Rorate Caeli

Rodé warns the Jesuits


Excerpts of the homily pronounced by Cardinal Rodé, Prefect of Religious ("Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life"), in the opening Mass of the 35th General Congregation of the Society of Jesus, this morning in the Gesù:

Consecration to service to Christ cannot be separated from consecration to service to the Church. Ignatius and his first companions considered it thus when they wrote the Formula of your Institute in which the essence of your charism is spelled out: “To serve the Lord and his Spouse the Church under the Roman Pontiff” (Julio III, Formula I). It is with sorrow and anxiety that I see that the sentire cum ecclesia of which your founder frequently spoke is diminishing even in some members of religious families. The Church is waiting for a light from you to restore the sensus Ecclesiae.
...
Love for the Church in every sense of the word, – be it Church people of God be it hierarchical Church – is not a human sentiment which comes and goes according to the people who make it up or according to our conformity with the dispositions emanating from those whom the Lord has placed to direct the Church. Love for the Church is a love based on faith, a gift of the Lord which, precisely because he loves us, he gives us faith in him and in his Spouse, which is the Church. Without the gift of faith in the Church there can be no love for the Church.

I join in your prayer asking the Lord to grant you the grace to grow in your belief in and love for this holy, catholic and apostolic Church which we profess.

With sadness and anxiety I also see a growing distancing from the Hierarchy. The Ignatian spirituality of apostolic service “under the Roman Pontiff” does not allow for this separation. In the Constitutions which he left you, Ignatius wanted to truly shape your mind and in the book of the Exercises (n 353) he wrote” we must always keep our mind prepared and quick to obey the true Spouse of Christ and our Holy Mother, the Hierarchical Church”. Religious obedience can be understood only as obedience in love. The fundamental nucleus of Ignatian spirituality consists in uniting the love for God with love for the hierarchical Church.
...
Ignatius placed himself under the orders of the Roman Pontiff “in order to not err in via Domini” (Const 605) in the distribution of his religious throughout the world and to be present wherever the needs of the Church were greater.

Times have changed and the Church must today confront new and urgent necessities, I will mention one, which in my judgment is urgent today and is at the same time complex and I propose it for your consideration. It is the need to present to the faithful and to the world the authentic truth revealed in Scripture and Tradition. The doctrinal diversity of those who at all levels, by vocation and mission are called to announce the Kingdom of truth and love, disorients the faithful and leads to a relativism without limits. There is one truth, even though it can always be more deeply known.

It is the “living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ” (DV 10) which is the voucher for revealed truth. ... May those who, according to your legislation, have to oversee the doctrine of your magazines and publications do so in the light of and according to the “rules for sentire cum ecclesia”, with love and respect.

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

We pray for a change in direction for the Jesuit Order as a whole--a direction in union with the Holy Father and the magisterium.

We have had enough of their leadership in dissention. If they cannot change their direction, then may they die out.

Anonymous said...

Good Lawd...this Cardinal Rode is throwing down!

Anonymous said...

These poeple will not change direction. They will continue on the path of dissent and disobedience that have followed since 1965. They will continue to sow discord and confusion among the faithful by their promotion of and support for views (both in their publications, pronouncements, speeches, and core beliefs of their priests in the field) which are 100% in opposition to the teaching authority of the Pope, and the traditions of the Catholic Faith.
The Jesuits have been the leading core group of dissenters in the Church since Vatican II. They need to be supressed.
If the Vatican does not suppress them, TIME will have its own way with the Jesuits. Below is a small sampling of Jesuit numbers both before Vatican II, and at present 40 years after the disaster of Vatican II and its reforms. Keeping in mind that the Jesuits have been in the vanguard of the illicit liturgical deviations, the dissent, the disobednience, the laxity and secularism epidemic in religious life since Vatican II, the promotion of Marxism and Liberation Theology in Latin America and elsewhere, the proponents of radical ecumenism with Protestantism, of religious indifferentism, of radical inculturation of the Faith to suit the traditions of Hinduism, Buddhism, or African tribal beliefs etc., compare and contrast the numerical stats, and see the direction this radical agenda has brought the Jesuits to. With the average age of Jesuit priests standing today at 66.5, and Jesuit brothers (a class nearly extinct in the Jesuit Order), at 69.0, there remains little hope for the Jesuit Order as it is today 40 years after Vatican II:

