Rorate Caeli

The SSPX General Chapter Declaration

The news agency of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX/SSPX), DICI, has released a letter from the Superior General, to which a Declaration of the General Chapter on the relationship of the Fraternity with the Holy See is attached. For some unfathomable reason, the text has been released in French, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Italian, and Dutch, but not in English...

The Declaration affirms that the position of the Fraternity is that expressed by its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, in November 21, 1974: "We adhere with our whole heart, and with our whole soul to Catholic Rome, the Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of those traditions necessary for the maintenance of that Faith, to eternal Rome, Mistress of Wisdom and Truth. Because of this adherence, we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies, such as were clearly manifested in the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council in all the resulting reforms."

The Declaration reaffirms the need for the two preconditions proposed long ago: the liberalisation of the Traditional Mass and the repeal of the decrees of excommunication of 1988. The Declaration also affirms that "the contacts which [the Fraternity] keeps at times with the Roman authorities have as their sole aim to aid them to regain the Tradition which the Church cannot deny without losing its own identity, and not the search for an advantage for [the Fraternity] itself, or to reach an impossible purely practical 'agreement'."

The Declaration also includes a reaffirmation of the one-two-three strategy, in which doctrinal differences could be resolved in future rounds of negotiations -- a strategy of which we have spoken before.

___________

Update: Full English translation of the "Letter to the Faithful" and of the Declaration, as provided by DICI.

Dear faithful,

Allow me to begin this first letter of my new term by thanking you for your many prayers for our General Chapter. We indeed felt the spiritual support that you gave to us throughout the whole Chapter, in an atmosphere that was serene, but at the same time also intense.

I would like to explain to you some of the fruits of your prayers and of the Chapter.

First of all were the elections. The Chapter then decided to entrust to me once again, and this despite its length, a new term as Superior General. I come to request of you an increase of prayers in order that, with this precious help, I might better consecrate myself to the fulfillment of this task that is at the same time burdensome and magnificent.

The Chapter also elected two Assistants.

Father Niklaus Pfluger, who has two brothers and two nephews as priests with us, a third being a religious brother, without counting two religious sisters! He is Swiss, to whom was entrusted the responsibility of District Superior (in Switzerland and then in Germany) and Seminary Rector (Zaitzkofen). He has thus acquired a great deal of experience, both in the formation of priests, and also in the government of two districts.

Father Alain Nély, first of all teacher at the school of Saint Joseph des Carmes, then Prior in Marseilles, and finally District Superior in Italy, has also acquired a profound knowledge of youth and of priests, as well as the government of a district.

The two Assistants will both reside at Menzingen in Switzerland, where our General House has been since 1993. They will be invaluable collaborators for the Society’s good functioning, and will have the opportunity of traveling throughout the world, thus enabling the General Headquarters to keep in closer touch with the Society’s members, as well as with the faithful.

The Chapter is not just a question of elections. It is also the opportunity of assessing our situation, of analysing the weaknesses that ought to be improved, of establishing rules in order that our priests might always live their priesthood better according to our statutes, and thereby obtaining more effectively grace and Heaven’s gifts. We also, quite obviously, considered the state of our relationships with Rome. Out of a desire for the greatest clarity possible, and also with the intention of avoiding all false hope and every illusion, the Chapter unanimously decided to make the declaration that you will find as an annex.

Along the same lines, the Chapter asks me to communicate to you the following ambitious project: The Society has the intention of presenting a spiritual bouquet of a million Rosaries to the Sovereign Pontiff for the end of the month of October, month of the Rosary.

These Rosaries will be recited for the following intentions:

1. To obtain from Heaven for Pope Benedict XVI the strength required to completely free up the Mass of all time, called the Tridentine Mass.

2. For the return of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

3. For the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

We are calling you, therefore, to a true Crusade of the Rosary. This prayer has been so many times recommended by the Most Blessed Virgin Mary herself, and has been presented as the great means of support, of protection and of salvation for today’s Catholics in this time of crisis. For centuries, since the opposition between the world and the Church has become more and more clearly apparent, this prayer has appeared as the weapon given by Heaven for us to defend ourselves, to sanctify ourselves, and to vanquish.

We consequently request urgently that you begin without delay to bud forth the spiritual roses for our bouquet. Shortly, the priests will give you the directions required to put together this treasure.

By this obviously symbolic quantity, we desire also to make it clear to the authorities in Rome, as well as to Heaven, that we have the will and the determination “to pay the price”.

Confident that our good Mother in Heaven will hear the assiduous prayer of her children, and that she cannot but be touched by the harshness of the present time, as well as the spiritual misery that surrounds us, and that sooner or later she will hear our prayer and respond to our cry, we have entrusted all the Chapter’s decisions to the motherly kindness of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and to the protection of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, in order that He might bless them, and make them more efficacious for the greater glory of God and for the salvation of us all.

Nos cum prole pia benedicat Virgo Maria.

+ Bernard Fellay

DECLARATION OF THE GENERAL CHAPTER



For the glory of God, for the salvation of souls and for the true service of the Church, on the occasion of its Third General Chapter, held at Ecône in Switzerland, from July 3 to 15, 2006, the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X declares its firm resolution to continue its action, with the help of God, along the doctrinal and practical lines laid down by its venerated founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.


Following in his footsteps in the fight for the Catholic Faith, the Society fully endorses his criticisms of the Second Vatican Council and its reforms, as he expressed them in his conferences and sermons, and in particular in his Declaration of November 21, 1974: “We adhere with all our heart and all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary for the maintaining of that Faith, to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and of truth. On the contrary, we refuse, and we have always refused, to follow the Rome of neo-modernist and neo-protestant tendencies, which showed itself clearly in the Second Vatican Council and in the reforms that issued from it.”


Contacts held with Rome over the last few years have enabled the Society to see how right and necessary were the two pre-conditions that it laid down, since they would greatly benefit the Church by re-establishing, at least in part, her rights to her own Tradition. Not only would the treasure of graces available to the Society no longer be hidden under a bushel, but the Mystical Body would also be given the remedy it so needs to be healed.


If, upon these pre-conditions being fulfilled, the Society looks to a possible debate on doctrine, the purpose is still that of making the voice of traditional teaching sound more clearly within the Church. Likewise, the contacts made from time to time with the authorities in Rome have no other purpose than to help them embrace once again that Tradition which the Church cannot repudiate without losing her identity. The purpose is not just to benefit the Society, nor to arrive at some merely practical impossible agreement. When Tradition comes back into its own, “reconciliation will no longer be a problem, and the Church will spring back to life”.


In the long haul to victory, the Chapter encourages all members of the Society to live, as its statutes require, ever more intensely by the grace proper to it, namely, in union with the great prayer of the High Priest, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Let them be convinced, along with their faithful, that in this striving for an ever greater sanctification in the heart of the Church is to be found the only remedy for our present misfortunes, which is the Church being restored through the restoration of the priesthood.


In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.

112 comments:

Tony La Rosa said...

It is now in English.

Declaration of the General Chapter

Matt said...

I see that the 2 key pre-conditions remain. Does this suggests that no canonical solution is possible without substantial resolution of the doctrinal issues?

The attitude of the document belies a lack of humility.

Juan Manuel Soria said...

Dear blogger:

It is a big disappointment. That declaration is the worst possible result of the General Chapter. Tradition only exists in the Catholic Church under the Pope and its bishops (Papal Motu Propio Ecclesia Dei Afflicta).

Pray for the conversion and return of the SSPX to the Church of Christ, with doctrinal and disciplinary humility and charity. And with repentance for the grave sins against the Holy Mother Church.

God and Our Lady bless the SSPX and the SPXXers.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Its positive an encouraging: nothing new, the same SSPX. Eminently Catholic.

Petrus-V said...

Furthermore, the foreword says:

The Fraternity has an intention to present the Supreme Pontiff a spiritual "bouquet" of a million rosaries by the end of October, the month of the Holy Rosary.

These [crowns of] rosaries will be recited for teh following intentions.

1. To obtain from Heaven the power necessary for the Pope Benedict XVI for total liberation of the Holy Mass of all times, ?as given? by Saing Pius V.

2. For the reurn of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

3. For the triumph of theImmaculate Heart of Mary.

Michael Yoder said...

God bless the Society. It is sure comforting to see them stand firm.

Legion of Mary said...

"A soul that is hard because of self-love grows harder"

"O good Jesus, if you do not soften it, it will ever continue in its natural hardness"

With Peter said...

SSPX would be sinning if it were to agree with Rome while it still thinks it is "neo-modernist" and "neo-protestant." SSPX may well be wrong, mind you, but wouldn't you be frightened if a Baptist joined the Church while still believing she was the "whore of Babylon"?

Doctrinal debate is necessary, and there is no reason the Church should hesitent to engage SSPX. I wish I could be there to help. We should expect the light of such debate to show that we are perhaps not neo-modernists after all.

Sasquire said...

Do not confuse an unwillingness to compromise as a lack of humility. Nor confuse the ability to compromise as a virtue, because it is quite the opposite is regards to faith.

Long-Skirts said...

Juan Manuel Soria said...

"It is a big disappointment. That declaration is the worst possible result of the General Chapter. Tradition only exists in the Catholic Church under the Pope and its bishops"

Long-Skirts says...

"Under GOOD Popes and GOOD bishops!!"

THE LILY

(The martyrs were bound, imprisoned, scourged, racked, burnt, rent, butchered -- and they multiplied.  St. Augustine)

NO BURNING, TEARING,
SCOURGING SKIN.
IT'S PSYCHOLOGICAL,
ALL WITHIN.

NO ROTTING FLESH
OR PUTRID BLOOD
IT'S STERILE, CLEAN
NO RANCID CRUD

FOR BUTCHERED, TORTURED,
BOUND UP SKINS,
REVEALS THE TRUTHS
OF BISHOPS SINS.

THEY WANT IT NICE,
THEY WANT IT HUSHED,
WITH VEINS OF ICE
GOOD SOULS ARE CRUSHED.

THE SILENT COLD,
IS BETTER, YET,
FROZEN, SOLID,
CAN'T BEGET.

FOR MARTYRED BLOOD
REVEALS THE CHURCH,
BLIND SOULS SEE TRUTH
AND END THEIR SEARCH.

"WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!"
THE BISHOPS' SAY.
"SO LET'S IGNORE...
THEY'LL GO AWAY."

"ENLIGHTENED MEN,
DON'T SCOURGE THE SKIN.
ENLIGHTENED MEN,
KEEP BLOOD, WITHIN."

BUT THEY FORGOT...
THE WOMAN BLEEDS,
AND MONTHLY, MAKES
A BED FOR SEEDS.

WHERE "NICE" AND "HUSHED"
THEY'LL GROW TO MEN
AND SEIZE THE OARS
FROM WRISTS THAT BEND...

ON PETER'S BARK
WHERE BLOOD STILL FLOWS,
FROM WOMAN'S WOMB...
THE LILY GROWS!

MacK said...

This declaration represents the consistency, immutability, stability and clarity so obviously lacking in most NO post-conciliar declarations. It is only the Roman Catholic Faith of Sacred Tradition and nothing else that will do.

In summoning our attention to current episcopal statements from Spain "Theology and Secularisation in Spain" 2006 it is self-evident that even NO Rome can see the proverbial writing is on the wall for conciliar modernism. SSPX does not wish to identify with progessivist trends, such as Jesuits dancing half naked on the sanctuaries of NO "worship spaces" throughout christendom and laypeople defying St Paul as they perform indecorously in an unscriptural manner at public worship. To compromise with post-conciliarism is impossible, from the orthodox standpoint. On the contrary, SSPX advocates the sacred priesthood face turned toward God at the altar on the sanctuary in visibly real Roman Catholic Churches with the faithful as reverent, prayerful and Christocentric participants at the Holy Sacrifice of The Mass of All Times. Nothing else suffices.

It is Rome which needs the humility to accept that VC II itself, and not so-called "false interpretations", is a failure. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture have been humiliated and persecuted enough. SSPX deserves all the support it receives for this. It is a laudable and commendable declaration.

Screwtape said...

Mack has the real handle on the meaning of this declaration. There has been no change, and there will be no change. The NO apparat is anti-Catholic and has been since what Bishop Williamson refers to as "that vile Council." It is simply incredible how many soi-disant Catholics fail to comprehend the meaning of iota unum aut unum apex non praeteribit. Doctrine and Dogma cannot change because it is the work of God. Since the Council II it has changed all over the map. Modernism and liberalism are not and can never be orthodox. It seems the SSPX is the only entity to fully understand this one, simple, unalterable, and totally unacceptable fact.

It isn't about the SSPX at all. It is about Rome understanding what the Catholic Church is, and it is an is (as in God's "I am") and making all of the necessary adjustments back to truth.

For any other "movement" by the Society, the result would be SSPX suicide.

But, as the old joke has it, "there's always the one dumb SOB who just never gets the word." Except today that "one" constitutes approximately 99% of the "Catholic" world.

Our Lord started out with twelve and strongly intimated that He'd end up with considerably less - like maybe none.

New Catholic said...

Let us all keep our comments calm and moderate, please.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

A point about terms.

We should not say that Rome needs to understand this or that, or that Rome needs to convert or change.

For several reasons. When the Apostolic See rule the City of Rome, it was common place to say of it, as is said of the Kingdoms of Europe, that it (using the name of the city, rather than of the monarch or in this case the Pope) decides this, or does that.

It is thus a bit anachronistic to say "Rome", better to say "the Vatican".

But furthermore, it is a fundamental error of the protestants to fail to make a distinction between clerics in error and the Church, which can never err.

And thus to impute the errors of clerics to the Church, and say that the Church needs to repent, convert, change, etc..

