Rorate Caeli

RORATE: Fellay and relevant canonical questions

A correspondent of ours in Brazil sends us a few answers granted by Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), to journalists present in his conference in São Paulo this weekend. This is the short interview:

Journalists have often asked: what would be the preferred format for the Fraternity, an Apostolic Administration, such as Campos, a Personal Prelature, as Opus Dei, or a Personal Ordinariate, as the one granted to the Anglicans?

[Fellay:] The Vatican has already declared very clearly that no canonical statute will be given to the Fraternity before the end of the doctrinal dialogues. As there is nothing official, and nothing known, I cannot say anything. The only thing I can say is that Rome wants to establish for us something that is convenient for the Fraternity.

It has been said that the Holy See might publicly recognize faculties for all Sacraments celebrated by the Fraternity. Do you believe that this might take place shortly?

[Fellay:] I have no idea. I simply do not know.

And the last question is: will the Fraternity accept, temporarily, a provisional canonical structure during the doctrinal discussions?

[Fellay:] This idea does exist, but it is a problem inside the Church. There are many, many bishops who truly hate us. Actual enemies of the Fraternity. And they would do all within their power to destroy us. This provisional arrangement would not solve the problem of the priests and of the faithful. The bishops would place great obstacles and chaos would set in. Therefore, a canonical solution will have to be permanent. Some small steps could be taken, for instance, recognizing the Sacraments celebrated by the Fraternity and such.
We thank contributor Al Trovato and reader P.K.T.Perkins for sending us these questions and also those in Brazil who had asked us for questions and to whom we forwarded these, among others; and also the interviewer (Juliana Fragetti) who managed to get these interesting answers from Bishop Fellay in that conference.

42 comments:

Paul Haley said...

Mr. Perkins,

I have no idea regarding the possible suicide sentiments of Robert Frost but I do want readers to see the poem in its entirety with the kind permission of the Moderators:

Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening
by: Robert Frost

Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.

My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.

He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound's the sweep
Of the easy wind and downy flake.

The woods are lovely, dark, and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.


The part about "promises to keep" reminds me particularly of these discussions.

Anonymous said...

I appreciate the fact the Discussions are underway with Rome and the SSPX. It's a great moment and step foward anyway. At the same time, I do have a big question.

Why is it the Anglicans are able to come over seemingly without hinderance and with their married clergy (ad infinitum?) although we have yet to see the Apostolic Consttitution reagarding their incorporation into the Church, and yet the SSPX have to go through all these discussions and jump all these hoops in order to get a foot into the Church's door. The Anglicans come right over while the Society has to beg and scrape. Why ideas why?

Matt

jonh303 said...

Simple: secause the fraternity has doctrinal disagreements, while the Anglicans are choosing to accept our doctrine.

Anonymous said...

Um, Matt, it's just the opposite. The Society is the Sweetheart whom Sir Rome has suited, but she won't budge.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I appreciate the assistance given to me to get these questions to Bishop Fellay. The bad news is that he's not answering the questions! The good news is that he's not providing the wrong answers to the questions. Thank God he didn't suggest a personal prelature! We can now say for sure (and to Romanus and crowd) that he is not agreeing to a p.p., at least not at this time.

When the questioner pressed him, he did give us at least *some* indication of where he's going. There will apparently be no provisional structure, as Romanus advocated. Actually, I agree with Romanus on that matter. It is one of the few occasions at which Romanus has shown some perspicacity. But Bishop Fellay does not agree. Hmm.

At the very end, when the question was asked a second time in a sneaky way, Fellay did suggest that Rome might recognise Society faculties as a first step. This is what I've been suggesting here. But Fellay does not sound very definite about it. He wants to go to a permanent structure (and it obviously won't be a p.p., since Fellay is neither stupid nor a fifth columnist) and then only after the doc talks are over.

Incidentally, Bishop de Galarretta was interviewed yesterday and revealed yet again that it would take several years at the very least to complete these talks.

If Bishop de Galarretta is right, then the only sure way to end the canonical problem in this pontificate is for Benedict XVI to recognise Society faculties or, at the very least, to recognise publicly that Society Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation.