Jesuits:
World-wide (36,200 before Vatican II) Today: 18,711.
Brothers: Before Vatican II- (5,204) Today: 1,306.
Seminarians (USA only): Before Vatican II- 5,500. Today, 140.
USA Jesuit priests: before Vatican II, 8,000. Today, 2,640.
Jesuits(Italy): Before Vatican II: 4,000+. Today : 640.
Jesuits(France): Before Vatican II: 3,500+ Today: less than 500.
Jesuits: Canada -Before Vatican II ( 1,500+). Today: less than 250.
Jesuits: Ireland and the United Kingdom: Before Vatican II: 1,740+.
Today: less than 300.
These results of Vatican II and its "reforms" can be repeated in virtually every religious Order in the Church.
Cardinal Rode's speech (which probably came actually from Benedict XVI), was magnificent. Now I hope strong words are followed for all religious Orders in the Church with stronger medicine....a Papal ordinance ordering a complete return to traditional religious life as lived before Vatican II...including restoring the traditional religious habits, for the Jesuits and all male and female religious.

Anonymous said...

A return to traditional religious garb, especially for nuns would be appropriate.
I watched the Papal ceremonies for the holidays that were broadcast on EWTN.
Most of the congregations of nuns seen on the coverage from St. Peter's Basilica wore such abreviated, modified habits as to hardly be habits at all....just a blouse and veil. Then of course there were the usuall elderly habitless nuns with just a pin on their layclothes lapel. The very few nuns in traditional habits were all very young. That tells you something good.
Anyway, it's time to ditch the frumpy, ugly modified skirts and veils, and get back to the traditional habits for nuns. Maybe then they'd get some vocations. What a surprise that would be!

Anonymous said...

Great talk, but since Cardinal Rodé excommunicated one of his own pastors, when he was archbisho, for the crime of offering the TLM exclusively, I wonder what one earth he means by "sentire cum ecclesia": perhaps his version is one of the reasons why so many don't respect authority in the Church, not because they don't have respect for authority per se, but because there is little use of authority in the Church which is respectful of Christ, Scrpture and Tradition.

Anonymous said...

Let us pray that through the power of Love, that the Society of Jesus leaders will come into more closer union with Christ and His Church.

All of those who fall out of union from within a family usually do so as a reaction to an unfulfilled need for love, attention, and recognition. We must trust in the power of loving. Many of us hope for a more closer union with Christ('s Church).

Anonymous said...

Nice sentiment, but it doesn't fix a broken situation.
I couldn't fix a broken car by just loving it more.
The Jesuits are beyond repair. The one attempt to repair the Order ( circa 1974 when some traditionalist Jesuits in Spain...a considerable number....wanted to found a new branch of hardline, traditionalist, orthodox Jesuits loyal to the Pope and Church tradition was nixed by Paul VI) would have been the only salvation for the Order. The radical branch could have gone down the road to extinction, while the new traditionalist Jesuits would at least have been stable.
Too late for the Order now. But not to late to found a new branch of the Jesuits. Maybe a group of traditionalist priests would like to start it....a Jesuit branch which celebrates the Tridentine Latin Mass, and is loyal to the Church.
What a kick in the teeth that would be to all the old "Vatican II" rah-rah crew Jesuits as they merrilly walk together down the Vatican II path to extinction.

humboldt said...

The Jesuits are a lost cause for the Catholic Church.

Anonymous said...

Great talk, but since Cardinal Rodé excommunicated one of his own pastors, when he was archbishop, for the crime of offering the TLM exclusively, I wonder what one earth he means by "sentire cum ecclesia"

Isn't it obvious? He means strict concrete obedience to the institutional Church and its laws.

What you have described in weasel words is a priest refusing to say the NO. Canon law makes no allocation for a priest having the right to do this. He would need at least tacit permission from a superior in order for such an act to not fall under the heading of prosecutable disobedience.

We can debate whether such a right ought to exist. I would not oppose the definition of such a right, but the fact remains that it doesn't exist (at least yet) and the Cardinal was within his rights to discipline the priest.

B. said...

@anomymous 07 January, 2008 21:48:
Such an order already exists. It has been founded by a priest who was expelled from the Jesuits: The Servi Jesu et Mariae.
A while ago someone wrote something about them at the Juventutem Blog

Anonymous said...