This protestant error is common place today, on nearly all sides.

And thus we should not say that Rome needs to do this or that or change this or that, or repent of this or that. This kind of talk is erroneous and inflammatory, as an exaggeration.

K Gurries said...

br. bugnolo raises an interesting point regarding the need for clarity of terms.

In a way there is a danger of misinterpreting the distinction the Declaration makes between "eternal Rome" and "neo-Modernist Rome". We would not want to understand by this that there are really two separate Churches. For example, Pope Benedict is really the true successor of Peter ruling the one true Church and not an anti-Pope who rules "neo-Modernist Rome", "NewChurch", etc.

Similarly, it seems to me that we need to take equal caution when saying that the Church has "lost its Tradition". We would not want this mis-understood in a way that would appear to violate the indefectibility of the Church.

totustuusmaria said...

I can't help but feel insulted as a Traditional Catholic in union with Rome at the tone of the declaration. The Million Rosaries is a great idea, but I can't imagine for a second how they dared to quote a declaration which states: "On the contrary, we refuse, and we have always refused, to follow the Rome of neo-modernist and neo-protestant tendencies, which showed itself clearly in the Second Vatican Council and in the reforms that issued from it."

It would take great humility indeed for the Pope to continue dialog with them after that. Agreed the Society can't comprimise it's beliefs, but there is a way to say things without spitting on the face of the Supreme Pontiff.

PerpetuaFelicitas said...

I have never attended a SSPX chapel. However, I would like to unite my Aves with theirs for the needs of Benedict regarding the traditional rite of Holy Mass.
Why don't we all join together and send the pontiff 2 mill Aves?
United we are a greater force,

Mike said...

WEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

Another comment fight.

What's the over/under on:

Someone accusing someone else of sinning.

Threat of physical violence.

New Catholic - I think you should have left the last round of over-the-top comments on the site. A lot of the commenters could have used the dose of shame that would have come from reading their words after cooling down.

Sixtus V said...

Let's hope the Rosaries will help those that offer them.

Sixtus V

Screwtape said...

I don't think civis Romanus sum is an anachronism. Bugnolo's velleities are worse than those of any lawyer I've ever met. I don't think ultra-specificity is altogether necessary. I am perfectly willing, however, to drop "Rome" as no longer representing the Catholic Church.

Sorry about the peccadillo, New Catholic, but the joke makes an extremely apt point and it can't be told any other way.

I understand the need to maintain control, believe me. But, a little discretionary leeway might be in order now and then - one need not be quite as "precious" as at times you have been.

I am not a member of SSPX, although I assist only at an SSPX Mass. I can assure all, from what I've read and from with whom I've spoken, lay and clerical, that the declaration in question is exactly what was expected.

Sixtus V said...

I am appaled by the use of the term Catholic by the Crypto-Lutherans that dance around these pages claimimg the errors of the See of Rome. They have left the Church some time ago, they are just not men enough to admit it. In or out, make up your minds. Start your own church, it's a venerable practice.

Screwtape said...

Sixtus V:

"Thou hast nor youth nor age, but as it were, an after-dinner sleep, dreaming of both."

Scottguy said...

I agree with some of the above postings that there needs to be a bit more clarity in the wording. Not of Bishop Fellay's statements but of the commentary by traditional catholics.
I think we can all agree that Rome, or The Vatican needs to return to a traditional understanding of the faith. The error that Traditionalists are fighting against is essentially the attempt by Vatican prelates, to make peace between the Church and the world.
They did this by secularizing the presentation of the faith, and 'updating' the liturgy etc.
I think slowly but definately sincere catholics are coming to realize this is spiritual suicide.
In fact Our Lord Himself already warned us about this, when he said "the world will hate you because of me."
So unfortunately, because some overly optimistic prelates thought they could solve a more or less practical problem via VV2 we have entered into a spiritual crisis these past 40 years with countless souls lost.

Screwtape said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Screwtape said...

"I think we can all agree that Rome, or The Vatican needs to return to a traditional understanding of the faith."

If you really believe that, you can't have been reading the above comments with clarity of mind.

"So unfortunately, because some overly optimistic prelates thought they could solve a more or less practical problem via V2 . . ."

Since when does animus delendi translate into "overly optimistic?" It wasn't a deluded tooth fairy that threw out all of the schemas the first day and invited in previously condemned periti and others to re-write the dogma of the Church.

Juan Manuel Soria said...

Dears bloggers:

The positions of SSPX and traditionalism regarding Vatican II are qualified but the Church as ERRONOUS, RASH, DANGEROUS and “TUTO DOCERI NON POTEST”.

This results from the Doctrinal Commentary of the Congregation of Doctrine of Faith on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei(expressly approved by the Holy Father John Paul II exercising his supreme magisterial authority).

“10. The third proposition of the professio fidei states: "Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the college of bishops enunciates when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.
To this paragraph belong all those teachings on faith and morals presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings ...require religious submission of will and intellect....
A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore "tuto doceri non potest." [Cf. Canons 752, 1371; Eastern Churches Canons 599, 436 §2]”

Adding infra:

"As examples of doctrines belonging to the third paragraph, one can point in general to teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which require degrees of ADHERENCE differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression."

"In contemporary usage, the term "Church" has come to include a variety of meanings, which, while true and consistent, REQUIRE GREATER PRECISION WHEN ONE REFERS TO THE SPECIFIC AND PROPER FUNCTIONS of persons who act within the Church. In this area, IT IS CLEAR THAT, ON QUESTIONS OF FAITH AND MORALS, THE ONLY SUBJECT QUALIFIED TO FULFILL THE OFFICE OF TEACHING WITH BINDING AUTHORITY FOR THE FAITHFUL IS THE SUPREME PONTIFF AND THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS IN COMMUNION WITH HIM. The Bishops are the "authentic teachers" of the faith, "endowed with the authority of Christ", because by divine institution they are the successors of the Apostles "in teaching and in pastoral governance": TOGETHER WITH THE ROMAN PONTIFF they exercise supreme and full power over all the Church, ALTHOUGH THIS POWER CANNOT BE EXERCISED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF.”

In reference to the last paragraph, SSPX bishops and –of course- Brother Bugnolo have not ANY TEACHING POWERS in the one Church of Christ.

Regards,

Matt said...

"Sasquire said...
Do not confuse an unwillingness to compromise as a lack of humility. Nor confuse the ability to compromise as a virtue, because it is quite the opposite is regards to faith. "

I'm not confusing anything with anything. One can be humble and yet uncompromising, Christ perfected that. The statements from earlier popes show that, as do most of the statements of Benedict XVI. My experience is, aside from being uncompromising (which they perfect), statements from SSPX leaders tend to lack this tone of humility.

In any event there's very few people here calling for compromise of the Faith on the part of SSPX, only submission to (under conditions) the authority of the Supreme Pontiff in regulating discipline within the Church, under some agreeable canonical structure.


with_peter:
"SSPX would be sinning if it were to agree with Rome while it still thinks it is "neo-modernist" and "neo-protestant." "

Again, no call for SSPX to "agree" with the Holy See, only submit to her in matters of ecclesiastical discipline. Obviously, every Catholic has the right and obligation to refuse an order which is contradictory to the faith.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

First, my previous comments about "Rome" were directed in reference to those commenting here, not the statement of the Archbishop.

I do not think it takes a great deal of humility to understand that the term "Eternal Rome" used by the Archbishop in contradistinction with "Modernist Rome". Terms have meaning, in context.

By using this distinction, it seems, pretty clear, if we were to judge the matter with charity, that he was referring to the memers of the Church acting either according to grace or not according to grace, and those acting in accord with the faith, and those acting in accord with the errors of modernism, conciously or not.

And to this extent the Archbishop spoke well and in a catholic manner, because he was not imputing error or sin to the Church. How anyone can conclude this, I do not understand. How often the SSPX has criticized the imputation of error and sin to the Church! To accuse the Archbishop of having done so in this now famous declaration, would be uncharitably to assume that he and they were inconsistent or not catholic.

Needless to say, who has defended a doctoral thesis proving that the late Archbishop was not catholic or a heretic?

Theoloyg is not law: however to deny to law or theology a precision of language or of interpretation is unjust and ill informed.

With Peter said...

What is "disappointing" is not when the person with whom you are speaking is "wrong," but when he is schizophrenic (i.e. Anglicans).

SSPX--under Fellay--has stayed focus on the original problems inherited from Lefebvre. This is not "disappointing," but hopeful. It means that neither is SSPX forging toward a new theology, which relativizes the importance of the papacy in the period between Christ's two comings (i.e. the sedevacantist headless horseman), nor is SSPX putting on a mask.

This declaration is useful because it states the position of the society with simple, unpolemical clarity. It is a gift to both adherents and adversaries of the society. Nothing is worse than when you are left guessing what your opponent "might" believe.

So, let's take the cue from both Rome and the society, who are conducting this affair with infinitely more dignity than we bloggers.

MacK said...

As declarations use "eternal Rome" and "the Roman authorities" and "Catholic Rome", I am perfectly entitled to employ such a term since it is clear to whom I am refering. Furthermore, I state, the Roman authorities need to wake up quickly before they find there is no Rome left to speak of. And to those who are sensitive about such statements - The Christ promised He would not allow the gates of Hell to prevail against His Church - but He did not stipulate it was the one in Rome.

Screwtape said...

Br. AB

I'm not sure, but I think you are agreeing with me.

I am with you in your concern for precision of language in ANY sphere or area or whatever. If it's soup I want it called soup and not thinly- endowed chowder or fat-free gunk.

"Rome" is a universally recognized synecdoche. Depending upon context it can refer to anything from the pope to the curia to (rarely) the entire Church.

Roma lacuta est . . . is not fuzzy language. Civis Romanus sum is not sloppy usage.

Ergo: to say, for example that, Rome is in apostasy, meaning the entire Vatican, is not abusing the King's English.

MacK said...

The contemporary illustration that there are many members of the public out there who believe any old piece of newsmedia is the fact that in spite of public statements by prominent cardinals and other learned Vatican spokespersons to the contrary that SSPX is not schismatic, certain sensibilities have led others to swallow whole the empty propaganda.

If SSPX is schismatic then most of the NO church must be a new religion invented in the 1960s at a pastoral council which had no authority to invent novel doctrines which has been its outcome. For example to falsely obey JPII in his idolatry at Assisi, which even Pope Ratzinger disapproved of, would be to disobey the first commandment given to us by God Himself. This is why St Paul tells us to obey God not man. He also gives excellent instructions on decorum in public worship in his letters to The Corinthians. These are routinely flouted by NO churches everywhere, everyday throughout christendom (or what is left of it after VCII) and were actively encouraged by Pope Ratzinger's predecessor. If protestantism and schism are the accusations then NO church must be both protestant & schismatic.
Quote St Thomas Acquinas all you will but he wrote according to the natural expectation of a church which acted in an orthodox manner according to Apostolic Tradition and keeping these prescritions as handed on by them, as St Paul stated. St Thomas also told us to judge the effects of changes in church norms in time therafter to test their validity. 40 years later, we can and the result is they are invalid because they are not Catholic. Not even St Thomas himself would reognise the church of the post-conciliar period as the one he wrote about when he was alive.

This is why the current Holy Father has made moves towards the SSPX because he knows in his Catholic heart therein lies a positively clear and unambiguous response to the decadance of a modernist edifice which is crumbling in post-conciliar "auto-destruction" [Pope Paul VI's expression not mine].

Juan Manuel Soria said...

Dear Brother Bugnolo:

It is against the traditional catholic doctrine about the territorial diocese of Rome (and the Papacy and the Church of Christ located in that territory of the City of Rome –to the clarification of some blogger´s mind-) what you said. It is accurate to use Rome, the Vatican and the Apostolic See as synonyms. I could not imagine in which lefebvrist pamphlet you did read such a ludicrous idea.

As a good SSPXer you forget this catholic dogmatic definition: “Si quis dixerit … ROMANUM Pontificen non esse beati Petri in eodem primate sucesorem” a.s.

I suggest you to read the following authors, among others, to illustrate your lack of knowledge on the specific subject (of DIVINE nature in the opinion of the majority of the theologians):
1) Vogels: Textus Antencaemi ad Primatum Romanum Spectantes (1937);
2) Caspar: Primatus Petri (Weimar 1927);
3) Hartmann: Der Primat des römischen Bischofs bei Pseudo Isidor (1930);
and especially
4) Grabmann: Die Lehre des Erzbischosfs und Augustinentheologen Jakob von Viterbo (+ 1307/08) vom Episkopat und Primat und ihre Beziehung zum hl. Thomas von Aquin;
5) Lietzman: Petrus und Paulus in Rom (1927) and Petrus Römischer Martyruer (1936), and
6) Klauser: Die römische Petrustradition im Lichte der neuen Ausgrabungen unter der Peterskitche (1956).
Of course you must read the Aquinitate in the -S.t.G. IV 76- and the writings of St. Cataline of Siena.

The SSPX practical avoidance of the jurisdictional authority of the ROMAN Pontiff violates, moreover, these dogmatic definitions of VCI (with its consequent doctrinal penalties):

“Si quis dixerit, beatum Petrum Apostolum non esse a Christo Domino constitutum Apostolorum omnium et totius Eclesiae militantis VISIBILI CAPUT; vel eundem honoris tantum, NON AUTEM VERAE PROPRIAQUE IUIRISDICTIONIS ab eodem Domino nostro IESU CHRISTO DIRECTE ET IMMEDIATE ACCEPISSE” a.s.

and

“Si quis dixerit, non esse ex ipsius Christi Domine institutione seu iure divino, ut beatus Petrus IN PRIMATE SUPER UNIVERSAM ECCLESIAM HABEAT PERPETUOS SUCCESSORES” a.s.

