Posted on 09/11/2004 6:35:23 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
www.RemnantNewspaper.com
Canadian Cardinal “Ups the Ante” Against Mel Gibson’s Chaplain:
Father Somerville Responds Again
August 18, 2004
Rev. Stephen F. Somerville
Queensville, Ontario
Dear Father Somerville,
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 12 in which you respond to my letter of suspension of July 15. I notice that, in the meantime, the letter of suspension and prior correspondence have been published on www.RemnantNewspaper.com
The only manner in which you can persuade me to revoke the suspension is by fulfilling the following conditions and this without any kind of qualification:
1. You write all the priests who have been sent your letter endorsing the publication Priest Where is Thy Mass? Mass Where is Thy Priest? and recant your endorsation;
2. You sever all ties with the Society of St. Pius X;
3. You make a declaration of fidelity to Pope John Paul II and your Archbishop;
4. You affirm the authenticity of the teaching of Vatican II;
5. You affirm the validity of the Eucharist celebrated according to all the Canons approved by the Church.
The conditions 2 to 5 are to be fulfilled in writing and sent to my address by August 31. Condition 1 is to be fulfilled in writing to all the addressees by the same date. We wish to see the text of your message before it is sent.
I am sorry it has come to this; we have known each other for a long time. But my fidelity to the Catholic truth gives me no choice but to suspend you. To all your pettifogging arguments I answer with St. Augustine's chief reply to the self-righteously pure Donatist sect, Securus indicat orbis terrarum.
Wishing you all the best, I remain,
Sincerely yours,
Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic
Archbishop of Toronto
Father Somerville Responds
Most Reverend Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic Archbishop of Toronto
23 August 2004
Your Eminence,
I acknowledge hereby your letter of 18 August further to the matter of my suspension and presenting five conditions requiring my unqualified fulfillment.
It was not my intention to cause you annoyance by letting our correspondence appear on the Remnant newspaper’s website and pages. Even though that consequence might have been foreseen. The Editor, Mr. Michael Matt, took his steps as a responsible journalist, and I learned of the result – by a print-out copy from a friend – only on 8 August. I had seen a number of such publishings of written theological disagreements between a bishop and a priest and sometimes a canonist in recent issues of the traditional Catholic magazines.
Much as it is dismaying to see in print this lack of Catholic accord between some priests and the hierarchy, I cannot regret the fact that such cases, my own included, have become rather public because the disagreements are serious in my judgment, as, I hope, in yours too, they touch on the truths of the faith, and express in deliberate language some aspects of the crisis in the Church since the Second Vatican Council. Without careful argument in print by responsible persons and media organs, vital truths might remain hidden or confused, even for intelligent Catholic laity as well as clergy. I have learned a great deal in these last three years since my relatively sudden and deeply moving rediscovery of Catholic Tradition, starting in those five weeks I spent (August 2001) in Houston Texas doing parish-like work and reading many books. You may remember that after my November 28, 2003 meeting with your chancellor, Msgr. John Murphy, I supplied him with a list— for your perusal also – of some 46 books and pamphlets on Tradition and Church crisis that I had acquired and read. I have today many more such books resting on my library shelves.
To exemplify the danger to the Faith, I can hardly do better than point to the big three themes of the Conciliar Church: Religious Liberty, Collegiality and Ecumenism. People are now conditioned to take these three ideas for granted, to see them as progress, as "good things" for the Church. Of course the Vatican II theologians lauded them. But all three are in need of much caveat and criticism. All are novelties in the Church. All were treated severely by earlier Popes. And they show a striking correspondence to the three-fold motto of that cruelly destructive disaster, the French Revolution of the late 18th century, that is, “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.”
I will not further pursue the various theological arguments. But some have been illuminated in our more-than-two-sided correspondence. They might well have been left in the shade if we had been content with a face-to-face settling of our concerns. Your Eminence seems to have a reputation for dominating the conversation with an offending priest. This may have some merit. But forty years after Vatican II, we need a public debate over the consequences of that Council, with serious preparatory reading and study by all participants, and serious appraisal of the achievements of the Traditional Church.
You speak of “(your) fidelity to the Catholic truth” on the one hand, with sweeping bows to “fidelity to Pope John Paul”, “authenticity of the teaching of Vatican II”, “the validity (of the new approved ways) of the Eucharist” and on the other hand you dismiss my efforts to illustrate the Church crisis as “pettifogging arguments.” It seems that your approach does not advance “the love of the truth” (2 Thess 2: 10) but rather an unhelpful, stern control. Forgive me for this tentative criticism. Your five conditions for revoking the suspension seem to require a suspending of my hardly acquired understanding of current Church theologies, and certainly a straining of my Catholic conscience, difficult enough to attempt at leisure, but all the less manageable within the few days you grant me before 31 August.
I note that conditions 4 and 5 are the points demanded by the Vatican for the reconciliation of the traditional priests of the Society of St Pius X, conditions they have been unable in Catholic honesty to meet. The SSPX also lays down two conditions to open the discussion: the lifting of the 1988 excommunications of their bishops and the freedom for all priests to say at any time the traditional Mass as it was up to 1962. Do these violate the Catholic conscience of the Vatican authorities?