The Servi Jesu et Mariae are bonkers

Anonymous said...

Take warning from the Legionaries of Christ. Although dismissed from his brief sojourn in the Jesuit novitiate, Marcial Marciel tried to model his order on an even stricter pattern of Jesuit life than actually existed in his own youth. Look at them now and wait for the ineviitable signs of diminution. The tragedy is that many fine young men joined them in good faith and have had their trust destroyed by their founder and many members of the Order in responsible positions. Recreations of existing Orders never work.

South Bend Catholic said...

A priest has the right to offer Mass either according to the Missal of Paul VI or the Missal of John XXIII whenever he offers the Mass in Latin.

Only in the letter to the bishops that accompanied the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum does it read:

"Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness."

This letter does not constitute canon law, so unless you can provide the canon (which you can not), then please refrain from speaking about "prosecutable disobedience."

In the letter, what constitutes "excluding" is not all that clear. There's room here for charitable interpretation. Rode's discipline can be seen as harsh and unwarranted. Provision could have been made, and should have been made "in the spirit of Summorum Pontificum." (Hey, "the spirit of..." has already gotten a lot of milage by the bad guys.)

My point is that leniancy should have been the rule in that case given the nature of the document and it's intent.

Hail3N1 said...

The world is Upside Down...unfortunately, it's not going to get any better; only God can put it back again. And I, for one, confess to be lazy when it comes to praying, which I now will turn my attention to after this. Instead of more prayers reaching the heavens, we grow more godless, and immoral... May God have mercy on us.

Anonymous said...

The possible outcome of the Jesuit vote is quite scary. But there is hope. Didn't the Carmelites elect a decent priest a few years ago even though the Spanish contingent is still powerful and wacky? I'm not 100% sure but I think that is what happened.

In any event, we have to keep praying!...

Pro Christo et Ecclesia!
http://www.corpuschristianum.org

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymoi,

"prosecutable disobedience"..hmm.

Well first we must remember that to be guilty of the sin or crime of disobedience, we must be obliged by some legitimate authority in a legitimate matter.

Since there is no obligation against saying the TLM exclusively, rather there is a strict obligation to allow this (cf. Quo Primum tempore of St. Pius V, who is, you may remember, a Roman Pontiff, and whose decree you may recall from the Pope's Benedict's MP and Letter is still enforce).

Ergo, by all sane interpretation of the canons, no priest can be excommunicated for offering the TLM exclusively. Rather he who would prevent him merits anathama and excommunication, reserved to the Roman Pontiff, as per the terms of St. Pius V's decree.

Nor does Pope Benedicts expression of opinion in his letter change anything, because what one Pope decrees as Peter, another Pope as a man can disagree with, but so long as he does not change it as Peter, his opining changes nothing in law.

If you think otherwise you are not Catholic, but rather a rebel and traitor to the Apostolis See, no matter how many degrees you may have.


Br. Alexis Bugnolo
www.franciscan-archive.org

Anonymous said...

The sad reality is that the age of the Society of Jesus at large makes it difficult for it to change. So much intellectual and spiritual energy was poured into the Order after Vatican II - when Pope Paul VI gave the task of implementing the Council to the Society - that it was virtually re-established under the generalship of Pedro Arrupe.

If it does change it will take years to achieve and, invitably, will become much smaller. If it dies, the Gregorian University, the Biblical Institute, and the Oriental Institute in Rome will go with it, and so will the Vatican observatory. Whether other Orders will be able to fill these gaps is doubtful.

The majority of Jesuits remain faithful but individuals have given them such a bad name that the relatively few young men in the world available to seek vocations (the widespread ignorance of the teaching of Humanae Vitae and contraception has led to the loss of the young in the West; here the laity have let the Church down badly) that they would be best advised to dedicate their energies elsewhere. But the loss to the Church if the Jesuits go will be incalculable.

This, however, should also be seen in the setting of the twilight of the religious life everywhere but in the Southern hemisphere. What is developing there is light years away from the mentality and cultural formation of the West. The possible election of an Indian General is widely dreaded by Jesuits for these reasons. Historically Orders comes and go but this should also be seen in the context of Post-Christianity. Intellectually, few Orders are better equipped to face this phenomenon than the Jesuits.