It is a complete doctrinal mistake (an heresy) to justify the lack of submission to the jurisdictional supreme power of the Roman Pontiff. This is the one (dogmatic) condition of the Holy See to negotiations with the SSPX, but the "traditional" “catholic” SSPXers can not look down their noses at the Church of Christ.

Regards,

Screwtape said...

Janice:

"Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me! You would play upon me; you would seem to know my stops; you would pluck out the heart of my mystery; you would sound me from my lowest note to the top of my compass: and there is much music, excellent voice, in this little organ; yet cannot you make it speak. 'Sblood, do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe? Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, yet you cannot play upon me."

manly73 said...

Dear God,

I give you thanks for finding me and sending me your sanctifying grace. You brought me back to the church through SSPX & I believe in your work through this society which only has Thee & Thy Mother at heart & which provides true priests who feed the flock with true heavenly food and make sure there is not one bit of poison in the food they distribute to souls entrusted to them. I believe that the flame of the Catholic Church is being kept alive by your work in the SSPX & as you have said so wisely " By their fruits you shall no them" Thank you Lord & have mercy on my soul.

MacK said...

"By their fruits ye shall know them."

Indeed the simple wisdom of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour. He gave us the true measure, the true yardstick.

NO catholics applaud false religions and claim freedom for them BUT not for traditional Catholics; they contradict Sacred Scripture and tell us the Jews have no need of salvation as they have a special plan with God which He actually dispensed with when The Son died on the cross and the veil of the temple was rent in two; they proclaim the first commandment but worship false gods at Assisi, the Holy Lieu of St Francis who converted muslims to The Christ; they abuse and wreck young lives and try to conceal the facts by conspiracy to silence; they write a new service using the misplaced talents of a freemasonic churchman, Bugnini by name, and his protestant assitants and then attempt to destroy The Latin Mass of All Times calling adherence to it "schismatic", "disobedience" and "heresy" and deny the authority of the infallible papal bull of Pope St Pius V, "Quo Primum"; they rewrite the traditional catechism and conceal therein 12 heresies; they insinuate the novel and erroneous doctrine of universal salvation supplanting the doctrines of Heaven, Purgatory & Hell; they promise us a vibrant, growing church with many vocations but give the faithful tens of thousands of empty & closed churches and seminaries, convents and chapels, a worse record than all the destruction of Catholicism under Joseph Stalin in communist Russia; they tell us we need a reform of the reform but are incapable of understanding the norm of the norm.

Indeed, by their fruits ye shall know them.

Matt said...

Janice and Juan Manuel Soria:

Please contact me if you wish to discuss the validity of the SSPX bishops and priests. mgmcdonald@teppco.com

MacK said...

When the conciliarite revisionist wing of the church expounds on all the doctrines and teachings concerning obedience to papal authority then we must consider the environment in which this is being done. Most of the reliable & valid references to this are from pre-conciliar times when even immoral popes such as the Borgias left orthodox doctrine alone. Thus, obedience may reasonably be expected when the church behaves like the church with due Christocentric & Apostolic authority given it.

Therefore,let us consider the following case of the current pontiff Benedict XVI promoting women on the Altar.

During a Mass at St. Peter's Basilica on January 6, 2006, Benedict XVI invited a woman and her daughter to bring the Offertory gifts.

Before taking the chalice, the Pope gave the woman a caress-blessing, below. This seems to be the introduction of a "new sacramental" by Ratzinger that is open to interpretation: it is not certain whether he is giving just a caress, or a blessing that includes a collateral caress.

In either case, Benedict XVI continues John Paul II's habit, so convenient for Progressivism, of having women on the Altar. It accustoms Catholics to their presence there, opening doors for the establishment of women priests. Is this why modernist ecumenics insist on rapprochement with the Anglicans [who have approved sodomist clergy, women priests and are moving toward female bishops] as a prelude to such a move?

According to the Sacred Scriptures (1 Tim 2:12; 1 Cor 14:34-5), women should not have a place of prominence in the church. This, therefore, flouts St Paul's clear directions concerning women when he talks about decorum in public worship. No pope has the authority to do this. The Christ never stated to Peter that he could disobey The Word and this would be considered bound in Heaven. Of course not.

Correctly interpreting these passages and reflecting a centuries-old tradition of modesty, the Code of Canon Law of 1917 by St. Pius X and Benedict XV formally forbade women to be acolytes at Mass or have access to the altar (Canon 813, # 2). This is entirely Traditional and in keeping with the norms clearly and unequivocally laid out in Sacred Scripture.

SSPX has done as much as it can to protect these teachings unlike the so-called authorities in Rome (yes, Rome) who quite openly have not. Obey modernist progressivist norms and you fall foul of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Our learned forefathers understood this and wrote about it. It is only by twisting and turning their proper sense that such teachings can be made to appear what they are not. This is a characteristic modernist strategy. Professor Amerio demonstrates and confirms this tendancy.

Progressivists in the church may quote ad nauseam on obedience to The Holy See but in these times which are not normal this is tantamount to encouraging the faithful to disobey God in His Word. Modernist misunderstanding of obedience means to disobey the laws of God as have been amply demonstrated here and elsewhere. Many saints of the church have understood this and when necessary reproved their bishops. St Athanasius went as far as to be excommunicated to defend orthodoxy of doctrine; St Paul publicly reproved St Peter for showing prefernce toward jewish converts; St Thomas Acquinas would never have obeyed a pope who encouraged the faithful to commit idolatry - that is, obey false doctrines such as "universal salvation" or false religion such as the preposterous behaviour of Pope Benedict XVI's predecessor at Assisi, not once but twice. Even the current pope disapproved of this and has restructured how that holy place is administered in the light of such blasphemy. Can any Catholic honestly imagine St Pius V approving the rehabilitation of that heretic and sower of discord among the brothers, Martin Luther? And which pope called him "righteous"?

Ultimately, you do not have a moral leg to stand on. These and countless other disgraceful and un-Catholic behaviours have been well-documented for all to see. Holy obedience indeed - false obedience, absolutely not. Obey Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture indeed. Obey false teachings and dubious behaviours which scandalise and confuse the faith and the faithful, definitely not! SSPX has committed none of these crimes against the faith. Unfortunately, this is not so for the authorities of the NO church.
Who, therefore, can cast stones at SSPX first?

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Dear Mr. Soria,

I think you mistakenly address your recent comment to me; I have never denied the teaching you refer to.

Perhaps you meant what Mack said afterwards:

"The Christ promised He would not allow the gates of Hell to prevail against His Church - but He did not stipulate it was the one in Rome."

Which is erroneous, for the reasons you state.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

As for my comments about Rome:

Of course if you mean Rome, as was said in ancient times, "Roma locuta est", you mean the Pope, strictly speaking, as Pope, not as the man who is pope.

But then if you mean "Rome" in the same sense as this, when you say, "Rome needs to change", or "Rome is in error", you are obviously spouting heresy, because in his official infallible statements, the pope cannot err.

But if you mean "Rome" in a less strict sense, of the Curia, or of the the Pope as pope, when not teaching infallibly, then ofcourse you can do so, but there will always be someone who misunderstands, just like those who rap the Archbishop for his term "Eternal Rome" and "Modernist Rome".

Oh, and Mr. Soria, once again you are wrong: I am no SSPXer. I do not even attend their chapels.

With Peter said...

Collegiality, ecumenism and religious freedom are key issues of doctrinal disagreement. As long as SSPX believes something opposed to what Rome/the Vatican/the Magisterium teaches, any unity between the two will be false and illusory.

"Women on the altar" and other such liturgical criticism are tripe. It is a liturgical practice--which we may not like--but which does NOT touch on the validity of the sacrament. Therefore, Peter has every authority to bind and loose this sort of practice, condemning it at one time and approving it another.

In any case, traditionalists are not be expected to practice this or any other post-1962 liturgical reform. They are expected, however, to recognize the ordinary and universal authority of the pope over such matters, viz. Vatican I Pastor Aeternus, chapter 3.

Matt said...

Mack:
"Before taking the chalice, the Pope gave the woman a caress-blessing, below. This seems to be the introduction of a "new sacramental" by Ratzinger that is open to interpretation: it is not certain whether he is giving just a caress, or a blessing that includes a collateral caress."

As far as women bringing up the gifts, is it not true that the practice of families bringing up the gifts is no novelty? In any event I don't think that qualifies as a place of "prominence". As far as a blessing with a caress... aren't you tilting at windmills? Surely this is not the first priest to touch a person on the cheek will conferring a blessing? I find it hard to believe this is a novelty, and further, I find it ridiculous to make such a deal of such an innocuous practice.

"Obey modernist progressivist norms"

Of course nobody should obey progressivist norms, but what about those norms which are not progressivist?

"St Thomas Acquinas would never have obeyed a pope who encouraged the faithful to commit idolatry - that is, obey false doctrines"

Of course Aquinas would not obey a false doctrine, but that's different from obeying a pope. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between lawful instructions and unlawful ones. In the secular world it may come to a point where a leader is so misguided that his every order may be disregarded... however, the authority of the Supreme Pontiff is another thing altogether, and every just instruction is due the appropriate consideration.


"NO church."

This kind of denigrating comment adds nothing to the conversation.

With peter:
"Collegiality, ecumenism and religious freedom are key issues of doctrinal disagreement"

No traditionalist will object to the doctrine of collegiality, only it's improper emphasis.

Ecumenism is a practice, not a doctrine. No traditionalist will disagree with true ecumenism, which is an attempt to bring the return of dissenters and schismatics. A good traditionalist will however, object (justly) to ecumenical practices which are damaging to the Faith, regardless of who is encouraging them.

Religious freedom was never defined clearly in the Vatican II documents. Many traditionalists and liberals took it to mean indifferentism, a right to error; this would be doctrinal, and gravely heretical. Benedict XVI has clarified that it is merely a call to tolerant co-existence, so that all might be free to seek the truth without compulsion or persecution. This is nothing new, the Church has never called for forced conversion. Traditionalists may object (justly) to the degree of tolerance to public religious displays which might be advisable, however, that is really a matter for the temporal leadership of the particular nation.

With Peter said...

Matt, you almost seem to imply that traditionalists don’t have a problem with the truth of the of Vatican II’s teaching, but only its “ambiguity” and “emphasis,” but if this were the case, traditionalists would not speak of “the errors of Vatican II.” I should also mention that if this were the case, I would have less respect for traditionalists than I do. I respect those who see this as a matter of truth and error, more than those who are second guessing the manner in which the Holy Father/Ecumenical Council chooses to express truth.

Ecumenism is a practice, but it also a doctrine that has been laid down in various conciliar and post-conciliar documents (e.g. Unitatis Redintegratio, Ut Unum Sint, etc). And various propositions in these documents are opposed by many traditionalists—SSPX among them—not just as “inappropriate” but “false” and “formally heretical.” Vatican II clearly defined a “right” to error when it said, “This right to immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and living up to it” (DH 2). This is definitely a proposition rejected by the medieval Church, who declared that those who had the truth and rejected it had no such “right to immunity,” but could be punished even with death.

Now the case can be made that punishing a heretic in an age of mass communication, moral confusion and religious ignorance only advances the cause of heresy. Hence, religious liberty is not an inherent moral right, but a civil right justified by developments in social and political conditions, and as such it would fall under Peter’s authority to bind (Syllabus of Errors) and loose (Dignitatis Humanae). I’m not sure how one who opposes Vatican II would respond to this argument. There’s certainly enough of you out there, who can let me know.

At any rate, Matt, if you are correct in your description of traditionalist dissent—that it doesn’t involve doctrinal truth and error—it is of the most base and puerile form, like children whining because they think they know how to do their chores better than dad tells them. I believe that traditionalists are more principled than this.

MacK said...

What I write stands.

This is a major problem in Novus Ordo church [a perfectly apt & accurate expression - it is the NO service which invented The so-called Tridentine Mass and Traditional Catholics]: the emphasis, the shrouds of ambiguity, the dubious messages transmitted across the media, the doubt and confusion disseminated in unclear public statements and behaviours, the obvious failure to address post-conciliar norms and values which undermine the authority of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. There is abundant evidence of this throughout the modern church. Objective evidence is presented annually of the appalling state of affairs is not being confronted.

When all is said and done, the liturgy has become a classic example of a progessivist liberal catastrophe. Only proverbial ostriches bury their heads in the sand and pretend they are unable to see what is going on, or the origins of such events.

Ecumenism, for example, may not be a doctrine but since VC II it has been presented as one. It has become an obsession. The meanings of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition have all been shifted on this to make ecumenism seem what it should not be. Anyone subsequently who disagrees with this genre of official-speak is branded "disobedient", "schismatic" or "fundamentalist". Rather strong if we consider the pastoral nature of a council which has been made to appear ultimately & dogmatically authoritative on what transpires in modern church life. It is clear to a Roman Catholic who understands the nature of The Faith according to Scriptures and Tradition, that today's emphasis is misleading and wrong. According to phenomenologically minded modern church members this is all in the mind and therefore subjective. This is where the problem exists in progressivist linguistic, semantic and philosophical twists and turns to accomodate contemporarily correct political & social thought. Women on the sanctuary, heads uncovered and being heard in the assembly, among a plethora of other issues, is a typical case in point. It does not equate with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, However, liberal modernist rationale circumvent this by ignoring it; stating it is fine in the current social environment or just by boldly carrying it out, proclaiming it as an obedience issue if Catholics rightly protest. Elsewhere, Sodomist catholics justify sodomy because The Christ never actually made a public statement about it in The Gospels but adeptly ignore St Paul's adequate and unambiguous teachings about it. Holy obedience as another issue fits into this logic - such obedience has a scripturally and traditionally oriented framework but this is also manipulated and by-passed to permit the practise of any norm NO catholics wish. Then, it is represented as an obedience issue by those who are actually being disobedient.