I suspect that H.H. will wait for the Rosary Crusade to do this (i.e. March, 2010). It's the only way to overcome the Williamson stigma created by the secular press and its masters. If only W. had kept his mouth shut!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Bishop Fellay's glasses look exactly like mine. For a moment, I thought he'd stolen them. They are completely unfashionable, which means that he is probably a good man.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Matt,
The SSPX wants to have all of these discussions and jump through hoops. The bishops keep stating that over and over and over. The Anglicans act like Catholics. They want to be in communion and they are willing to trust the Church and the Vicar of Christ. The SSPX, for no good reason what-so-ever, refuses to trust the Church or the Pope. (No reason has ever been given for the extreme and irrational nature of their mistrust.) They've brought this on themselves. That's the truth. Hopefully they'll decide they want to be Catholic more than they want to right, more than they want to fight, more than they want continue their pretend plight.

Nizitri

Jordanes said...

Nizitri,

No reason has ever been given for their mistrust?

Really??

Look, I don't believe the SSPX is justified to operate independently of the Church, but it's absolutely ridiculous to say no reason has ever been given for their mistrust.

Paul Goings said...

With respect to Mr Perkins and Mr Hunter, I cannot understand what would motivate the Holy Father to either grant faculties on some provisional basis, or acknowledge that they already exist in view of the crisis in the Church. I understand that there is a pastoral aspect to this, but, in human terms, it seems to me that such a provision or acknowledgement would prolong any negotiations or doctrinal discussions, perhaps indefinitely. It is Rome's one "stick," and they have used up almost all of their "carrots."

VirgoPotens said...

"Hopefully they'll decide they want to be Catholic more than they want to right..."

So, it's possible to be right on doctrinal matters without being Catholic? You can't possibly mean that.

I'm not an SSPX partisan either, but your comments here make it sound as if you haven't put any research at all into the SSPX's situation.

Adeodatus said...

It's a question of obedience. The Anglicans are ready to be obedient... they want to submit to the authority of the Church and the Pope. The SSPX 'divorce' (if we can't call it "schism", which I think is accurate) came from disobedience and rebellion.

Showing obedience is part of imitating Christ. It's a stumbling block for Ciceronians.

Vox Clamans Ex Inculta said...

Behind the SSPX 100%.

Joao said...

The Anglicans have to accept the Pope and the (1992) Cathechism of the Catholic Church.

They also came knocking in the door begging to come in.

So, in short, the anglican's humility and the Holy Father's compassion got them in real quick.

In the case of the SSPX, the Holy Father have been very loving and compassionate ...

Tim said...

Next meeting in 2 months or in 2 weeks???

While the official Vatican communiqué talks about "probably twice a month" - "bimensile", Tornielli in his article and his blog speaks about every 2 months - "bimestrale"...

Tim said...

And the wording "every 2 months" seems to be confirmed. Very odd: was it just a linguistic faux pas or something else?
----

LEFEBVRIANI: LOMBARDI, PROSSIMA RIUNIONE SOLO A GENNAIO

Salvatore Izzo

(AGI) - CdV, 26 ott.

''Nel comunicato della Commissione Ecclesia Dei di oggi si diceva che i colloqui proseguiranno a scadenza probabilmente a scadenza bimensile', invece bisogna leggere 'probabilmente a scadenza bimestrale', cioe' circa ogni due mesi''.
Lo precisa il portavoce vaticano, padre Federico Lombardi. ''In particolare - aggiunge - la prossima riunione e' prevedibile nel mese di gennaio, dopo l'avvento e il periodo natalizio''.

LeonG said...

Thank you Bishop Fellay. The enemy is within the church itself, in episcopal form. They act with injustice; they behave as though they are immune to prosecution, ecclesiastical, criminal or civil; they have ensured Ecclesia Dei does not function properly; they have attempted to scupper the Motu Propriu and continue to so do; they often behave as de facto schismatics themselves while throwing self-condemnatory stones at the SSPX.

How right SSPX are to put post-conciliar collegiality near the head of their list of points of the post-conciliar departure from customary norms.

It is a damning indictment of the appalling lack of justice in the contemporary church establishment that such bishops remain aloof from due discipline and stern papal rebuke which is no less than many of them deserve.

Peter said...

While I would like to have SSPX faculties to be recognized officially I think won't happen, because it would make the progressives angry (where's the reason?) and it would be a mean of putting pressure on the SSPX - "here you are, another carrot, do as we say or we'll take this carrot back and publicly state that you're carrotless and bad-willing".