Anonymous said...

All these anons makes one's head spin :-)

My post was a completely different anon from all the other anons!

Pro Christo et Ecclesia!
http://www.corpuschristianum.org

Caeser said...

"Intellectually, few Orders are better equipped to face this phenomenon than the Jesuits."

Are we talking about the same Jesuits? The Jesuits have been the biggest failure of the Conciliar Catholic Church. I do not share your optimism.

By the way the speech by Cardinal Rodè was a personal speech, not in the name of the Holy Father. This is syntomatic of the failure of the Jesuits.

Hebdomadary said...

Admitting that there may still be some truly orthodox Jesuiti, I do not know them. Nor have they been seen in Southern California in many years, barring Fr. Hugh Thwait, who several times came to give retreats at St. Mary's, Huntington Beach. He is the ONE exception.

The Jesuits in San Diego were finally expelled from their parish of Christ the King in San Diego, a predominantly minority parish, after creating a Baptist service which disordered the mass, and left the congregation unable to say the Creed when the diocesan replacement priest came. He is a good man, an African American, and a former Marine sargent built like a brick outhouse. Yet he has had a fight to restore any semblence of Catholic identity. Still, he keeps at it.

One feels this is the only warning that the Jesuits are going to get from this pontiff. The Jesuits have humiliated the church in the Diocese of San Diego, have proved destroyers of tradition and appeasers of heresy; no, fomenters, more like. They deserve nothing but the suppression they have received on previous occasions. For their good, and for the good of all His church.

Anonymous said...

Br. Bugnolo, please read the following assertions carefully.

1. A dogma must be true in all times, places and from the beginning.

2. A dogma is the only kind of legislation that binds not only all Christians, but also the Magisterium itself.

3. Your interpretation of the "in perpetuity" clause of Quo Primum is therefore false and untenable, a truly tired error.

caesar said...

"They (the Jesuits) deserve nothing but the suppression they have received on previous occasions. For their good, and for the good of all His church."

AMEN!

Anonymous said...

"Unsquared Circle" says:

I'm sure the Jebbies are just a shakin in their boots (make that birkenstocks) that the guys in Rome who hold the same Enlightenment principles they themselves do, but who refuse to carry these principles to their logical outcome as the jebbies have done, are going now to "rein them in". Pshaw! Rome cannot govern because, despite recent protestations against relativism, its own newly-minted "living magisterium" "living tradition" (in both cases read: CHANGING)super dogma makes it the very ENGINE of the relativism it bewails.

The problem in the Church is at the level of principle. It will NOT be resolved by a few moderately orthodox speeches and the unmothballing of some truly lovely liturgical appurtenances and a few of the liturgical ceremonies they were made to accompany.

Make no mistake, Pope Benedict and his allies in Rome differ from the worst of the Jesuits only in that he and his refuse (for reasons known only to God) to carry his principles to their logical outcome: apostasy.

Now, I'll brace myself for the avalanche

LeonG said...

The figures from anonymous above hide the fact that of remaining Jesuits over half are close to retirement and or death. This pattern repeats itself for many other religious orders and for secular clergy. The demise of the celibate male priesthood is the wish of the modernists and neo-modernists in the modern church. This is one of the "razing of bastions" in the Roman Catholic Church which the liberal conciliarists of the 1960s wanted overturned. The Latin Mass of All Times was another "bastion" for razing, alongside the papal power to defend The Church as the absolute authority. Collegiality has taken care of that which is why the SP has become unworkable.

Perversely, the Jesuits have been in the vanguard of the modernist movement and are responsible for the demise of their own order. They have also propagated the denial of Christ's divinity and the historicity of The Gospels. Chardin, Dufour, von Balthasar, Rahner, Lonergan, the St Louis rock and roll Jesuits and so on, reads like a sinister litany to the "synthesis of all heresies", does it not?

Joe B said...

The founder of the Servi Jesu et Mariae order only offers the Novus Ordo mass.

Here's the essence of the problem: his allegiance is to the Pope, not to the Majesterium, which is the choice before us based on Quo Primum. To throw precision out the window and inject the worst case possibility into the discussion, Quo Primum says the Novus Ordo mass is cursed by Saints Peter and Paul, and thus I believe that it cannot nurture saintly souls to saintly priesthood. At least, I haven't met or even read about one yet that attributes his sanctity to that mass, and the silence is deafening.