Furthermore, it is no use looking to the last four popes for a precise and unequivocal lead on the matters in hand because, generally speaking, we do not receive one or if there is a statement in some form it is routinely disobeyed by the proponents of "obedience" who are often also the ones who criticise and condemn traditional catholics who are obeying Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Nebulous thinking and equivocation have replaced clarity and precision. How like our disorientated, uncertain and unbelieving epoch. No wonder we have a seriously disunited and disorientated church.

Screwtape said...

Dear Br. AB:

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous, there shall be nor more cakes and ale?"

I know you know very well what I mean and you know I know it.

I didn't say that I said that I didn't say it; I said that I didn't say that I said it.

You know a very great deal, as opposed to we who tug our locks, but thou art the epitome of the picker of nits.

To which you will doubtless reply: "I am neither a nit picker, nor a nit picker's son, but I'll pick nits till the nit picker comes."

Doubtless, when you sleep it off, you use a bed of nails.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

To which I reply:

If you read more of what pleased you would only fall asleep, and if you wish to sleep, do not read the likes of what I will write.

Because Christ sent his disciples into the world to rouse men from their slumber, and to teach the nations.

I suppose you were one of those who sat in the back rows of the class room, and railed against any teacher who aimed to teach you something, saying they were mean, and not fun.

As Catholics, on this blog, we expect one another to be more mature, do we not?

But I agree in this: I do not share your expectations, and that is a cause of your displeasure, because you have chosen it so.

I pity you.

MacK said...

While the issue of Rome and the SSPX has been continuing, the Spanish bishops have publicly recognised there is an immense problem in society and this stems from progressivist NO church thinking. This is endemic in modernist norms, values & mores. This is why earlier this year they put the blame [a word jungian modernists dislike but find ways of doing nonetheless] not on Zapatero but on contemporary NO church ideologies. Some few years ago, Italian politicians were blaming Roman churchmen for betraying them with their modernist shift of doctrinal & pastoral emphasis. After the VCII, Canadian bishops told their politicians not to impose Roman Catholic principles on Canadian society in the "light" of conciliar thinking on religious liberty. I would imagine we are all aware of the moral slough Canada is descending into these days. It appears that many, formerly Catholic nations, have lost their bearings along the pastoral-cum-doctrinal pathway into the cul-de-sac of post-concilar-think.

Years ago, I lost count of the number of NO presbyters I used to hear quote the mythical "spirit of the council" when they had been sermonising as such on the novelties of universal salvation; equality of all religions before God; the meal table of the lord; the removal of the Tabernacle from the church building; liberty and equality of the sexes in active church & liturgical life; the invalidity of "dead" Latin as a liturgical language; the paramount importance of interfaith & ecumenical dialogue and as a justification for rock etc., music, protestants and non-christians "sharing" the life of "the faith community" and being welcomed into NO churches for joint services. One of them even had the audacity to claim that it was the so-called royal priesthhood of the laity that made the church a sacred place - that is until I quietly went to put him right on a few ideas, afterwards. He publicly recanted this nonsense the following week.

However, there comes a juncture when you can no longer tolerate such anarchic disorder of short skirts, t-shirts, spaghetti straps and unremitting babble for the lucidity, tranquility and recognisable orderliness and mysticality of the orthodox sanctuary of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. For this we must thank those who have maintained progress along the continuum of The Holy Roman Catholic Faith. We should thank them for all the humiliating and unjustified remarks & behaviours that they have suffered since the VC II closed. Indeed, there were many offences against them. I was there and I witnessed many.

Since those days in the rebellious 1960s, the progressivist juggernaut of linguistic, semantic and philosophical ducking and weaving has become so symptomatic, very few Catholics are able to decipher what is pastoral advice and what is doctrinal obligation. Having listened to many lay people from NO parishes,I know not many are able to distinguish either. One factor is certain, there is a superabundance of confusion, ignorance and, often, total disinterest.

These are valid reasons why it is so refreshing to hear, read and contemplate the true and authentic teachings of Roman Catholic organisations such as SSPX and their like. They are clear, understandable and guided absolutely by the benchmarks of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Let us hope this declaration and its sequel will help to further the long-term progress of The Faith. No wonder The Holy Father who has had a traditional upbringing can see the utter chaos into which the contemporary church is declining and detects there a bright luminescence from the past which will never be extinguished. The question is will he make pilgrimage towards it?

Matt said...

With Peter said...
"Matt, you almost seem to imply that traditionalists don't have a problem with the truth of the of Vatican II's teaching, but only its "ambiguity" and "emphasis," but if this were the case, traditionalists would not speak of "the errors of Vatican II." I should also mention that if this were the case, I would have less respect for traditionalists than I do. I respect those who see this as a matter of truth and error, more than those who are second guessing the manner in which the Holy Father/Ecumenical Council chooses to express truth."

I apologize for perhaps misleading you. Many traditionalists think they have found doctrinal error in VII. I disagree, and believe that all of these sticking points can be resolved when we read the documents in light of tradition and apply Pope Benedict's hermaneutic of reform. As regards certain pastoral recommendations, whether they are prudent, or consistent with the underlying doctrinal principles, I think it's very probable that there is error. This is not contradictory to magisterial infallibilty.

"Ecumenism is a practice, but it also a doctrine that has been laid down in various conciliar and post-conciliar documents (e.g. Unitatis Redintegratio, Ut Unum Sint, etc). And various propositions in these documents are opposed by many traditionalists-SSPX among them-not just as "inappropriate" but "false" and "formally heretical." Vatican II clearly defined a "right" to error when it said, "This right to immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and living up to it" (DH 2). This is definitely a proposition rejected by the medieval Church, who declared that those who had the truth and rejected it had no such "right to immunity," but could be punished even with death."

Please tell me what is your understanding of the "doctrine of ecuminism". Bear in mind that there are definitive magisterial teachings on the triumphal nature of the Church. Properly understood, "Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salas" is an infallible teaching.

The right to immunity is a right to be free from forced conversion, the Church has never taught otherwise, according to the teachings of the Church heretics should punished for leading the faithful astray, not for holding personal convictions. All men are subject to error in their practice, and it's probable that this was violated at times.

Do you believe the pope is immune from speaking things which are "innappropriate", "false" or "formally heretical"? Is he above reproach?

"At any rate, Matt, if you are correct in your description of traditionalist dissent-that it doesn't involve doctrinal truth and error-it is of the most base and puerile form, like children whining because they think they know how to do their chores better than dad tells them. I believe that traditionalists are more principled than this."

So we have no right to criticize the magisterial authority when so many are being led astray? Aren't you teaching against the 2nd Vatican council, and canon law which hold that the faithful have a right and a duty to inform the authorities and faithful about problems in the Church?

Do you deny that the Church militant has suffered a tremendous decline since Vatican II???

ThePublican said...

Ngb,

Thou makest me laugh, and life with a laugh is very much bearable. For that I thank thee! A praise to Br.B for trying to respond in kind.

St. Philip Neri thought humor was a necessary component of sanctity. Ngb, you may not have the latter (yet) but you do have the former! Any day now you may achieve the latter.

Thanks again. Three cheers for thee. Bartender! Give that man a beer!!

Screwtape said...

Dear The Publican:

Well thank you very much. Yes, some of the best of the early great British converts were funny, and one of them, Chesterton, explained that Christ himself had a sense of humor and why.

The following is true: the late Emmett Kelly (B&B clown) once saw my performance of Toby Belch in Shakespeare's Twelfth Night and told me I was a true clown. Forty years later, they still have to deflate me to come down to dinner.

I always like to be funny, even when I'm lowering someone's trousers for the switch.

As for sanctity, I could consult Br. AB, but . . . I'll put it the way the Cure d'Ars once put it during a sermon: "Most of you are going to Hell, so you can go back to sleep; two or three of you had better wake up and listen."

Besides, there are mitigating circumstances: I was a confirmed atheist until the age of 50. Till I was 8 I was a Mormon. I call them, nastily, double-"M- morons.

Thanks again, and you are actually very fortunate to possess the kind of sense of humor to see my wacky ways. I know that's blowing my horn a little loudly, but there are those who really don't have it: I know people who can sit through a whole night of Jonathan Winters and not crack a smile. Puns and irony elude many, also.

I am absolutely certain you are right that humor and sanctity are connected. I think that there's a correlation between that and the observation that "Communism (official, enforced atheism) has no wings."

Screwtape said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MacK said...

Out of the ambiguity & the emphasis have come forth plenteous errors.

The greatest of them all is the Bugnini service - written by a freemason with 6 protestant hirelings & commissioned by a pope to remove all unique Catholic content to draw in the protestants. This all done very badly with purposefully dubious translations (Fr S Somerville letter of resignation & recantation & apology to Catholics). A service which in its cranmerian style has perverted the true doctrinal content of the Roman Catholic liturgy with its Cain-type "offertory"; questionable consecration of the wine in the canon; its anthropocentric emphasis; its encouragement of blasphemous communions, inculturation with inappropriate norms and sheer noise; its complete lack of reverence; the facility with which lutheran & other protestant groups can identify with it and find it acceptable; the flagrant disregard of St Paul's directions on decorum in public worship; etc; etc; etc. In short, the very vehicle for propagating false doctrines and un-Catholic behaviour. Ideally following Luther's precondition for destroying the Catholic Church - destroying The Latin Mass.

The so-called "sacrament" of "reconciliation" is not far behind it and follows it in the manner in which it has been abandoned en masse by NO catholics & numerous presbyters - I read the other day only about 8% of regular church-going NO catholics in USA (that is 8% of 15%) go to "reconcile" with God - the article claimed there was "more light in the confessional" these days. Surely, this was a typical modernist denial of the true social reality. Verily, as there is less light in the church people are unable to find their way to the Confessional box.

SSPX is unable to compromise with this Bugnini service, the liturgical flagship of the post-conciliar church, because it is patently and grossly un-Catholic. It flies in the face of all official pre-conciliar writings on Catholic liturgy.

In spite of this, there is still a near-terminal state of denial in the NO church. Quote whatever volume, chapter, page, footnote or subsection you like from any writing, the Masonic and protestant Bugnini service is not Roman Catholic in any sense at all. As Professor Amerio has quite correctly stated, in the post-conciliar church anything can be said about anything since there is a loss of the true sense of what things mean. Indeed, this is the nonsense propagated by the thus-named "spirit of the councils".

ThePublican said...

Ngb,

Yes, humor is essential. Specially for traditionalists, lest we begin to believe much of ourselves. Humor is the one antidote to avoid ending up a Pharisee. Or a liberal. And, if there is one thing Our Lord came to this Earth to do (Br. AB: correct my geographical terminology if needs be ;)) is to fight Pharisees. So said a great priest, Fr. Castellani, and I think him right.

St. Phillip Neri had a Bible and a book of jokes on him at all times. Don Bosco, when asked by St. Dominic Sabio what he had to do to be a saint stated "fulfill with love your duties in life, go often to confession and be joyful (in Spanish "se alegre", almost a "be mirthful" or laugh often, rather). Going to confession has to have us laughing at our uselessness repeatedly or else our pride is getting on the way and something is not right.

Yes, take thyself not too seriously.

Mack, nuff said; you are beginning to repeat yourself, repeat yourself, repeat yourself.

All: let us take a break from fighting the pope's battles to examine our souls. Most of us are meant to be soldiers in the trenches not within the generals' tent... Examination of Conscience: are we speaking like aides de camp, full of self importance?? Am I lingering far away from my post in the battle?

Thus spake ThePublican.

PS: Speaking of Rome, anyone seen Simon-Peter lately?

Screwtape said...

The Publican:

Can't get better verifaction of our truism than St. Philip Neri.

As for the general's tent, the last time I looked, it was a camel sneaking under the flaps.

According to a Patton-like nutty uncle, who had his own cult, by the way, I was a general in the Persian Wars; wrote the Magna Charta; and, was a prisoner in the Bastille at the same time I was being Tom Paine writing The Rights of Man. Said sad uncle regularly traveled about with Joseph Smith and St. Paul. (Confession: uncle really did say, and believe that, all but the bit about the general - I just added that to the nonsense to make it germane to the subject).

As Br. AB would point out, correctly, we must in our use of humor, never be flippant about the sacred. The only applicable caveat (other than, of course, avoiding dirty stuff).

MacK said...

Simon-Peter? he's in the garden somewhere getting over a stiff rebuke from Paul. But he'll be back at the gates on Sunday, I believe. He's been repeating himself, too. Looks like a common failing in these parts.

So, here's something from a very young one of my 6 children - plenty of humour there, why look for it here?

Why do non-believers take cover during The Mass?

Because it's got a real canon.


I've got a diary full of them.

Now back to business!

Screwtape said...

Simon-Peter announced his total withdrawl from this Blogsite. So did I; but, I make a habit out of reneging when prompted; unfortunatley, the prompter is always in.

I'll trade you my uncle for your six kids. (I haven't any, so maybe that's what I'm making up for by being child[ish] myself.)

Just kidding. Uncle die. Cult's still going, though, if you're interested. At least you'll find out who you've been and what you've done back to at least the year 3,000 BC.

MacK said...

3,000 BC? There's still a long way to go till we reach that landmark but maybe the latest scientific discovery which claims to have found a medium in which speeds of up to 10 times the speed of light can be achieved, not only fronts up to Einstein but also poses questions about travelling back in time as this source reaches its destination before it starts. Yes, in fact, 3,000 BC is perhaps nearer than we think.

