Apr 13 – Homily – Fr Ignatius: A Deeper Meaning On Fishing
Views 3155
Homily #120413 (
07min) Play - This is not the first time our Lord advises his apostles on casting their fishing nets. It's not just about catching fish, it goes deeper...listen here as Fr. Ignatius helps point out some of the hidden lessons.Ave Maria!
Mass: Friday of Easter Week - Wkdy - Form: OF
Readings:
1st: act 4:1-12
Resp: psa 118:1-2, 4, 22-24, 25-27
Gsp: joh 21:1-14
Audio (MP3)+++
As a fun aside there are also 153 Ave Marias in the rosary.
Since the Luminous Mysteries, there now 203 Ave’s.
A very good homily, except that in light of recent events I am not sure precisely what to think. First, I am in 100% agreement that we are to remain completely faithful to the Holy Father and to the Magisterium. However, the Franciscans of the Immaculate have recently translated and published Monsignor Brunero Gherardini’s book, The Ecumenical Vatican Council II: A Much Needed Discussion, in which Gherandini presents the case that the Council is not necessarily authoritative and states, among other things, that “”Modernism hid itself under the cloak of Vatican II,” and “Modernist corruption has hidden itself within the Council documents themselves.” Does the FI agree with this? If not, why have they published it? Also, why would the FI sponsor a 2010 conference in Rome featuring Gherandini and Roberto De Mattei, especially when considering that all of the popes since the Council, including Pope Benedict, have disagreed with their anti conciliar views? How are the faithful to square your statements that we are to remain faithful to the Holy Father when it seems clear that the FI are promoting the view that all of our Holy Fathers since the Council have been wrong about the Council’s interpretation and its binding nature on the faithful?
Great question Steve.
After listening to the homily, it just made me more excited for the release of Fr. Angelo’s new book!
Clearly Fr. Angelo and Fr. Ignatius are aligned in their positions, as of course they should be. But in this light I am not sure I understand what Steve is saying. Surely the FIs would not cooperate with anti-conciliar views that oppose the Pope, or actually multiple Popes since the end of Vatican II?
“Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seeds in his field. 25 But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way. 26 And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. 27 And the servants of the goodman of the house coming said to him: Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? 28 And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? 29 And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. 30 Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn. ”
It does not appear that Christ thought that all Christians would be good, ever.
Muslims are under a horrible form of slavery considering it is punishable by death to apostatize from Islam. There are lots of things in Islam that violate the natural law and any good neighbor would prevent them from fulfilling against their other neighbors.
It seems like the term religious liberty was used when the term free will would have fit better.
Knight Errant and Steve,
The current Popes are not even always aligned with one another. Cardinal Ratzinger never approved of Pope John Paul II apologizing for the crusades. Popes have made mistakes which God has allowed and sometimes saints corrected them (think of St. Catherine of Sienna and restoring the Popes back to Rome). Some Saints disagreed with other saints on matters of discipline and theology. God will grant us the light we need to keep the commandments and perform or duties.
Noah,
The actions of Saint Catherine of Sienna are not in the same category as opposing a church council and the pastoral authority of five consecutive popes. There may be areas where good men can disagree about interpretation, but in the end we all must submit to the pastoral authority of the pope. It worries me that there seem to be many traditionalists who are not willing to submit, and it makes me wonder how far they are willing to operate outside of papal authority, especially if the pope continues to refuse to accept their hermeneutic. Eventually those who rub elbows with the SSPX (and the SSPX themselves) will be forced to submit or they will schism. Personally, I am not confident that they will make the right choice.
Steve,
There were 7 Avignon popes. I agree that all men must submit to the pastoral authority of the Pope, including past Popes who exercising their legitimate authority.
You are exaggerating that they reject the authority of 5 consecutive Popes. Do traditionalists reject Humane Vitae? Or Mediator Dei? Name the encyclicals they reject or the canons or scriptures that they reject? Also, can one person speak on behalf of all those who call themselves traditionalists? Can you say that you know all of those peoples hearts? Are you going to say because they struggle with ecumenism and matters like religious liberty that thy lie when they recite the Creed at Mass or perhaps maybe they don’t accept them because they do not understand what was being said.
Instead of suggesting that it is traditionalists who are unwilling to submit, I might point out to you that most men are unwilling to submit.
Some traditionalists have endured many evils such as the near extinction of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite which was never suppressed. Which was given by St Pius V to never be suppressed in his encyclical Quo Primum. Do you think that every Bishop therefore who tried to stamp it out are you going to say that they did not submit to the Pastoral Authority of one of our greatest Popes?
If I go to a liberal parish and rub elbows there that I am going to become a modernist? Why condemn so many people? May our Judgements of men be more lenient and may our faith be in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Im sorry you said Last 5 popes and that would exclude Mediator Dei. Although I am pretty sure that I have never met any Catholic personally who had a problem with John Paul I pastoral teaching, may he rest in peace.
dom. Noah,
Your points and your arguments are vague and emotional.
