charles Borromeo and perhaps others, developed a set of instructions to his priests on how to communicate these truths of the Faith.  It is known as the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and is readily available from TAN books.

Part 1 of this Catechism focuses on the Creed, that is, the Nicene Creed as amended by Pope Benedict VIII.  We proceed to Article VIII that deals with the Holy Ghost, and what the true doctrine states about Him.  There is a paragraph entitled "Who Proceedeth from the Father and the Son."  It says, and I quote, "with regard to the words immediately succeeding: who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, the faithful are to be taught that the Holy Ghost proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son, as from one principle."

So, despite his best efforts to the contrary, Pope Leo did get one thing right.  There is no need for controversy.  The Council of Trent settled the matter once and for all.  The Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and the Son.  Period.  No need for a bunch of dialogue.  And please - oh, please! - let there not be a whole slew of endless "synods" on the matter!  

It does behoove us to reiterate a few facts about "unity".  Unity is only good if it is founded on common assent to truth and Godliness.  Sometimes unity can serve evil and as such, is not at all to be desired.  Can any serious student of history gainsay that Nazi Germany, in the late 1930s, was unified?  They most certainly were, but that unity was based on evil.  Someone pointed this out to me: "It is better to be divided over the truth than united in a lie."  That latter kind of unity for which the pope is calling, unity brought about by allowing false notions of the nature of the Blessed Trinity, is false and dangerous, for it allows for the promulgation of error that could lead to the damnation of souls.

I understand that Pope Leo was not the first to eliminate the "filioque" while reciting a creed with Orthodox clergy.  Even Pope Benedict XVI scuttled truth for momentary convenience; for shame!  Before there is any more talk of "unity" and "ecumenism", Catholics must be absolutely committed to the Truths that Our Lord has revealed, understanding that these truths are not bargaining chips to be sacrificed to the false idol of "unity".

The Noose Is Tightening Around The Neck Of The Traditional Latin Mass

 Please watch this video in its entirety.  Discussion below.

So in the name of "unity", the pope and his progressive lemmings want to ban TLM  "only-ism", essentially forcing priests devoted to the TLM to say Novus Ordo Masses because of "rigidity" or other such nonsense.

It seems to this lowly layperson that the pursuit of "unity" must work both ways, right?  Where's all this "dialogue" that was supposed to be a hallmark of this papacy?  The word "dialogue" means a two-way conversation, some "give and take" on both sides, right?

Therefore, if the vatican wants to rid the world of that deadly plague known as TLM-only-ism, surely it wishes to do the same of what can be similarly called NO-only-ism.  We eagerly await the announcement that all Novus-Ordo priests will be obliged to learn the traditional Latin Mass, and that henceforth it must be taught in all seminaries.  In other words, each and every Roman Catholic priest (of course bishops are priests, too) will be able to celebrate both forms of Holy Mass!  Not only that, but the NO priests will be called upon to celebrate the Latin Mass periodically, just as the TLM priests will be ordered to celebrate NO Masses!   What's that you say?  "Don't hold my breath"?  What???

Would that what I proposed facetiously in my last paragraph was what the pope had in mind.  I only stated it, however, to illustrate the hypocrisy and double-standards.  I will say this for them, though.  As evil as the vatican inhabitants are, they at least understand the principle "lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivandi".   Too many Catholics, faithful and well-meaning though they be in other areas, simply fail - or refuse - to understand that principle.  They fail to accept how they compromise their own faith when they giggle at jokes from the pulpit or sing some heretical poop for the offertory or clap for some individual during Mass.

Let's look at what the Council of Trent says about the Holy Mass.  Scroll down a bit and read Canon IX.    "If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema "   So anyone banning the use of Latin is anathema.

That said, we note with displeasure the words attributed to Cardinal Parolin: "We must end the Old Latin Mass forever".   If he said this, he stands in direct disobedience to the Council of Trent.  However, as noted above, these fellows understand "lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivandi".  They acknowledge, albeit grudgingly, the superiority of the Tridentine Rite.  Whether or not they succeed in driving the TLM out of Catholic parishes remains to be seen.  We must, however:

• Be praying our Rosaries that Our Lord protect the Holy Mass
• Be supporting those priests who do offer the Traditional Mass, both by our attendance and with our dollars.
• Be prepared to go underground to celebrate Mass properly.

Real Ecumenism (As Opposed To "Nicey-Nice")

Truth - complete truth - must be the foundation for any sort of unity, lest the "unity" be counterfeit.  Click here if you can't see embedded video.

The Errors Of "Sola Scriptura"

Click here if you can't see embedded video.

Vortex Series On Council Of Trent

Actually the Vortex series started yesterday.  As that video was merely introductory in nature, I saw little point to posting that.

In this clip, Voris makes a point in delineating the differences between the Council of Trent and Vatican II.  He correctly states that the Council of Trent was a dogmatic council, meaning that the proceeds of that council were to be taken as infallible teachings of the Church, while Vatican II was a pastoral council, not intended to produce dogmatic statements.  I must take some issue with Voris at the 1:43 mark, when he describes the Vatican II documents as being "somewhat squishy" and "causing no end of consternation among the faithful".  I certainly agree that many have misinterpreted (sometimes deliberately) those documents and have made overly-much of the "spirit of Vatican II".  However, I think it a grave error to impugn the Vatican II documents themselves as being inherently faulty.  Vatican II may not have held the same weight as Trent, but it was still a Church council and must be respected as such.

That being said, I look forward to hearing more about the Council of Trent, convened to deal with encroaching protestantism among other things.  Click here if you cannot see embedded video.