One of my children asked me once, as a matter of fact, if I was alive when Our Lord Jesus was born. What can you answer to that? "No" is too simple and "yes" is too complicated. He had a challenging theological point I thought.

Screwtape said...

Mack:

Too bad my crazy uncle is no longer whinnying with us, to borrow an expression from Dylan Thomas. He'd be able to answer your son's question. His idea would doubtless be blasphemous.

Withall, he still claimed to be a Mormon. God knows, that's nutty enough, but he really made it look orthodox in comparison, poor man. He was a very nice fellow, too, and a brilliant chemist. Alas, I feel that the only chemical he has to work with now has the odor of rotten eggs.

As for "time." That's truly intriguing. I try to think of the afterlife and it scares me just to attempt to contemplate the concept of timelessness. Whatever time is, it is very mysterious. Take for example the fact that it takes me an entire day just to pen a short letter, yet Bach wrote the equivalent of twenty pages of music a day while he held a full time job, sired twenty children, and used up three wives; leading me to the conclusion that actions do not take place in time, as we think, but that time takes place around actions.

I can't remember where she wrote it, but Dorothy Sayers has an essay on time that will boggle your boggle. I didn't understand a word of it, but she sure gave it a hearty go and sounded the while as though she knew what she was talking about.

Then there's the integral interconnection between time and space!

Now, if you'd been a Smithite, you'd have been able to answer your son's question with "I was boning up on how to become a god when I get my turn on earth." They believe that we are all co-eternal with God. He didn't create anything, merely assembled matter that already existed.

How would you like to have been raised in a community/family that believes that! I had that glorious "opportunity," but don't tell your son. I'd have to think of what uncle would have said, and I don't want to even start thinking along those lines.

Oh, yes, St. Paul and Joseph also took him on space-ship rides and uncle regularly traveled, sans Star Trek, to at least five other levels of existence. I shouldn't say this, but I'll bet his last words were "beam me down, Scotty."

In all other aspects, he was as sane as they come! Go figure!

Screwtape said...

What will happen when Bishop Fellay visits the Pope for the umpteenth time? Herewith my comments on that terrifyingly tense question:

What's likely to be decided:

Whether to have MacDonald's takeout double burgers on the steps to St. Peter's or boeuf Bourguignon at the Papal Palace; whether it's to be coke or Lafitte Rothschild 1948; whether its to be chips by Frito Lay or Beluga caviar; whether its to be Jell-O pudding or Crème Brûlée; whether it's to be benches in the park or silk pillows a-la-Romano in the throne room; whether it's to be bridge in the basement or billiards in the Sistine Chapel; whether it's to be a 1964 Beetle to the airport or a Rolls Royce.

All other considerations shall remain pending sine die.

AmemusAthanasium said...

It seems some of the commenters here are haughty, non-educated, superficially 'intellectual' AmericanCatholics, not Roman Catholics, like the SSPX, which is a true part and the true tabernacle of the Church of Rome.

I even read as outrageous things over here, like, that the SSPX's ordinations are invalid. Of course that would have had Cardinal Ratzinger celebrating Pontifical High Masses (e.g. in Weimar, in the old rite) with invalid deacons and assisting priests. These same lay commenters over here also claim they can prove the SSPX is "a schism", a thing called outrageous by canonists and totally never said by the Holy See. Oh boy, how will these amateurists blush when the SSPX becomes a personal prelature. And how erroneous are not only their outright heretical (and ridiculous) assertions as to the supposedly "invalid" SSPX's Holy Orders. It totally disqualifies juan manuel soria, janice and some other amateuristical, uncharitable and suspecti de haeresia "Roman Catholic" commenters over here.

Pope Paschal II condemned the heresy, that non-Roman Catholic orders conferred by heretics or schismatics are invalid.

Signed,

A concerned Roman Catholic adolescent layman, who had the great privilege to be on pilgrimage to the Eternal City of Rome last week, together with a SSPX Priest, to assist at the latter's traditional Latin Holy Sacrifice of the Mass upon the altar of Pope St. Pius X in St. Peter's Basilica last Thursday at 7 am, to see Benedict XVI concerned and deeply hit by the word "altar serviettes" (which he in German could or would hardly pronounced) when at the General Audience (at which I was present), he spoke to German, French altar servants about the proximity of Jesus on the altar, in the tabernacle, in the church, on the necessity of attending each Sunday, of trying vocation to the priesthood for "Messdiener" (thereby excluding altar serviettes, however good the latter's intentions may be and how kind these girls may have been to us and to the SSPX Father). We imbued the Romanitas Archbishop Lefebvre transmitted to his students, instead of the false jansenist, modernist or the "conservative" false papalist-erroneous-all-time-even-privately-infallibilist extremes prevalent among NeoCaths, who think they can dismiss the SSPX as "a Protestant Church". Don't make me laugh!

We celebrated the Holy Mass (the true Roman Rite) upon the grave of St. Cecilia in Trastevere too, chanted there the 'O, Roma nobilis, orbis et domina' which echoed throughout the underground catacombs underneath the church. We visited the tomb of Cardinal Merry del Val, the tomb of St. Peter under the ground, the Seven Basilicas.

Well, but according to some, I am just an "anti-Roman schismatic". I wonder what they mean by "Rome" then. Is Cardinal Kasper Rome or Levada, or are St. Cecilia, Pope St. Pius X, St. Josaphat, Pope Benedict XV, St. Robert Bellarmine, Saint Ignace and Bl. Pius IX Rome?

MacK said...

No, no, they are not as un-Catholic as you think .....they are just trying to make sense of the Roman mess.

I can assure you if you serve The Latin Mass at SSPX in Bristol,UK, it has exactly the same effect as you describe your recent experiences here. The old Irish priest who taught me many moons ago to assist at Holy Mass told us all to be reverent when we were apprentices as, he stated enthusiastically, we were at the gateway to paradise - he was absolutely right: whether it is in Buenos Aires, Rome, New York, Sleepyville or Bristol, it is heavenly.

By the way, one of my children would certainly ask, isn't your name a bit long? Does it fit in the space allocated on the birth certificate?

Screwtape said...

Mack:

One demurral: some of them really don't understand a mess when they step in something squishy and there are "moos" going on around them.

I'm glad you spoke out regarding the length of "Amem . . . . . . . . . . . . ." I've been meaning to say something, but didn't have the nerve. (You know how utterly nerveless I am!)

Now maybe he'll shorten it. Five will get you ten he hasn't the remotest idea what it means.

You have funny kids. Are you sure your name isn't Bergen (as in Edgar)?

MacK said...

That's why I'm not actually in this space for the humour as I receive a superabundance in both my family life and job - but as a "convinced" post-conciliar priest told us in the late 1960s - "If you're going to adapt to the recent changes in the liturgy you'll need some faith and plenty of good humour."
In retrospect, I think the emphasis should have been on "SOME" in the sense of faith of a peculiar genre. And good humour? That's the reason why they got away with it.

I'm sure I'd have got on really well with your uncle. People who have real faith in their own beliefs and adopt the eccentricities that accompany them make interesting life stories.

Screwtape said...

Mack:

New Church is a peculiar genre alright. It has its humorous aspects, but somehow I ain't laughin'. I guess it was when the guy that was almost finished blowing up the balloon for Mass and let go too soon hit Jesus in the face.
Wojtyla's breakfast under the balloons had its hazards. (I've got pictures, Janice & Co.)

As for uncle, he was certainly dedicated to his "faith." He proselytized every relative I have out of the room. I always tried to be kind to him, but it wasn't easy. The worst I ever said to him was that his concepts/experiences weren't exactly consistent with Mormonism. I never said in which direction.

I'd suspect that today uncle is a bull in Wyoming, but, for some strange reason, he absolutely loathed polygamy. I guess Smith forgot to let him in on a little Mormon history on one of those space rides.

MacK said...

It appears we are the only two left in this portion of cyberspace, ngb, which is an encouraging sign for the gift of perseverence. It may signify little for speeds of 10 times 186,000 mps, though. One factor is almost certain, however, Einstein may miss out on one of those much vaunted NO ecumenical canonisations during the johanpaulinist phenomenological era of sanctification.

MacK said...

Your uncle might qualify still.

Screwtape said...

MACK:

" those much vaunted NO ecumenical canonisations during the johanpaulinist phenomenological era of sanctification "

Good description. (At least my Patron Saint was one of the earlier out of the Wojtyla cornucopia - Kolbe.)

If that's the criteria, uncle's in like Flynn.

Yeah, when the original subject gets forgot it really gets forgot.

That's okay. We've said it all, anyway.

MacK said...

The focal subject is too easily forgotten.

I am sure this is why traditionalists are gullible enough to swallow the current pontiff as an orthodox morsel. Realistically, when you consider he has appointed gay friendly Levada & Nideraeur to his politburo you have to beg many questions. Ultimately, if he actually desires a return to more orthodox & faithful norms & values, he would celebrate a Latin Mass in public. But he has little to no intention of doing this. The "Indult" is being exploited as a 'trompe l'oeil' to decieve traditionalists into believing The Vatican is conservative. It is not. This has to be repeated. The current pope may like classical music & a touch of Latin but he is out of the Rahnerite, modernist, NO mould and a long way from being orthodox.Thids has been too easily forgotten. He may yet awaken a little more but he has no intention of doing any other than reeling in as many traditional Catholics into the NO camp with a smattering of Latin & perhaps a chant or two of Gregorian. It's a mongrel he wants not a pedigree. Archbishop Lefebvre certainly had abundant discernment, a gift of The Holy Ghost, which helps Catholics to understand what is authentic & what is not.

Anyway, where your uncle is concerned he has already earned a blue ribbon from the VCII espousal of religious liberty. Some of my ancestors should be fine in that case, too.

Screwtape said...

Mack:

Alas, thou speakest the straight way of matters.

Ratzinger has actually confirmed as much both in words as well as action (he was one of the original Rhine Maidens and "I have not changed" he adamantly maintains).

Funny you should mention it. In my bailiwick the poor parishes suffered under Miss Niederauer for about a decade (SLC). He/she is in his/her true home now: Queen of the Lavender City, Sodom By The Bay. Fortunately, during the swish's tenure I was "out of town" - first in the Maronite Rite, then with the SSPX Mass. Any priest remotely inclined to orthodoxy was either retired or dead.

As for uncle, he's got it made - what's he done that Vlad the Impaler, Hitler and Stalin haven't done.

When my Mormon relatives and neighbors ask me if I think they're saved, all I have to do is say "call the Chancery at the Church of the Magdelene" (headquarters of the leprechauns of the Utah diocese). Who knows but they'll be confirmed in their godhood right there and then. It wouldn't be a surprised.

The greatest scourge of the age isn't Communism, it's 'Cumenism.

We're in for a rough ride over a pot-holed track and 'twlll be a very long haul: this old bull ox won't live to see trail's end. Consecrated grass, anyone? (For those who detest a metaphor, I mean the Spiritual Communion to which we shall be reduced before the triumph of the Immaculate Heart."

MacK said...

Thus do I send out a public challenge to the Holy Father - if you love tradition as much as the media claim you do, then celebrate a High Latin Mass of pre-1962 ilk and prove it empirically.

AmemusAthanasium said...

A point about terms.

We should not say that Rome needs to understand this or that, or that Rome needs to convert or change.

For several reasons. When the Apostolic See rule the City of Rome, it was common place to say of it, as is said of the Kingdoms of Europe, that it (using the name of the city, rather than of the monarch or in this case the Pope) decides this, or does that.

It is thus a bit anachronistic to say "Rome", better to say "the Vatican".

But furthermore, it is a fundamental error of the protestants to fail to make a distinction between clerics in error and the Church, which can never err.

And thus to impute the errors of clerics to the Church, and say that the Church needs to repent, convert, change, etc..

This protestant error is common place today, on nearly all sides.

And thus we should not say that Rome needs to do this or that or change this or that, or repent of this or that. This kind of talk is erroneous and inflammatory, as an exaggeration.


Amen. Amen. Amen. I am also sometimes a bit annoyed by the use of the "Rome must convert" language of our dear Society of St. Pius X of the Ven. Abp. Lefebvre. It's incorrect and reminiscent of the Gallican Church's independent language under Louis XIV and Louis XV. I, like every supporter of the SSPX, belong to the Holy Roman Church, which is the mother and mistress of all (true, catholic, non-schismatic, non-heretical) particular Churches, with which it together forms the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Now a very open question: Reverend Brother Alexis Bugnolo, when will you allow yourself to be ordained a traditional Roman Catholic Priest? We need men like you. The Franciscan Order needs men like you. You have already long earned your universitary and philosophical degrees and grown far over the educational basis demanded for priests by the Council of Trent. You see the crisis. I sincerely hope you will request sacred ordination to the priesthood.

Take that as a compliment from the other side of the ocean.

AmemusAthanasium said...

Rev. Brother Bugnolo OFM,

One final note: please know, that you could be a huge treasure to the SSPX too and I personally think Bp. Fellay would not refuse you sacred ordination given your academical degrees and your firm traditional doctrine.

With Peter said...