Not denying the Real Presence at the mass, just trying to graphically illustrate the possibility of a very low level of actual grace present. Too low.

LeonG said...

The Jesuits, as with the vast majority of the clergy and episcopal hierarchy propagate an exterior activism which denies the authentic and proper place for the appropriate Catholic interior disposition in liturgical praxis. This is why the Tridentine linguistic anathemas hanging over the vernacular only protestant NO Bugnini service are validated by the stark reality of gravely decimated clerical numbers & also help to explain why the liturgy is in such an appalling mess. The Jesuits have played a major role in this process of liturgical vandalism and auto-demolition.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous ha detto...
Br. Bugnolo, please read the following assertions carefully.

1. A dogma must be true in all times, places and from the beginning.

2. A dogma is the only kind of legislation that binds not only all Christians, but also the Magisterium itself.

3. Your interpretation of the "in perpetuity" clause of Quo Primum is therefore false and untenable, a truly tired error.

08 January, 2008 19:53


Dogma is not legislation: oops you show your level of preparation.

Also you are totally unaware, evidently, that a papal law binds everyone in the Church including the Pope, until/unless he determines otherwise. Canon Law 101.

My argument has nothing to do with the perpetuity or universality of dogmatic decrees, I am speaking about canonical matters.

Your problem evidently is with papal power. Even Vatican II is not greater than Quo Primum, because no council is above or equal to a Pope!

What the pope has confirmed remains confirmed in the manner he has confirmed it, notwithstanding anything to the contrary from any other source.

Remember the Congregation for Divien Worship, acting supposedly on the Pope's behalf, in 1974, if I remember correctly, decided that Quo Primum was no longer in effect. Well now the Holy Father has said otherwise: but that does not mean that it returns to being in effect, rather that it always was, and that papal subordinates were treacherously interpreting papal law, encouraged by the tacit approval of Paul VI who did not evidently understand or respect the decree of Pius V.

It may be hard to understand all this if you do not understand what a formal distinction is, between the Pope acting as a man or bishop or Patriarch, and the Pope acting as Pope. It makes a difference not only in the tenor of the law but also in the tenor of obedience we should show the law.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo
www.franciscan-archive.org

Anonymous said...

Why the Servi Jesu et Mariae are bonkers??

Thank you
Ignacio Xavierre

Joe B said...

I doubt you'll get an answer from the anon who said they are bonkers. My point is only that they can't be the force that leads or even significantly contributes to the counter-revolution because they don't even see the first and primary issue, which is who first obedience is owed to. In this case the choice is a Papal Bull invoking infallibility or a Pope's personal choice of a mass, and one that appears to be cursed by the said Papal Bull at that. If you can't even discern the Holy Mass, how will you ever conquer modernism?

The traditional mass and large Catholic families remain the greatest weapons for the nurturing of priestly souls and the reconquista.

Anonymous said...

Many thanks to Br.Bugnolo for the insight. Brother, do you have an essay or article on the very relevant topic of "do not understand what a formal distinction is, between the Pope acting as a man or bishop or Patriarch, and the Pope acting as Pope. It makes a difference not only in the tenor of the law but also in the tenor of obedience we should show the law."? I could not find one on your Franciscan archives.

Sincerely in St Francis,

Joseph John Francis

Anonymous said...

Dear JJF:

I recommend reading carefully:

On papal power

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm#III

and the revelant sections of the Code of Canon Law of 1983 and 1919.

caesar said...

"He has full authority to interpret, alter, and abrogate both his own laws and those established by his predecessors. He has the same plenitude of power as they enjoyed, and stands in the same relation to their laws as to those which he himself has decreed"

That is a lot of power. Is there any boundary set to the pope's power?

B. said...

@joe b:
The founder of the Servi Jesu et Mariae order only offers the Novus Ordo mass.
This is not true. Unless he would lie for no apparent reason while being on TV (where I have seen him talking about offering the TLM).

While the SJM offer both the Novus Ordo and the TLM, for the reason of obedience to the pope (which is only consequent if you want to follow St. Ignatius), their founder Fr. Hönisch also wrote an article defending Fr. Bisig and his stance on the FSSP excluding the NO when Fr. Bisig was deposed for this view and (Fr. Hönisch) said that the modus operandi of the SJM should not be a seen model to the FSSP.