It's stronger mean of pressure that the illicity of their ministry, which is widely known.

Paul Haley said...

Why did Bishop Fellay appear to reject any juridical solution until the talks are completed and, at the same time, acknowledge that the Holy Father might act to recognize SSPX faculties as a first step? Because he has a commitment to his followers and supporters not to engage in any hasty compromise as the poet says: "But I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep."

As for the frequency of meetings, be it twice per month or every two months, not to worry because they'll be exchanging written comments via e-mails and the like in the interim. Also, with the holydays, Advent and Christmas coming up, this will be a busy time for all concerned.

Anonymous said...

Adeodatus, Joao, Nizitri,

I want to ask you about your 'obedience' to the Pope.

We all know that by obeying fully the laws and discipline of Paul V1 on through to the present time would have absolutely killed the TLM. We all know that it was the outcry of disobedient bishops, priests and layman that kept has kept the old rites alive to the chagrin of the leadership of the Church.

I struggle with this dichotomy. Others too, such as Pope BXVI 'one rite two forms'. Better men then I have said Pope BXVI has erred in law. Then there is the litany of sins, abuses,seeming heresies and the bad fruit, etc. etc. etc. that any fool can associate to or even may directly conclude as being a cause and effect from V2 teaching and discipline.

I have compiled a list that Catholics use to defend positions about 'obedience'. Have any of you read the following?:
1) Pope Innocent 3 (a great canonist);
2) Fr. Sylvester Berry;
3) Dorsch,'de Ecclesia';
4) Cappello,'Summa Juris Canonici';
5) Michels,'De Delictis et Poenis';
6) Merkelbach,'Summa Theologiae Moralis';
7) Salaverri;
8) the 33-volume 'Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique';
9) Coronata, Institutiones Iuris Canonici
10) St. Robert Bellarmine
11) Franciso Suarez (dissenting opinion)
12) Cardinal Cajetan
13) Pope Paul IV.

I am a rank amateur and haven't gotten through all those works. I have taken up this work because I don't trust my local V2 mouth piece or informed layman.

I am finding that 'blind' obedience to a Pope is not Catholic teaching and am wondering where you get this notion?


Anon Anon

Adeodatus said...

Anon Anon, I wasn't thinking of those texts. I think about the Scripture, the Catechism, St. Augustine and St. Thomas. Here's what I had in mind:

Philippians 2: 5-11
"5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Do you really think that Lefebvre's disobedience was necessary to preserve the TLM? Is a sin sometimes necessary to preserve the good? I don't think so... like St. Thomas I don't believe in a "perplexus simpliciter". There's always a prudent, non-sinful action that can be taken in any situation.

I suppose it partly depends whether you're a Catholic, a Pelagian or a modern Existentialist. The latter two have to shoulder all the burdens themselves, the Pelagian because he is his own redeemer and the Existentialist because he is his own god. As a Catholic, I say that God is in charge of history and I'm just supposed to put my head down and obey my betters.

If the TLM is a legitimate good which God plans to deliver to His people, then it will be with the Church without anyone having to commit sin to keep it there. End of story.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Goings:

The Pope does not need a stick to beat the Society with. He needs a stick to beat the bishops with. Many of the bishops continue to obstruct "Summorum Pontificum". A free-ranging S.S.P.X would help to bring them into line. Most bishops don't want their authortiy to be challenged by a group that they cannot control. So, faced with a free-ranging society, they would be more apt to stop their obstruction and even to implement the m.p.

As for the S.S.P.X, while it is true that withholding recognition of its faculties does limit its reach, it is quite clear that this will not alter the Society's behaviour. It will continue expanding at a slow and steady pace and will continue attracting vocations. Moreover, should Rome recognise Society faculties together with a papal request to aovid the Society, most faithful on all sides would just continue doing what they are now. Only a few non-Society people would attend Society Masses, and mainly for geographical reasons.

I don't think that the Pope wants to leave the Society's status unresolved into the next pontificate. He sees the S.S.P.X as the most important means of bringing the clergy and Baptized people back into the Catholic Faith. While he does not agree with all Society positions, I think that he has come to realise that the sixties revolution went terribly wrong for Holy Church. He needs the Society more than the Society needs him.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Adeodatus wrote:

"The SSPX 'divorce' (if we can't call it "schism", which I think is accurate) came from disobedience and rebellion."