MATT--Ecumenism is a dialogical stage in the Church’s mission of evangelization, which clears away a limited number of objections and paves the way for conversion and unity of faith. Ecumenism is done poorly when either (1) it works too slow, giving no attention to important disagreements (“irenicism”) or (2) it works too fast and enables mistrust to deepen existing differences.
As a stage in evangelization, ecumenism works prior to proclamation (“kerygma”) and is engaged precisely because one believes that the other person is not yet open to hearing the truth and responding with the submission of faith. Whereas proclamation seeks to evoke an unequivocal surrender to the word of God and the means of salvation, ecumenism seeks to evoke a growth in understanding without which such unequivocal surrender remains practically impossible. The goals of ecumenism are therefore limited, just as the goals of “living a holy life” are limited: We seek to inspire curiosity, affection and desire for the fullness of faith. The curial document “Dialogue and Proclamation” is very useful in explaining the relationship between ecumenism and evangelization.
The Church militant suffer grievously in every era, but perhaps in our era more than most, but the causes for this suffering are complex. We live in an age of rabid materialism and rapid secularization. It is also an age of unparalleled economic, technological and medical advancement, which have given credibility—in people’s minds—to the agents of the culture of death. I believe that damage done by these forces to the Church would be far more grievous if it were not for Vatican II and the leadership of Paul VI and John Paul II.
The problem as I see it is not that the Council and the popes made bad decisions or taught doctrines in a poor or inappropriate way. The problem is that most Catholics pay little or no attention to Council or the pope. They pay more attention to MTV, CNN and Rush Limbaugh. It is our duty to listen to the pope’s teaching, understand it and explain it to others so that they may listen, believe, understand and also bear witness.
So Matt, to answer your most pressing question: When we criticize the pope for leading people astray, we are actually leading ourselves astray. We do have the right and responsibility to inform the authorities of problems, but within a context of submission, respect and obedience. After all, if the pope can make a mistake, we can too. The fact is that God spoke through evil Balaam and his dumb donkey, he speaks through the pope. Holy popes conscientiously participated with the divine teacher who speaks through them, sinful popes fight the voice that joins itself to theirs, but in every case, it is Christ who heads and the Holy Spirit who guides the Church equally through sinful and holy Peters of every day and age.

AmemusAthanasium said...

Holy popes conscientiously participated with the divine teacher who speaks through them, sinful popes fight the voice that joins itself to theirs, but in every case, it is Christ who heads and the Holy Spirit who guides the Church equally through sinful and holy Peters of every day and age.

Sorry, but I do not agree, that in Assisi 1986 and 2002 it was Jesus Christ speaking. Then Jesus Christ would be speaking against Himself, as Mortalium animos word for word condemned those "prayer meetings" sixty years before they took place.

You seem to have fallen into the seemingly pious, but gravely incorrect nevertheless, infallibilist errors, while the modernists have fallen into the negationist error of now claiming the Roman Pontiffs have not been always infallible. Only so-called "traditionalists", excluding sedevacantists who are also infallibilists, proclaim what is the true teaching on the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, as contained in: THE TRUE AND THE FALSE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPES, by Dr. JOSEPH FESSLER, Late Bishop of St. Pölten, in Austria,
and Secretary-General of the (First) Vatican Council. A Work honoured by a Brief of Approbation from His Holiness
Pope Pius IX.

Matt said...

with_peter:

"dialogical stage in the Church's mission of evangelization"

What part of this involves modification of the internally oriented disciplines (such as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the Roman Missal)? What changes in doctrines of faith and morals does it entail?

As always understood true ecuminism does not seek to move the Church towards the separated brethren, but draws them to her bosom.

Many practices of JPII did the former, and as such they are subject to respectful criticism.

Screwtape said...

With regard to the last five comments: anyone who uses the term "dialogue" in this era is playing straight into the hands of Screwtape, no matter what he may think he means by it - prosylitize is the only word left that meets the real Church's criteria. QED

MacK said...

Ngb

The humerous interlude is over, everyone is awake and it's back to business.

There's life in this ecumenism subject still yet.

Indeed, JPII was prepared to sacrifice nearly everything for the obsessional cause of ecumenism. Thus, sacriligeous communions to Tony Blair, British PM, in the papal private chapel denied initially but admitted later. Moreover, there are only three words to describe events at Assisi desolation & abomination. It was verging on sheer idolatry - false teachings and propagating false religions. It provoked scandal and doubt in the church but admiration by the secular world - as the beloved physician stated, what is held in high esteem by man is considered loathsome in the eyes of Almighty God.

Screwtape said...

Mack:

Yes, alas, you are right, we will have 'Cuminism with us always, like the poor. The difference is that the poor aren't necessarily evil.

MacK said...

ngb

I am listening to Gregorian Chant at present - it reminds me that JP II never celebrated one Latin Mass while he was pope, unless one slipped through without notice. Incredible!

SSPX may want the Latin Mass "liberated" but the NO want it "liberalised", so they had better be careful. They need to be sure it is a public pronouncement without any post-conciliar nebulousness or equivocation that The Latin Mass is not forbidden, nor has it ever been, to any priest to celebrate or any lay person to attend, now or in the future, at any time or anywhere. And ensure all the bishops get the idea straight once and for all.

The so-called "indult" should be scrapped as it is an empty offer which avoids the main issue.

There was a significant misprint I noticed once concerning the Apostolic Letter of JP II - it read "Ecclesia Die". How apt.

Matt said...

It is clear that some here are incapable of dialogue, only diatribe, rhetoric, and polemic.

Juan Manuel Soria said...

Dear Bloggers:

The Tridentine Rite is not abolished, but it is forbidden in the Catholic Church. It could only be celebrated with an special indult of the local Bishop.

Quo Primum is the Law that placed the Tridentine rite as the universal rite of the Latin Church, and Quo Primum was derogated by Missale Romanum of Paul VI. The Tridentine RITE was not derogated but the LAW Quo Primum was. One Law of a legislator replaces the former Law of the former legislator.

The legal authority to celebrate the Tridentine Mass is not anymore in Quo Primum but in the 1984 indult and in the Motu Propio Ecclesia Dei. Also the Supreme Legislator, the Holy See had declared this several times -most recently in June 2001-.

“The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The Instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided, with the authorization of the Ordinary, for the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifices sine populo. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did Our Holy Predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent.” (Pope Paul VI, May 1976).

If you need training in Canon Law none can give it to you better than the great scholar Fr. John Huels:

1. Pius V's bull, Quo primum tempore, did not grant a “perpetual indult,” or privilege. This was a legislative act, universal law requiring the use of Missale Romanum in the whole Latin Church, except for those dioceses and religious orders that had their own liturgies for at least 200 years. It was not a privilege for any individual, group, or particular territory. Laws enacted by one legislator can be revoked by a successor (canon 20), as Paul VI did with respect to the use of the Missal of Paul VI. The so-called Novus Ordo, or new rite of Mass of Paul VI, is not really a new creation, but a revision of the previous rite, popularly called the Tridentine Rite Mass.

2. Paul VI's 1969 apostolic constitution, Missale Romanum, was properly promulgated as law in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (61: 217-222), in keeping with canon 9 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law (1983 Code of Canon Law canon 8). The constitution required the use of the newly revised Roman Missal and abrogated previous law that had required use of the Tridentine rite Mass. The pope declared that his constitution had the force of law “now and in the future,” and he expressly revoked contrary law, including “the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving special mention and amendment.” Moreover, the March 26, 1970, decree of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship promulgating the editio typica of the revised Roman Missal contained the phrase “Anything to the contrary notwithstanding.” This general formula revokes: (1) all contrary universal laws; (2) all contrary universal customs, except those that are centenary or immemorial; (3) all contrary particular factual customs, but not particular legal customs observed for at least 30 years.

3. It is correct that the general formula revoking the Tridentine Rite of Mass did not affect immemorial and centenary custom. However, the observance of the Rite of Mass of Pope Pius V was not a custom. It was imposed by law. A custom is introduced by the community (canon 23), whereas a law is introduced by the legislator. The use of the Roman Missal was decreed by universal law in 1570, and the Missal was revised in different ways by legislative acts of subsequent popes in 1604, 1634, 1888, 1920, 1955, 1960, 1961, 1964, 1965, and 1967. Although many of the ceremonies and details of the Mass of the Roman Rite largely developed through customs in the ancient and medieval Church, by 1570 the legal authority for the Rite of Mass was clearly that of papal law, not custom.”

If you want to read the doctrinal and disciplinary authoritative answers and decisions of the Holy See in this matter –BINDING IN CONSCIENCE TO ALL CATHOLICS-, please read the following links: http://www.unavox.it/doc11.htm , http://www.unavox.it/doc12.htm and http://www.unavox.it/doc13.htm.

Regards,

Matt said...

"The so-called Novus Ordo, or new rite of Mass of Paul VI, is not really a new creation, but a revision of the previous rite, popularly called the Tridentine Rite Mass. "

This is not a point of canon law, but a completely erroneous subjective opinion.

AmemusAthanasium said...

Mr Soria,

You can scream and post and spam what you want, but it remains a fact, that in 1986 the Cardinals' Commission of which Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler was a member (along with Ratzinger and Medina Estevez), concluded, that the perpetual privilege and indult of Quo Primum was still valid and never abrogated. MR did not abolish that privilege.

Screwtape said...

You know, even St. Paul said three times is enough then it's dust kickin' time. In short, tell 'em literally they are going to Hell and move on; waste no more time or words. "You could look it up."

First of all, Matt, there is a big distinction to be made between can't and won't.

No I don't dialogue, Matt; It's just another shibboleth for an exchange of monologues by nitwits. This one denies diatribe, and there happens to be absolutely nothing wrong per se with rhetoric or polemic. See Professor Richard Weaver on the decline of rhetoric and ChesterBelloc on polemics - almost everything they wrote could reasonble be assumed to fall into that category.

As for Juan Manuel: "have you ever seen the picture of 'we three'?" (Shakespeare - Twelfth Night)

Juan Manuel Soria said...

Dear Amemusathansium:

I did not scream, or post or spam.

Furthermore, one needs to consider the majority opinion of canonical authors, namely, when a legislator revokes a previous law he also revokes any custom that this law governed. In a nutshell, when Paul VI promulgated the 1969 liturgical reform of the Roman Missal, Pope Paul VI automatically suppressed any customary right to celebrate Mass according to previous typical editions of the Roman Missal. Pope John Paul II later permitted a limited restoration of the right to celebrate Mass according to the 1962 liturgical Missal, provided one had an indult from the diocesan bishop.

Now some will argue that this was not the conclusion drawn by Cardinal Stickler and his commission of nine Cardinals, and thus no indult is needed because every priest has a customary right to celebrate Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. From the standpoint of canon law, however, the reported findings of the nine cardinals have no authority because these finding have never been published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, or in any other official Church publication. Until such a time, they have no legal value and one cannot presume their contents. This is simply the way canon law works.

Furthermore, one must also keep in the mind the findings of the Cardinal Stickler commission are those of an advisory body. As such, they have no legislative force. These findings also precede the promulgation of Ecclesia Dei adflicta, an act of legislation originating from Pope John Paul II who is the Supreme Legislator within the Church. Therefore, since Ecclesia Dei adflicta was promulgated at a date later than the findings of the Stickler commission, one must keep in mind canon 20 of Code of Canon Law which states: "A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law."

In short, in requiring the indult or permission from the diocesan Bishop, Ecclesia Dei adflicta would contradict or integrally reorder the findings of the Cardinal Stickler commission. Hence, in accordance with canon 20 the alleged customary right recognized by this commission would be abrogated or derogated when Pope John Paul II promulgated Ecclesia Dei adflicta. Therefore, one cannot invoke the disputed and unpublished findings of the Cardinal Stickler commission in order to avoid obtaining an indult from the Diocesan Bishop to celebrate the 1962 Roman Missal.

In conclusion, custom plays an important role in canon law. Nevertheless, in pursuing greater freedom to celebrate Mass according to the 1962 typical edition of the Roman Missal, one should not argue customary right as a way around obtaining an indult from the diocesan bishop. For such a right does not exist in canon law, and thus the appeal to such a non-existent right is unlikely to convince the Church's competent authorities or to further the availability of the licit celebration of the 1962 liturgical missal.

Regards,

With Peter said...

Matt- The liturgical reforms which were begun under Pius XII, were not done primarily for ecumenical purposes, but to promote “active and conscious participation of the liturgy.” I don’t say this as a defense of the actual reforms, but only to point out that any ecumenical implications were secondary in the mind of the Holy See. Primary was the notion that these reforms would make the liturgical experience and faith life of lay Catholics more vibrant.

I believe the “doctrine” of ecumenism is very much rooted in the “invincible ignorance” based ecclesiology promoted and developed since Pius IX. In other words, the Church sees a more clear possibility of developing “strands of communion” with those who are ultimately separated from the unity of the Church. If separation and mistrust can develop gradually, perhaps reunification can as well. The Vatican II doctrines on ecclesiology, ecumenism and religious liberty are all very closely related to one another.

It is true that John Paul exercised his apostolic liberty more liberally than previous popes or this one, making dramatic accommodations to all sorts of people. He took more pains to acknowledge good elements in terribly erroneous positions. He believed that if the Church didn’t make any effort to move toward the separated brethren, she cannot “seek” and save the lost. He felt the Church must move and accommodate to the extent that the truth will allow.

With Peter said...

With respect, Matt, but Soria is correct and his "opinion" is shared by the Holy See.

The "Novus Ordo" is a dramatic revision of the previous rite--giving the impression of a "new creation"--but Missale Romanum speaks of the new rite as a revision designed to bring out "the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them." The document expressly states, "No one should think that this revision of the Roman Missal has come out of nowhere."

The GIRM states this continuity even more explicitly: "both Roman Missals, although separated by four centuries, embrace one and the same tradition" (no. 6). It's features have been dramatically changed, but its substance is organically the same as the previous rite.

And if you disagree, you will at least see this is not the private opinion of Juan Manuel Soria, but the official and repeated teaching of the ordinary Magisterium.

Juan Manuel Soria said...