Anonymous said...

Dear Br. Bugnolo,

1. Legislation means the enacting of laws that did not previously exist. The new definition of a dogma has newly binding legal value in the Church and therefore is indeed legislation. It is legislation that cannot be overturned even by the pope himself.

2. Your second point about laws binding the pope was never at issue. Please pay attention more carefully.

3. The 1570 Roman Missal had been altered many times over the centuries, demonstrating the impossibility of your interpretation of Quo Primum, which was no longer in complete effect from the very first time the Missal was altered.

4. Missale Romanum (1969) would have abolished the TLM, but before it ever took affect, the Holy See had granted hundreds of exceptions to the general statement of nullity.

5. Benedict XVI never said that Quo Primum was still in effect.

6. We are not speaking of the pope's personal actions, but official acts of the Apostolic See.

Anonymous said...

Your problem evidently is with papal power. Even Vatican II is not greater than Quo Primum, because no council is above or equal to a Pope!

Vatican II was solemnly approved and officially promulgated by Pope Paul VI. You may be holy but your argument is holey.

Joe B said...

b., Thanks for the clarification that some in the order offer the TLM, but not all and not the founder of the order. That sort of makes my point that this order isn't the Jesuits of old. Out of obedience, the founder of the order offers a mass which appears to be cursed by Saints Peter and Paul, both in plain text and in four decades of experience.

That's the terrible choice modernism demands of us - choose between popes, between councils, between Catholic authorities.

The mass is a huge part of this war. If they can't even see that, they're not the answer.

B. said...

b., Thanks for the clarification that some in the order offer the TLM, but not all and not the founder of the order.
Well, repeating it won't make it true, you know.
The founder does offer the TLM, and from what I have gathered from his talk I have seen on KTV he seems to prefer it to the NO.

He even had a member of the SSPX be a teacher at their seminary. I have also seen a talk by this priest entitled "the deficencies of the New Mass".

Anonymous said...

Anonymous ha detto...
Dear Br. Bugnolo,

1. Legislation means the enacting of laws that did not previously exist. The new definition of a dogma has newly binding legal value in the Church and therefore is indeed legislation. It is legislation that cannot be overturned even by the pope himself.

2. Your second point about laws binding the pope was never at issue. Please pay attention more carefully.

3. The 1570 Roman Missal had been altered many times over the centuries, demonstrating the impossibility of your interpretation of Quo Primum, which was no longer in complete effect from the very first time the Missal was altered.

4. Missale Romanum (1969) would have abolished the TLM, but before it ever took affect, the Holy See had granted hundreds of exceptions to the general statement of nullity.

5. Benedict XVI never said that Quo Primum was still in effect.

6. We are not speaking of the pope's personal actions, but official acts of the Apostolic See.

10 January, 2008 00:14



Respondeo:

Ad 1: Your major (1st proposition) and your minor (2nd proposition) is valid, but your minor is not appropriate, because just because a dogma defined has legal value, or consequences does not make the definition a law: in the document proclaimaing the definition there may be legal decisions made, and the document itself may be considered a legal document in general terms, but no dogma is a law qua law, though we agree it is a law of the Faith.

ad 2: I let that pass.

ad 3: Your argument is faulty, because you evidently hold that if any part of the Missal is altered, then Quo Primum becomes invalid or its perpetuity or universality is weakened. But in this you confound the nature of the TLM's status defended by Quo Primum, with the contents of the Missal. Minor additions or deletions affect nothing of the law, just as the law against speeding is not nullified if the speed limit is changed from 60 to 59 miles per hour. Your fundamental error of reasoning is confusing material changes with formal changes. The alterations of the missale were minor from 1570 to 1948, Quo Primum regards that missal, each subsequent change during and after is founded upon the authority in the document which approves those changes, not on Quo Primum: so in that we perhaps agree.

ad 4. Your gratuitous assertion is gratuitously denied. Exceptions to the law of Paul VI do not prove that it does or does not invalidate the Ancient Roman Rite as contained in the Missale Romanum referenced in Quo Primum, because the consequences of a law are one thing, and the law itself is another. When the Pope enacts a law the terms of the law itself determine whether it abrogates or obrogates or dispenses from a previous papal law; not any dispensations the Pope may grant before or after, which are exceptions to the law per se founded not on the law but on papal power.