I am sorry, Adeodatus, that you disagree with the Roman curia on this point. It says that the 1988 consecrations were a schismatic act but not one sufficient to effect a schism, mainly because the Society did not institute jurisdicions. Of course, we might choose to ignore Rome and agree with you instead, since it's not an infallible teaching. But why should we? Where is your argument?

P.K.T.P.

John McFarland said...

Mr. Perkins,

Are you suggesting that Bishop Fellay has answers that he is not giving, or simply expressing regret that he cannot say what you had hoped to hear?

John McFarland said...

Virgo Potens,

I guess you're not old enough to remember when people used to say that they'd rather be wrong with the Pope than right with him.

You are rightly shocked by this kind of thing, because it makes authority trump truth and goodness. Obedience based on this mindset is traditionally called servile obedience -- the obedience of a slave. The obedience of a free man cannot follow orders to believe what is false, or do what it wrong, even when they are issued by duly constituted authority.

John McFarland said...

Anon Anon,

Bravo.

Now let me also point out something else.

When the Pope said that the Masses of Pius V and Paul VI were two forms of the same rite, what was he doing? Was he making a statement of fact? Legislating? Something else?

Likewise when he styled the former "extraorindary" and the latter "ordinary," was he making a statement of fact? Was he legislating? Something else?

I think he was doing something else: he was giving the distinct impression that he was legislating, but without strictly speaking legislating.

One might also considering making the same evaluation of the acts of V2. Did it not give the impression of being authoritative, but without strictly speaking being authoritative, by any traditional standard of authority and the requirements of obedience to authority?

Even before we get to the question of whether we must obey, we must ask the question: how can I be expected to obey something that doesn't fly its true colors?

Compare the way that Pope Paul adopted/announced/ whatever the New Mass. Reasonable men are still battling over what happened, and what it means.

My own modus operandi is this: if I'm told to do something in what looks like a juridical fast shuffle, and I don't do it, I'm not disobeying; I'm just indicating my lack of interest in playing the sucker in a sucker game, particularly when my eternal salvation is the stakes.

Paul Haley said...

If I may, allow me to play the part of a teacher (my undergraduate degree) on the subject of Obedience. To me, blind obedience to the Pope is illogical because even the Pope can err when not speaking ex cathedra on Faith and Morals.

As someone else said in another thread: if your own father told you to do something which you knew to be wrong, you would be obligated to disobey him. That doesn't mean that you don't owe your father obedience but only rightful obedience. And, I might also say that you would disobey him only in the rarest of circumstances.

The key here is doing something that you know by your training and formation in the Faith to be wrong -- that is a sin and no one has the authority to cause you to sin. And sin is an offense against God the sole holder of Truth and Goodness. So, be of good heart and offer obedience in all things except sin.

Jordanes said...

When the Pope said that the Masses of Pius V and Paul VI were two forms of the same rite, what was he doing? Was he making a statement of fact? Legislating? Something else?

Popes legislating and popes making statements of fact are often one and the same thing. In any case, his statement was made in a legislative text, so at the very least he was legislating -- and since the Roman Rite is under the Roman Bishop's jurisdiction and custodianship, he would also have been making a statement of fact.

Peter said...

The Pope is a free man and his will is free, he may demand very wrong things from his subjects. In that case disobedience is not a sin. What's more, it can be even an obligation, as Gos is superior to the Pope.

All the Nazi criminals tried in Nurnberg were just "obedient", you know... answer for yourself whether that obedience was sinful or not. If you think it wasn't, it means we have murdered innocent Nazi officials.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes,

To enact law is to delineate duties and rights and to make judgement in matters contested by different parties. While Benedict XVI's statement about the two forms in one rite is certainly part of a legislative act, it is not per se a ruling about what faithful must recognise, although it certainly can have legal implications. He was authoritatively interpreting a matter at law. Of course, he is not infallible in such matters and they are disputable. Still, the law must take into account the findings of the supreme legislator, so we shall have to endure this error in law.