Thanks withpeter:

Paul VI taught about the liturgical reform:

"La riforma perciò, che sta per essere divulgata, corrisponde ad un mandato autorevole della Chiesa; è un atto di obbedienza; è un fatto di coerenza della Chiesa con se stessa; è un passo in avanti della sua Tradizione autentica; è una dimostrazione di fedeltà e di vitalità, alla quale tutti dobbiamo prontamente aderire. Non è un arbitrio. Non è un esperimento caduco o facoltativo. Non è un’improvvisazione di qualche dilettante. È una legge pensata da cultori autorevoli della sacra Liturgia, a lungo discussa e studiata; faremo bene ad accoglierla con gioioso interesse e ad applicarla con puntuale ed unanime osservanza. Questa riforma (....) richiama a quella uniformità di riti e di sentimenti, ch’è propria della Chiesa cattolica, erede e continuatrice di quella prima comunità cristiana, ch’era tutta «un Cuor solo e un’anima sola» (Act. 4, 32). La coralità della preghiera nella Chiesa è uno dei segni e una delle forze della sua unità e della sua cattolicità. Il cambiamento, che sta per avvenire, non deve rompere, né turbare questa coralità: deve confermarla e farla risonare con spirito nuovo, con respiro giovane.

IMMUTATA SOSTANZA

Altra domanda: in che cosa consiste il cambiamento? Lo vedrete; consiste in tante nuove prescrizioni rituali, le quali esigeranno, da principio specialmente, qualche attenzione e qualche premura. La devozione personale ed il senso comunitario renderanno facile e gradevole l’osservanza di queste nuove prescrizioni. Ma sia ben chiaro: NULLA E MUTATO NELLA SOSTANZA DELLA NOSTRA MESSA TRADIZIONALE. Qualcuno può forse lasciarsi impressionare da qualche cerimonia particolare, o da qualche rubrica annessa, come se ciò fosse o nascondesse un’alterazione, o una menomazione di verità per sempre acquisite e autorevolmente sancite della fede cattolica, quasi che l’equazione fra la legge della preghiera, «lex orandi» , e la legge della fede, «lex credendi», ne risultasse compromessa.

MA NON E COSI. ASSOLUTAMENTE. Innanzi tutto perché il rito e la rubrica relativa non sono di per sé una definizione dogmatica, e sono suscettibili di una qualificazione teologica di valore diverso a seconda del contesto liturgico a cui si riferiscono; sono gesti e termini riferiti ad un’azione religiosa vissuta e vivente d’un mistero ineffabile di presenza divina, non sempre realizzata in forma univoca, azione che solo la critica teologica può analizzare ed esprimere in formule dottrinali logicamente soddisfacenti. E poi perché la Messa del nuovo ordinamento È E RIMANE, SE -mai con evidenza accresciuta in certi suoi aspetti- QUELLA DI SEMPRE. L’unità fra la Cena del Signore, il Sacrificio della croce, la rinnovazione rappresentativa dell’una e dell’altro nella Messa è inviolabilmente affermata e celebrata nel nuovo ordinamento, come nel precedente. La Messa è e rimane la memoria dell’ultima Cena di Cristo, nella quale il Signore, tramutando il pane ed il vino nel suo Corpo e nel suo Sangue, istituì il Sacrificio del nuovo Testamento, e volle che, mediante la virtù del suo Sacerdozio, conferita agli Apostoli, fosse rinnovato nella sua identità, solo offerto in modo diverso, in modo cioè incruento e sacramentale, in perenne memoria di Lui, fino al suo ultimo ritorno (cfr. DE LA TAILLE, Mysterium Fidei, Elucid. IX).

Regards,

Matt said...

"With Peter said...
Matt- The liturgical reforms which were begun under Pius XII, were not done primarily for ecumenical purposes, but to promote "active and conscious participation of the liturgy.""

How does reducing or eliminating the references to sin and repentance, Mary, and sacrifice improving "active and conscious" participation? How does massive changes to a 1300 year old canon improve "active and conscious" participation? Increasing the quantity of responses as in a dialogue mass, reducing the silent prayers of the priest, inserting a kiss of peace and offertory procession -- all of these things would have accomplished that goal.

Publicly stated purposes are one thing, the actual purposes can obviosly be learned from the considering the changes.


""I believe the "doctrine" of ecumenism is very much rooted in the "invincible ignorance" based ecclesiology promoted and developed since Pius IX. In other words, the Church sees a more clear possibility of developing "strands of communion" with those who are ultimately separated from the unity of the Church. If separation and mistrust can develop gradually, perhaps reunification can as well. The Vatican II doctrines on ecclesiology, ecumenism and religious liberty are all very closely related to one another."

It is true that John Paul exercised his apostolic liberty more liberally than previous popes or this one, making dramatic accommodations to all sorts of people. He took more pains to acknowledge good elements in terribly erroneous positions. He believed that if the Church didn't make any effort to move toward the separated brethren, she cannot "seek" and save the lost. He felt the Church must move and accommodate to the extent that the truth will allow. "

You are making an admission that ecumenism is rooted in indifference. The doctrine that their "may" be salvation for those not visibly members of the Catholic Church is no excuse for reducing evangelistic fervor. According to Benedict XVI, the statement on religious liberty is simply a matter of peaceful coexistence, not some change in doctrine, or are you not in concurrence with him on it's right interpretation?


"The "Novus Ordo" is a dramatic revision of the previous rite--giving the impression of a "new creation"--but Missale Romanum speaks of the new rite as a revision designed to bring out "the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them." The document expressly states, "No one should think that this revision of the Roman Missal has come out of nowhere.""

"The GIRM states this continuity even more explicitly: "both Roman Missals, although separated by four centuries, embrace one and the same tradition" (no. 6). It's features have been dramatically changed, but its substance is organically the same as the previous rite.

And if you disagree, you will at least see this is not the private opinion of Juan Manuel Soria, but the official and repeated teaching of the ordinary Magisterium. "

That's funny, in Spirit of the Liturgy, and Salt of the Earth, then Cardinal Ratzinger describes it as a "fabrication". He has made it clear that it is not what was requested by VII. One of the key traditions of the Roman missal was that the canon was virtually untouchable... at least it was so for 1300 years. In any event trying to imply some sort of "infallibilty" to these statements (on either side) by invoking "teaching of the ordinary Magisterium" is absolutely foolish.

Juan Manuel Soria said...

Dear Matt:

The Roman Canon was not touched by the liturgical reform.

Regards,

Screwtape said...

JMS:

Read any other good comic books lately?

With Peter said...

Matt- I’m not going to take up the argument that the liturgical reform accomplished its purpose in every way. Clearly the reforms were done very quickly and the Holy See is likely to reassess them accordingly, but I think it is presumptuous to say that they were NOT done with the purpose of promoting active and conscious participation. The “reductions” were made according to the principle of simplifying the rubrics set by Pius X in Abhinc Duos Annos (1913). The rubrics still contain many references to sin and repentance. Please note, I am not saying that the reforms do not contain problems that can be changed when the Holy See determines to do so.

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote many and diverse things about the liturgical reform, often criticizing it for changing too many things too quickly. But any interpretation of his opinions as a theologian which contradict the teaching of the Church should be taken with a “grain of salt of the earth.” The ordinary teaching is not infallible—in can be changed by the Holy See at will—but it is true and universally binding until such changes are made. Benedict XVI has not yet deigned to implement Cardinal Ratzinger’s theological opinions.

I make no admission that ecumenism is rooted in indifference, but rather in the conviction that--in a given instance--repentance, conversion and reconciliation can only take place gradually and in stages. Ecumenism done according to the prescriptions of the Church requires a more patient, focused and lasting evangelistic fervor than other forms of evangelization.

On religious liberty, I’m not sure which document of Benedict’s you are referring to, but I see no intrinsic disagreement with what I wrote and what you say he said. Vatican II spoke of a civil right to religious liberty—without compromising the requirements of the common good—while rejecting a moral right to error. This position is consistent with the Church’s traditional position, which saw the restriction of certain public expressions of religious liberty as violating the common good in those days. In this sense, there is no change in doctrine, but a reformulation of it based on changing conditions.

I hope in this polemical portion of our conversation, you don't feel that I am attacking you personally. I assure you nothing could be further from my disposition. God bless you, Matt.

Matt said...

"Juan Manuel Soria said...
Dear Matt:

The Roman Canon was not touched by the liturgical reform.

Regards, "

So you'll stipulate to all of my other points then? Thanks.

If you're taking the position that the Roman Canon was preserved, and 3 new ones provided, then I'll have to look into it... The fact that this now makes the Roman Canon "optional" seems to be worse than modifying it in my opinion.

Matt said...


With Peter said...
Matt- I'm not going to take up the argument that the liturgical reform accomplished its purpose in every way. Clearly the reforms were done very quickly and the Holy See is likely to reassess them accordingly, but I think it is presumptuous to say that they were NOT done with the purpose of promoting active and conscious participation. The "reductions" were made according to the principle of simplifying the rubrics set by Pius X in Abhinc Duos Annos (1913). The rubrics still contain many references to sin and repentance. Please note, I am not saying that the reforms do not contain problems that can be changed when the Holy See determines to do so.


The changes made to promote active and conscious participation where for that purpose, other changes were made for other purposes. Please don't drag poor St. Pius X into this, he would have been mortified by the new rubric. How does reducing the prominence of Mary, Saints and sin "simplify"?


Cardinal Ratzinger wrote many and diverse things about the liturgical reform, often criticizing it for changing too many things too quickly. But any interpretation of his opinions as a theologian which contradict the teaching of the Church should be taken with a "grain of salt of the earth." The ordinary teaching is not infallible-in can be changed by the Holy See at will-but it is true and universally binding until such changes are made. Benedict XVI has not yet deigned to implement Cardinal Ratzinger's theological opinions.


Nothing Cardinal Ratzinger said about the mass contradicts the teaching of the Church, nor does anything I'm saying. It is a valid mass. The rubric is inferior and defective, that is not contradicting the teachings of the Church, it's actually supported by the eternal teachings of the Church in opposition to some novelties. I'm not advocating some sort of rogue reform of the Novus Ordo. Only arguing in favor of restoration of the actual rubric as called for by the Novus Ordo missae which says nothing about versus populum, or exclusive vernacular. Greater emphasis on the traditional missal as it more perfectly corresponds to the actual teachings of the Church INCLUDING Vatican II. Ultimately a re-reform of the Novus Ordo missal to bring it in line with what was called for by the Vatican II council.


I make no admission that ecumenism is rooted in indifference, but rather in the conviction that--in a given instance--repentance, conversion and reconciliation can only take place gradually and in stages. Ecumenism done according to the prescriptions of the Church requires a more patient, focused and lasting evangelistic fervor than other forms of evangelization.


It would be nice to take our time (perhaps another 40 years of fruitless dialogue), unfortunately people are dieing and their salvation is in jeopardy, we've no time to waste. The saints would agree with me.


On religious liberty, I'm not sure which document of Benedict's you are referring to, but I see no intrinsic disagreement with what I wrote and what you say he said. Vatican II spoke of a civil right to religious liberty-without compromising the requirements of the common good-while rejecting a moral right to error. This position is consistent with the Church's traditional position, which saw the restriction of certain public expressions of religious liberty as violating the common good in those days. In this sense, there is no change in doctrine, but a reformulation of it based on changing conditions.


Benedict XVI's December 22 speech to the curia. It's a fantastic speech, you need to read it to understand his approach.

Certainly the Church has always considered some restrictions on the unfettered practice of false religions to be dangerous to the common good, while never calling for coercive conversion, which is no conversion at all. It is not a change in teaching but discipline, and what input do protestants and have in it except to result in an implicit recognition that they have a moral right to their heresy? That's certainly how many ecumenists (and traditionalists) have read it.

I hope in this polemical portion of our conversation, you don't feel that I am attacking you personally. I assure you nothing could be further from my disposition. God bless you, Matt.


I see no offense in passionate debate.

Pax Tecum.

MacK said...

Correction to those NO followers who think in the wildest fantasies of their minds that the NO Bugnini service is a mere revision of The Latin Mass of all times - it is demonstrably a perversion not a revision. Revision implies making improvements. As Bugnini's service objectively resembles Cranmer's service, and as this service has helped infinitely to unhinge the Anglicans from The Holy Catholic Church and render its service and sacraments invalid, leading ultimately to a dying schismatic church, it cannot be a revision. It can only be a perversion. It is this perversion which has unhinged an unholy disunity and unholy disobedience to Sacred Tradition & Sacred Scripture. I will spare you all the repeated scriptural quotes and documents which clearly illustrate a perverted liturgy which is protestant, masonic and anthropocentric. It is even acceptable to Lutherans. Indeed, a perversion. To imagine otherwise is pure phenomenology and look where that got the previous pontiff (RIP). The fact that "Buan" was commended by the freemasons for his manifestly destructive liturgical opus betrays it for what it is: entirely un-Catholic and an absolute danger to The Faith.

Screwtape said...

" Nothing Cardinal Ratzinger said about the mass contradicts the teaching of the Church . . . It is a valid mass. "

Hey, folks, I have an anti-pro multis sandwich recipe. Available on request. It's made for ALL. Of course, it makes everbody sicker than Luther, my dirty old egg-suckin' dawg, but it temporarily seems like food.

With Peter said...

Matt- I’m not saying there isn’t some truth in what you say. There’s no question that the legitimate principles of the liturgical reform, which were indeed authored by Pius X, weren’t used as a pretext to introduce changes at variance with a proper understanding of those principles. I would attribute it more to haste and an effort to emphasize positive aspects of theology, rather than malice, modernism or masonry. But the problems—especially with the translation—have been increasingly acknowledged by men in higher positions of authority than me.

My fear, however, is that we are losing sight of what the Church faced in an era that tore down Shibe Park and built River Front Stadium. I use this Cincinnati baseball analogy to point out a social and historical trend that was underfoot in the post-war period. What happened in the 1960s and 1970s could have been a lot worse, a whole lot worse. We now live in a time when stadiums like River Front are being replaced by structures that make a conscious effort to bring together the old with the new. This illustrates a resurgent desire for tradition that will enable a reform of the reform to be implemented effectively. The Lord provides for the Church according to her every need.