ad 5. You evidently deny the truth content of Summorum Pontificum and the accompanying letter, cited here respectively: "never abrogated" refers to the law which promulgates in toto, which is Quo Primum; "technically still in effect".

ad 6. Yes and now. Yes I am speaking of the official acts of the Pope, which you evidently deny; and also of the personal acts of the Roman Pontiff (e.g. Paul VI allowing the Congregation for Worship to issue mendacious interpretations of papal law, and Benedict XVI's accompanying letter). Not every action or inaction of pope is a papal action, otherwise you will have to search for the theological or canonical meaning behind every papal bowel movement!

------------

Anonymous ha detto...
Your problem evidently is with papal power. Even Vatican II is not greater than Quo Primum, because no council is above or equal to a Pope!

Vatican II was solemnly approved and officially promulgated by Pope Paul VI. You may be holy but your argument is holey.

10 January, 2008 00:37


Your argument proves nothing, though your ad hominem is quaint. But the hole here is not in my argument but yours, because the Papal approval of Vatican II does not make the authority of Vatian II equal or greater than a pope, nor equal or greater than a Papal decree which remains in force and which Vatican II did not excplicity abrogate. Be serious, you argument seems to imply that the Pope can make another equaly in power to himself, which is absurd: you confound the supreme and plenary authority of Christ with the supreme and vicarious authority of the Pope.

It seems to me that both of you anonymoi have let anger lead you to exaggeration.

Joe said...

You guys left me behind about ten posts ago. It's hard for a simple mind like mine to tell for sure, but it seems we have multiple threads crossing insults here.

Anonymous said...

Your argument proves nothing, though your ad hominem is quaint

Ad hominem? The only thing I said about your personhood was that I believed your were holy. My issue is with your argument, which is "holey" because Vatican II is a direct and solemn exercise of papal power.

It is not Ephesus II (the "latrocinium" or "robber council"), where there was a conflict between Council and Pope (Leo the Great). Paul VI gave Vatican II the theological qualifier of "supreme ordinary Magisterium."

Anonymous said...

Dear Anon and/or Br. Bugnolo,

1. We are in conceptual agreement. Dogma is both legislation and more than legislation. It is divine law.

2. Okay.

3. It seems that you have not read Quo Primum: "We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See."

It does not promulgate and perpetuate some generally defined "traditional latin mass," but gives legal force to a specific missal, which it decrees cannot be altered (except by authoritative decree of the pope). Quo Primum does not say what you make it say, namely, "Popes can alter the missal in minor ways but not in major ways." Trent is perfectly clear: If it involves sacramental validity (i.e. dogma), the Roman Pontiff has no power. If it does not involve sacramental validity, the Roman Pontiff has complete power.

4. I think you misunderstood my assertion. The apostolic consitution of Paul VI ("Missale Romanum," 4/3/69) used standard papal language for authoritative, canonical abrogation: "We decree that these laws and prescriptions be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and amendment." So the question is legitimately raised: how can Benedict XVI say that the TLM was never abrogated???

Answer: The proscriptions of the Apostolic Constitution did not take immediate effect in April of 1969, but took effect on November 30, by which time, Paul VI had already legally granted many exemptions to the general decree of abrogation. These exemptions were consolidated into an indult in 1984 and expanded into a universal permission in 2007, but at no point was the TLM abbrogated.

5. It seems that you have not read SP or the accompanying letter. They NEVER refer to Quo Primum - I don't know what you think you're quoting when you write, "technically still in effect" - but always to the 1962 Missal: "I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never abrogated."

6. To correct your error, please consult CIC/83 can. 360 and the corresponding canon from CIC/17: "The Supreme Pontiff usually conducts the business of the universal Church through the Roman Curia, which acts in his name and with his authority for the good and for the service of the Churches."

God bless!

Anonymous said...

You guys left me behind about ten posts ago. It's hard for a simple mind like mine to tell for sure, but it seems we have multiple threads crossing insults here.

I suspect that I speak also for Br. Bugnolo when I say that we have no intention of insulting each other in any way in expressing our disageement.