The good part is that we are not bound to recognise that the two Masses are two forms of one Rite of Mass. We are free to continue to referring to them as two separate Rites of Mass. It doesn't matter much to me. What is important is that the two are recognised as separate items in law. That's all we need.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland asks:

"Are you suggesting that Bishop Fellay has answers that he is not giving, or simply expressing regret that he cannot say what you had hoped to hear?"

The latter, of course. I'm not accusing him of lying (in his second answer, for instance). But he's at least speculating that the Pope might recognise Society faculties as a preliminary step. He seems to take a fairly neutral view of this. He is not saying that he hopes for such a recognition, nor that he opposes it.

P.K.T.P.

Adeodatus said...

Ah, Peter... the inevitable internet Nazi comparison.

I want to understand how you think that a comparison with the Nazis applies here. Faithful Catholics are... the Nazis? The SSPX are... Jewish partisans? The Pope is... Hitler? What is it that faithful Catholics have been ordered to do by Rome/OKH that lines up with the Holocaust, in this comparison? I think I know what you might say but it's so blasphemous I'm afraid even to utter it jocosely.

If you want to throw around Nazis, we need to see a serious comparison of the elements. Go ahead, Peter.

Jordanes said...

While Benedict XVI's statement about the two forms in one rite is certainly part of a legislative act, it is not per se a ruling about what faithful must recognise, although it certainly can have legal implications.

It certainly does have legal implications, since it is a legislative act of the Supreme Legislator. And it is a ruling about what the faithful must recognise, in the sense that they must recognise that as far as Rome is concerned, the Latin Church has two forms of one Roman Rite.

Still, the law must take into account the findings of the supreme legislator, so we shall have to endure this error in law.

Or endure what some believe is an error in law, or accept what others believes is not an error in law.

The good part is that we are not bound to recognise that the two Masses are two forms of one Rite of Mass.

Perhaps not, but whether or not one recognises it will have no bearing on the actual content of the Church's liturgical laws.

We are free to continue to referring to them as two separate Rites of Mass. It doesn't matter much to me.

Nor will it matter at all to the Holy See, which will continue to refer to them as two ritual forms or uses/usages of one Roman Rite.

What is important is that the two are recognised as separate items in law. That's all we need.

Needed or not, we don't have it, nor will we get it any time soon. Maybe in a few more decades or centuries.

John McFarland said...

Jordanes,

You are right; it is a legislative document. But it is an odd legislative document. In the MP, the Pope says:

"These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite."

These are in a sense the basis of the Pope's legislation; and if they are not, it is difficult to see what is the basis of the legislation.

But they do not seem at all legislative. Rather, if the translation can be trusted, they look very much like statements of fact, and in part a prediction ("will in no way").

But as statements of fact they are, to put it kindly, less than self-evident.

It is my view, and not only mine, that the two Masses have long since led to a division in the Lex credendi, in the sense that the New Mass has led people to an incomplete and adulterated faith. In Archbishop Lefebvre's famous judgment on the New Mass, it is Protestant, and makes Protestants.

Or recall the statement of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci that "the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The 'canons' of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery."

As for the second sentence: it is no secret that it was the intent of the architects of the New Mass that it be the only Mass, and that they would have laughed heartily at the notion that the Old Mass and the New were like two peas in the liturgical pod. The Pope knows this perfectly well, since he was the friend and ally of those architects at V2.

The second sentence also seems very much at odds with the Ottaviani-Bacci judgment, in which most traditionalists concur.

What do you think is going on here?

My view is that the legislative portion of the document, though a very good thing in its results, has no basis that I can discern. It just floats in mid-air; or, if one considers the Pope's brief historical remarks, it might be considered an exercise of the hermeneutic of continuity: it states (or perhaps better implies) continuity, but does not demonstrate it. Even the Holy Father's talk of the development of the Old Mass is a bit of an eyebrow-raiser, since before 1962, not a jot or tittle of the Canon had changed since sometime before 604.

Jordanes said...

But they do not seem at all legislative. Rather, if the translation can be trusted, they look very much like statements of fact, and in part a prediction ("will in no way").

Legislation can and does include statements of fact.

It is my view, and not only mine, that the two Masses have long since led to a division in the Lex credendi, in the sense that the New Mass has led people to an incomplete and adulterated faith.