Clearly traditional (capital “T”) Catholic practices have been de-emphaised inappropriately in many diocese, but I believe that many liberals would feel the same way in more orthodox parishes.
The facts are that Vatican II has been ratified by 4 Popes and not rejected by one (as you so smugly pointed out regarding JPI). The Latin Mass is still valid and beautiful, but is the EXTRA-ordinary form. And the Novus Ordo is ORDINARY. Outline exactly which of these facts you disagree with.
Yes, the liberals are annoying, but it is not our job to correct them, as it is not our job to bolster a “traditionalist” anti-Vatican II position. Your position comes close to becoming sedevacantist. Beware of ending up at the other pole, which can become as bad as the liberals. Don’t end up as a “protestant” for tradition.
I have a proposal. Let’s modify the papacy to better fit the traditionalist perspective. We need to elect a “Super Pope”. The SP (which, not coincidentally, fits right in the middle of sSPx) will decide and record the pastoral direction of the entire Church that will apply for all peoples in all situations until the end of time. This direction will cover any and every possible contingency, culture, crisis, religion, etc. (He won’t need to consider the “universal until the end of time” liturgy since that was already covered by Pius V.) Once the new “universal until the end of time” pastoral law is completed, we will no longer have any need for a pope so we’ll call in the SSPX to fire him. Occasionally we may need another pope to settle some moral or doctrinal dilemma, but for those times we can elect a temporary pope to decide and then call in the SSPX again. All problems solved.
Since this seems to be a very “divisive” issue shouldn’t the homilist at least try clarify his and his institutes position on this matter?
I will answer your questions, please answer mine.
Do traditionalists reject Humane Vitae? Or Mediator Dei? Name the encyclicals they reject or the canons or scriptures that they reject? Also, can one person speak on behalf of all those who call themselves traditionalists? Can you say that you know all of those peoples hearts?
I pointed out Pope John Paul I because throwing out that traditionalists have rejected the teaching of authority of 5 popes was a puffed up statement. Traditionalists have not rejected the teaching authority of the last 5 popes and have shown great fidelity to their teaching.
I disagree that traditionalists reject Vatican II, their are sections that they dispute over, very small sections. I believe it was unjust to persecute the Old Mass and the priests who said it after the NO missal and that it injured a lot of people who still are hurting from it.
Knight Errant (why don’t you use your real name if you are not ashamed of your position) I hope you will consider explaining to me very carefully how I am close to being a sedevacantist?
Steve, do you think that mockery reflects my position? Really? Have I spoken evil?
*Clarification
When I said that people where hurt what I meant was traditionalists who were attached to the Old Rite were hurt by losing something that was helpful to them. I do not believe that the NO missal harms anyone, I also believe that the benefit one derives from attending mass is based on their disposition of soul NOT on what form but that some forms of Mass (whether EF NO or even Eastern) better prepare some peoples disposition of Grace.
One more thing, I have good will towards the Holy Father and traditionalists. I don’t view having good will towards them as mutually exclusive and I don’t find myself agreeing with either one all the time. I submit to the Christs Vicars with joy, ALL of them from Pope Benedict XVI going back to St Peter. I also consider the opinions of traditionalists when the appeal to the teachings of past Popes, councils, doctors. The Hermeneutic of continuity requires us to understand would has been taught in the past so we continue to be faithful to it. If we are faithful to the past then we will be faithful to Christ now.
Dom lets try to simplify this. I would ask you and the homilist to state very simply, that is, chose one or the other without qualification. Is Vatican II based on a hermenuetic of continuity or a hermenuetic of rupture?
Noah, I agree with Bob’s simplification of the subject. When talking about traditionalists a distinction needs to be made between those who hold to the hermeneutic of continuity who, at the core simply prefer the EF (with whom I have no problem with) and those who hold to the hermeneutic of rupture pertaining to the Second Vatican Council. My criticisms are directed toward the rupturists. I would very much like to hear the answer to Bob’s question in regards to the position of the FI. An explanation as to why they have published and/or promoted Gherardini and De Mattei would also go a long way.
Dom,
Most of your positions that you now declare seem fine to me and I congratulate you on what seems to be a good Catholic position. However I think that answering Steve and Bob’s question is important.
In regard to my name, I have always used this psuedonym on blogs until I find a reason not to. Frankly it really would not bother me to use my name, but if you knew me as John or Harold, I don’t see what bearing that has on any question we are dealing with here. So I will continue my status as it is.
As you have fairly answered some of my questions I should answer yours. I answer immediately after the question is posed:
Do traditionalists reject Humane Vitae? Hopefully not. Or Mediator Dei? I don’t know. Name the encyclicals they reject or the canons or scriptures that they reject? I don’t know those details. Also, can one person speak on behalf of all those who call themselves traditionalists? Probably not. Can you say that you know all of those peoples hearts? No
But the current debate is mostly about the acceptance of Vatican II as an authentic arm of the Magisterium. The Hermeneutic of rupture is a position of Traditionalists with which I take exception.