Mack- A “correction” usually involves a demonstration of error rationally deduced from mutually accepted premises so that the corrected person can see his error. Your discourse didn’t explain anything other than your contempt for something you see as erroneous, but that others do not. But you have made me aware of your ability to use big words with profound conviction. For my part I want to only ask you a question: Do you believe the Peter’s keys may be used to bind and loose elements of pagan and/or heretical practice if the pope thinks they would be beneficial to the life of the Church? In other words, if a heretic had a liturgy that didn’t infringe upon the validity of the sacrament, would the pope be free to bind and loose it at his own discretion?

NGB- You’re like a traditionalist Bob Dylan, except I don’t think he would spell “dog” with a “w.” Hey, but when you face Christ, you get to tell him you went to the mass of all times and wrote insincere diatribes meant to mock those ignorant heretics who didn’t.

Screwtape said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Screwtape said...

Hey, WP:

First of all, it wasn't Bob Dylan, whom I wouldn't touch with any length of pole because he shaked, rattled, and rolled with a certain stinkin' Pole.

The guy who wrote and sang the song was the late Man in Black, Mr. Johnny Cash. That's how he'd have spelled it: "dawg." You anti-Southern or sumpin'?

What in blazes makes you think my little humor was insincere?

What are you going to say to Christ when he asks why you and other types avoided real communion and real absolution and stand there with your mouth open and a chain of mortal sins around your neck?

Y'all makin' it real chancy, boy.

I never called anybody a heretic (show me), that's just your febrile, guilty, nervous, imagination overworking itself. As the Queen said in Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." I'm just intimating stupidity, which is no sin where it applies.

The last I heard it is the Church Militant and supposed to have something to do with this thing called Truth, with regard to which you seem to be such a stranger and have such an aversion.

"Go rub your chain with crumbs." (Sir Toby Belch to Malvolio in "Twelfth Night".) And while you're at it, learn the real meaning of charity, which has nothing to do with the sentimental blather you spout.

Matt said...

Mack - if you can't contribute to the debate, maybe you can leave your save your rhetoric for some other place it's really getting quite pathetic.

NGB - you may not be familliar with the NO rite of the mass but in the normative Latin the words of consecration are unchangedyt. As far as the validity of the English translation, that's pretty clear from the Council of Trent, despite the corruption which we pray will resolved soon. You're also confusing the spiritual work of mercy of instructing the ignorant, with your corrupted version - insulting the ignorant. Did you go to mass yesterday and actually here the readings? Lessons for all in those words, take them to heart and call yourself not riteous. I am a publican... Lord have mercy on me, a sinner.

with-peter:

Reviewing the Roman Canon briefly, I've so far found nowhere that it was changed (aside from making it optional, which is monumental), except that there are a number of lines which are rendered optional this is unheard of, I'm sure you were unaware of this.

Defending the purveyors of this missal with all it's novelty and optionality is incredibly naive. While I don't attribute wilful "malice", clearly there is a modernist tone to the changes. This is evidenced by the subsequent practices not called for in the rubric (versus populum, destruction of tabernacles and altar rails, and the corrupted English translations).

Screwtape said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Screwtape said...

MATT:

I spent five years in the Novus Ordo fecundating matrix (or six if you include a full year of instruction by the most orthodox priest I could find in the parish). So don't try to get away with telling me I don't know about the NO-NO mass. I've also read a good deal, including salient sections of the works of Joseph Jungman.

At least I didn't learn to spell in the NO. (You ever heard of this thing called a dictionary?)

If you applied your concept of "legitimacy/validity" to the law, you'd be blogging from jail.

Do attempt to learn the distinction between false mercy and true charity; between honest sentiment and sentimentality.

Gee! Tabbing me as the Pharasee while little old virtuous Publican, you, stand there so humble it hurts . . . I just don't know how to answer such Uriah Heapishness.

I don't do what Mack does because he's much better at it than I am and, besides, I'm too damn old to take that much time.

I like to try to say the same thing he does in three words or less so that innerleckchully other-abled such as Your Humilitiness can maybe understand it.

UNNERSTAN'?

With Peter said...

Matt- I think your comment about the Roman Canon/Eucharistic Prayer I was directed more toward Soria than me. I believe it was he who said that the Roman Canon was not touched by the liturgical reform. For my part—as you can undoubtedly tell by my screen name—I am prejudicially inclined to fall on the side of Peter’s keys, which according to Matthew 16:19 and Denzinger 931, have authority even over the Roman Canon. The pope is the supreme legislator and liturgist of the Church. If Saul can prophesy and Balaam’s ass can talk, even Bugnini and Jungmann can get something right.

It is easy to misconstrue faith for naivite, but it is my conviction that the liturgical reform—accomplished in the midst of human foolishness—reflected the wisdom of God and has preserved the Church from a devastation that we have been spared. Is it naïve? Perhaps so, but I believe naivite is less a sin than either cynicism or detraction. Matt, this accusation is not aimed at you…

NGB- Yes, nobody would ever confuse your “charity” from sentimental blather. Congratulations on avoiding that one. But is it necessary for “real love” to scathe and excoriate like sandpaper across flesh?

And NGB, if you scroll up to your previous post, you’ll find that you mocked Matt’s assertion the 1970 missal is a valid mass. Now, if the liturgy compromises the essential matter and form of the sacrament, it is invalid and formally heretical. One who takes part in such a liturgy is implicated to the degree of his conscious participation and is thus a heretic. Now I—having such great respect for your conspicuous intelligence and literary talent—refuse to believe you are too dumb to not see this implication. Your words obviously proceed from an intellect to which my nervous and febrile imagination would scarcely compare. I mean, how stupid could one POSSIBLY be to quote Hamlet in a conversation such as this?

I hope you’re not too old to enjoy a heart-shaped polka dot Valentine from...sentimentally yours, WP

Screwtape said...

Dear WP:

" NGB- Yes, nobody would ever confuse your “charity” from sentimental blather. Congratulations on avoiding that one. But is it necessary for “real love” to scathe and excoriate like sandpaper across flesh? "

Depends. With Novus Ordure folk, you bet; yes; absolutely.

I was not aware that "invalid" or "illegitimate" could be construed as heresy. You'll have to find and provide evidence for that one. In any event, I did not, nor would, imply heresy (outside the leprechauns in Rome, and then only material heresy, not formal, because it is so irrefutably obvious).

I simply am nonplussed at your taking issue with quoting Shakespeare. I'll quote anybody, if they've made the point as well as or better than I have - it's a very legitimate rhetorical device in any debate rubrics I've ever run across. Are you defending the illiterate, or is something else going on here?

I learned my rules for argumentation from such as William F. Buckley, Jr. and William Rusher - two of the very best by all criteria. You may send your complaints to them in the future.

By the way, this is not to be confused with the kind of "appeal to authority" ploy that IS verbotten.

Finally, we're in a war for the minds of men as well as souls, laddie, and as the man said: "war is hell." But as another man intimated (St. Paul) you'll go to Hell if you don't fight it. And remember, "all's fair in love and war."

With Peter said...

With respect, NGB, I never took issue with your quoting Shakespeare. The answer to my question "how stupid?" is "not very." On the contrary, it takes obvious (one might say ostentatious) intelligence to make use of such quotes. So I congratulate you: Way to go!

Let me ask, what sort of charity is called for with folks who mock the Vatican I dogmas requiring all to give “hierarchical subordination and true obedience” to the ordinary, universal, full, immediate, apostolic authority of the Roman Pontiff? How ought one respond if some rascal were to call the Successor of Peter and his magisterial see, say, “leprechauns”? Even sedevacantists have figured out the ridiculousness of an enterprise wherein you pick and choose which of Peter’s sayings are “Catholic” and which are “neo-modernist.” And that’s impressive, because it’s not easy to think when your head’s been missing and you’ve been bleeding from the neck for about fifty years.

Now, NBG, I have been talking with your folk for some time and yet after all this time I have never once been presented with an irrefutably obvious charge of heresy promulgated by the Magisterium since Vatican II. Now that’s either because I’ve never met a lefebvrist and/or sedevacantist as intelligent and articulate as yourself or because there are no such irrefutably obvious heresies, formal or material.

Screwtape said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Screwtape said...

My dear WP:

Thank you for your clarification of the quoting business. I may overdo it at times, but at other times it is overdue. I'm afraid I spent too much time in Theatre and English, not only through graduate school, but professionally also regarding the former. Ergo, I carry a carpetbag full of such bits and pieces. So when opportunity calls, I pull one out, almost (but not quite) without thinking.

Ah. Well, you see, "leprechauns" is just the Irish way of saying "naughty fellows." And although I'm a Scot, I don't cavil from stealing from the Blarney kissers. Oh, I could use much nastier terms, and they'd still be quite apropos.

In answer to the central part of your query, I'm afraid I'd have to dig it all out again, and, quite literally, I don't know which stack it's buried in. Therefore, I refer you to Mack of this Blogsite: he has explained and explained and explained and in the process answered most of your questions. I will mention only this: there is serious misconstrual going on here - Vatican I did not contradict Trent, and that Council, through St. Robert Belarmine, said not only could you disobey a Pope, but in certain circumstances you must.

Regarding your final question: I will cite only the two most obvious pieces of evidence: both Ut unum sint and Vatican II's now fully implemented Dignitatus humanae. Both contradict the Magisterium of the Ages, ordinary and extraordinary. The documentation on that is massive. If those (among many others) aren't heretical in the material sense, then there is no such thing.

Matt said...

"Ut unum sint and Vatican II's now fully implemented Dignitatus humanae. Both contradict the Magisterium of the Ages, ordinary and extraordinary. The documentation on that is massive. If those (among many others) aren't heretical in the material sense, then there is no such thing. "

Pope Benedict would say you are suffering from the hermaneutic of rupture. In his understanding, DH simply recognizes the current situation of a plurality of religions within society and calls for a "peaceful coexistence" where men can seek the truth without coercion. It does not say that they are "free" to be in error, or will be saved by their error.

Ut Unum Sint - while it's full of terrible errors in judgement, I don't think it could be considered heresy. The belief that unity will occur if we simply pray together, and be nice to people is massively naive but not evil as such. It may imply heretical beliefs by it's author(s), especially in the suggestion of considering concessions on the role of the papcy, but it doesn't declare heresy. If there's a specific citation you wish to discuss, by all means bring it forward.

With Peter said...

NGB- One of my biggest pet peeves with most “traditionalists” is the careless way in which they level accusations of heresy. A proper accusation of heresy is made in the form of a propositional definition of which the heretic understands the meaning of the terms and ascribes to the belief that it expresses. This belief is then carefully compared to a definition of Catholic faith to show that the incongruity is not simply a matter of emphasis or the frailty of language (e.g. God is one vs. God is three), but an actual contradiction (e.g. God is one in the same way that he is three). Traditionalists—especially Mack—just throw labels like “modernist” and “protestant,” but do not taking care to show propositional heresies.

Because your post did not contain a single propositional heresy that we to which we “novus ordures” ascribe, I must answer you in a most general way. With Unitatis Redintegratio and Ut Unim Sint, all the statements about goodness in truth among various non-Catholic religious communities are qualified by the assertion that these are merely broken, unfulfilled elements while the totality and fullness of truth is in the only Catholic Church, hierarchically subordinate to the Successor of Peter (UR 2, UUS 97). Matt- I think these documents contain no errors in judgment and are of profound use to anyone who reads them in the spirit in which they were written.

All the statements in Dignitatis Humanae about religious freedom are qualified by clauses involving the observation of the just requirements of public order. It follows that if an expression violates these requirements it can and should be restricted. Following this principle you will find full conformity with the anti-religious liberty documents of previous popes, which argued that certain expressions of freedom must be rejected precisely because of the harm that they do to society (i.e. violating the just requirements of public order). If you scroll up, you will find that I addressed a post to Matt on other particular difficulties presented by DH and the solution I found acceptable. If you do a word search for the term “immunity” you will find our conversation.

Screwtape said...

MATT & WP:

Your distinctions are asinine and in general your comments not worth answering.

Heresy is as heresy does. I don't have to ride a camel to know that's a hump.

With Peter said...

NGB- It is never worth answering when one does not have an answer. What is assinine is your slovenly inability to justify your dissent to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church with even one explicit, defensible accusation of heresy. One doesn't have to be a camel to be stubborn and ignorant.

Same old, same old. Always accusing, always insulting, never defending a point for more than ten seconds. Ah, but you're above needing "reasons," you pray rosaries and attend the Mass of all times. This gives you the infallibility necessary to pass judgment on councils and popes. What a typical dissenting traditionalist.

PS. When you accuse someone of making "assinine distinctions," a person with charity (even the scathing, excoriating kind) would take care to show WHY they are assinine. Otherwise his accusation amounts to a pathetic and unnecessary violation of the eighth commandment.

With Peter said...

Matt- if you do a word search on “Ut Unim Sint” you will discover that the term “nice” does not appear in the document. There is no indication in the entire, EXTREMELY LONG document that the author believes that if we simply pray together and be nice, unity will come about. On the contrary, he acknowledges that many and diverse difficulties that separate various groups from the Church and expresses the conviction that unity cannot come about through human effort alone, but only if the grace is granted by divine providence…ergo the need for prayer. Doing works of charity together, defending human rights (especially against abortion) and praying together help the process inasmuch as they build mutual personal trust, which is a necessary if we are going to avoid misrepresentation and the sort of jingoistic apologetics which causes offense without inviting conversion.