There is much, much more behind the fact that Catholics across the spectrum from liberal to traditionalsit usually have an incomplete and adulterated faith than the botched, overreaching liturgical reform of the late 1960s.

In Archbishop Lefebvre's famous judgment on the New Mass, it is Protestant, and makes Protestants.

Yes, that's one of Archbishop Lefebvre's more serious errors. If the Roman Missal is Protestant, and makes Protestants, then it is not a valid or licit Catholic Mass at all, and the Church thus has definitively defected from the Faith, thus falsifying the Christian religion.

Or recall the statement of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci that "the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.

The key, however, is that the Roman Missal does not depart from the Catholic doctrine of the Mass as formulated at Trent.

As for the second sentence: it is no secret that it was the intent of the architects of the New Mass that it be the only Mass, and that they would have laughed heartily at the notion that the Old Mass and the New were like two peas in the liturgical pod.

No, some of them insisted with Paul VI that the new Roman Missal was a proper and worthy child and successor of the previous edition of the Roman Missal.

My view is that the legislative portion of the document, though a very good thing in its results, has no basis that I can discern.

Drastically different as the two editions of the Roman Missal are, nevertheless of all Catholic rites the new Missal is closest to the pre-Vatican II Missal.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"Yes, that's one of Archbishop Lefebvre's more serious errors. If the Roman Missal is Protestant, and makes Protestants, then it is not a valid or licit Catholic Mass at all, and the Church thus has definitively defected from the Faith, thus falsifying the Christian religion."

This is incorrect. The question of whether or not a liturgy can confect the Eucharist and whether or not it is Protestant in tenor or even largely in content are two separate questions. The N.O. is Catholic is the sense that it was approved as a Liturgy by Catholic authority, but not in the sense no doubt meant here by the good Archbishop.

The Cranmerian prayerbook service, if celebrated by a real priest with a right intent, might very well confect the Eucharist, esp. if he uses the Roman Canon, but it is still a Protestant liturgy. What makes their services invalid Eucharists is the status of their priests, not the character of their liturgy. The Church has never ruled that their liturgy is unable to confect the Eucharist and, judging from what I've read, it clearly can do so.

The N.O. is Protestant insofar as it very clearly promotes that idea that the Mass is a meal but not a specifically a propitiatory Sacrifice. By using certain options in the N.O., esp. E.P. #2, one can have a Mass which is Protestant in implication and in tenor, even though it can still be a valid Eucharist.

Look around you, Jordanes. Look at what the average N.O. Catholic doesn't believe, and you'll find Protestants. They'll tell you that the Mass is principally a meal, they've never heard of induldgences, and, in one poll done for the U.S.A., only 18% believed in transubstantiation. Even more revealing, many apparently asked, transubstanti-what?

I'd agree with Abp. Lefebvre entirely; lex orandi, lex credendi: the Protestant Freemasonic Mass of Bozo the Mahony has created a whole tribe of Protestants. They are now becoming even pagans. Many of them don't even qualify as Christians. Just another fruit of the Brave New Conciliar Church and its Clown Mass, with rubrics so free that any old hag can dress up in a bathrobe to assist the priest, who is wearing vestments modelled on 1970s Pentecostal preachers' outfits.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes errs as follows:

"It certainly does have legal implications, since it is a legislative act of the Supreme Legislator. And it is a ruling about what the faithful must recognise, in the sense that they must recognise that as far as Rome is concerned, the Latin Church has two forms of one Roman Rite."

Absolutely false. The faithful are in no way bound even to read the document and certainly not to recognise what the Pope claims as a matter of fact. He has erred in law and we are free to think so.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

The question of whether or not a liturgy can confect the Eucharist and whether or not it is Protestant in tenor or even largely in content are two separate questions.

True, but irrelevant, because the Roman Rite is not Protestant in any sense.

The N.O. is Catholic is the sense that it was approved as a Liturgy by Catholic authority, but not in the sense no doubt meant here by the good Archbishop.

It is not Protestant is origin, in content, in doctrine, or in theology. In what sense, then, could it be "Protestant"?

The N.O. is Protestant insofar as it very clearly promotes that idea that the Mass is a meal but not a specifically a propitiatory Sacrifice.

It doesn't -- as written. As it is illicitly, sacrilegiously celebrated, it does.

By using certain options in the N.O., esp. E.P. #2, one can have a Mass which is Protestant in implication and in tenor

Sure, if by "Protestant" we mean "not at all anything a Protestant could abide or agree with."

I'd agree with Abp. Lefebvre entirely; lex orandi, lex credendi: the Protestant Freemasonic Mass of Bozo the Mahony has created a whole tribe of Protestants.

That is not the Roman Rite, but a mockery of Catholic worship.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes errs:

"True, but irrelevant, because the Roman Rite is not Protestant in any sense."

It is Protestant insofar as it is open to a Protestant interpretation, particularly as regards what sort of sacrifice is meant. Is it a propitiatory Sacrifice or only one of thanksgiving and praise? It is not sufficient for Liturgy to be open to an orthodox meaning. It must also be closed to heretical meanings, so that souls are not led astray. The New Mass is not Catholic in spirit and not completely Catholic in content either, for it misses something essential: clarity regarding its CENTRAL MEANING.

Perhaps the real question is whether the New Mass is a liturgy at all in the true sense. Then it would be neither a form not a rite.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes errs again:

"Sure, if by "Protestant" we mean "not at all anything a Protestant could abide or agree with."

Au contraire, as Michael Davies points out, some Protestants use the N.O. precisely because it is open to a Protestant meaning.

In fact, a good lot in Forward-in-Faith do too.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

That is not the Roman Rite, but a mockery of Catholic worship."

It is what the rubrics allow. And the rubrics and settings are part of the Mass, just as the text is. That's right, that aural garbade in "Glory and Praise" which ought to burnt, along with its composers, is part of that trash Mass.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

The faithful are in no way bound even to read the document and certainly not to recognise what the Pope claims as a matter of fact.

They are "bound" to read the document if they want to know what the Church's laws on this matter are. They may, of course, choose to join those bishops who ignore what the Pope's motu proprio establishes, but that wouldn't be a Catholic way of looking at things. The fact is that these are two forms of one rite, no matter what anyone may personally think. It is the Holy See alone who can decide these matters, and the Holy See has made clear what the law is.

He has erred in law

In your opinion, which with a dollar will get you a cup of coffee -- as will my opinion. It's only the Pope's opinion that counts here, not yours or mine. A rite doesn't become juridically and factually separate from the Roman Rite just because we want it to be separate or think that it is separate -- not when the laws of Holy Mother Church tell us otherwise.

Jordanes said...

It is Protestant insofar as it is open to a Protestant interpretation, particularly as regards what sort of sacrifice is meant.

By that definition of "Protestant," probably a lot of Fathers and Doctors have written and said "Protestant" things.

Is it a propitiatory Sacrifice or only one of thanksgiving and praise?

The Roman Missal teaches us that it is all of those things.

It is not sufficient for Liturgy to be open to an orthodox meaning.

It's not just "open to an orthodox meaning" -- the orthodox meaning is the proper meaning. Anything else is imposed and the result of a defective hermeneutic.

The New Mass is not Catholic in spirit and not completely Catholic in content either, for it misses something essential: clarity regarding its CENTRAL MEANING.

The Old Mass isn't particularly clear about its meaning either, except to someone who has been properly catechised.

Perhaps the real question is whether the New Mass is a liturgy at all in the true sense. Then it would be neither a form not a rite.

If it is not a liturgy at all, then the Catholic Church has unquestionably lost the Faith and Christ's promises are shown to be spurious.

Au contraire, as Michael Davies points out, some Protestants use the N.O. precisely because it is open to a Protestant meaning. In fact, a good lot in Forward-in-Faith do too.

No, they don't use the Roman Missal -- they use parts of it: those parts that they agree with. Anyway, barely any Protestants use any form of the Roman Missal, and most Protestants do not recognise Anglo-Catholic Anglicans as Protestant at all. So, no, Protestants do not use the Roman Missal: they do not pray for the Pope or invoke the intercession of the saints, and thus cannot abide the Roman Missal.

It is what the rubrics allow.

No, it isn't. There is nothing in the rubrics or nigrics of the Mass that call for or envision the deformed liturgies of Cardinal Mahony.

Kindly refrain in the future from heaping abuse on the Roman Church's liturgy. Stick to measured and balanced criticism, and cease the name-calling and mocking.