It is true, as you indicate, that the orbis terrarum Catholic majority accepts the new Catholic order of things. But not by informed judgment (securus judicat). Rather, by somnolent unawareness, because traditional Catholic magazines and books are banned from their churches and bookstores. Liberate that literature and you will see a surge in traditional Catholic numbers.
I lay down my pen for the time being. May the Lord who sent the twelve apostles now send us prophets and thinkers and saints to restore the Church, the shining Truth and the kingdom of Christ.
Respectfully in Him,
(Rev.) Stephen Somerville
Father Somerville Appeals to Rome Once More
His Eminence Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos Prefect - Congregation for the Clergy Vatican City
23 August 2004
Your Eminence,
The letter of August 10, accompanying this present letter is, as you will see, a copy of my formal letter of recourse for requesting the lifting of my suspension by my Ordinary, Cardinal Ambrozic. I send you this copy simply to be sure that my appeal is registered in your office. The original letter was mailed to Cardinal Ambrozic, my Ordinary, following his chancellor's instruction.
Cardinal Ambrozic has written again to me, in evident annoyance because the Editor of The Remnant chose to publish our correspondence on his website and in print (15 Aug. 04). The Cardinal’s five new conditions for revocation are much sterner, but I do not lose hope for eventual resolution of this conflict. I am enclosing copies of the full correspondence between us, for your fullest convenience and information, with apologies for the many pages.
While not admitting to any fault, I understand, Your Eminence, that my rights in the Church may have been unrecognized in that I have not been advised re: requesting revocation or modification of the decree (c. 1734§ 1), re: services of an advocate (c. 1723), or whether one would be provided.
In the Autumn of 2002, I had the honour of an invitation to be the Catholic priest chaplain of a well-known traditional Catholic, Mel Gibson, during the shooting of the film The Passion of The Christ in Rome. Every morning Mr. Gibson served my Mass and counted on this to obtain God's graces for himself and his actors before he went on the set to start work. The result has been a monumental film, breaking records all over the world, inspiring conversions, and reviving the precious Catholic devotion to the Passion. Yet a number of Catholic clergy had belittled this film from their universalist and modernist viewpoint, certainly not for the good of souls.
The traditional Catholic Mass is closer to the Passion in its frequent affirmations of the Body and Blood of Christ as genuine sacrifice offerings to God, unabashed by the modem pressure to see only a memorial of the Last Supper. We discern here a need to strengthen the place of the traditional Mass in the Church.
With prayers for your work in the Church, I am,
Respectfully yours in Domino
Rev. Stephen Somerville
Ping
"As long as they accept the Pope and the authenticity of New Mass , there should not be problem."
Why should they have to accept the new mass?
| My beloved ones, avoid idolatry. I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one Body, for we all partake of the one loaf. |
Bwah, ha, ha ha. His Emminence would be a good Freeper. Pettifogging. LOL
This type of thing must be standard operating procedure, strictly adhered to and practiced by the modernist hierarchy.
Too bad Fr. Somerville is now dealing with the mess that he helped put in motion - hope that fact will eventually give him the upper hand. What a mess.
What!?
Traditional Catholicism rejects that kind of touchy feely sentiment. It can't possibly be doctrinal. :o)
"For the same reason that one must accept the Most Holy Trinity."
There is no equivalence between the doctrine of the Trinity and a decision by one group priests to suppress the Mass of the ages and substitute an inferior rite, born of their secular leftism.
Because it is the Mass that matters. If they accept the new mass, that will amount to a defeat of sspx and a victory for the novus ordo.
Good old SSPX have situated themselves right in plain view and are a giant thorn in the sides of the modernists
I would imagine most of everything is hard to take. That's why they have to read the Remnant and Cath. Family News. It's a tiny little universe they live in.
Oh brother. Most Catholics are oblivious to the existence of the SSPX. They are merely a pettifogging annoyance to some heirarchs. Nothing more. Unless they accept the generous and highly acceptable conditions as laid out by those to whom they claim fealty to they will go the way of their predecessors, the "pure-minded" Donatists. Meanwhile Traditional Catholicism will survive and thrive in union with the Holy Pontiff.
Because if you do not accept the New Mass then you do not accept the Church that sanctions it.
If you do not accept the Church that sanctions it then the basis for accepting everything else sanctioned by the Church has no basis, such as, the line of succession, the Trinity, previous Church Councils, and the Bible.
It is true, as you indicate, that the orbis terrarum Catholic majority accepts the new Catholic order of things. But not by informed judgment (securus judicat).
We Novus Ordo types are just straw-chewin', gap-toothed dupes to the anointed.
Somerville says he "got religion" when he went to Houston, no doubt to hang out with another grandstander, Zigrang.
I have to laugh at Somerville when he laments that this became "public" because Matt published his letters.
What did he expect? Matt thrives on confrontation and this is just the kind of juice he needs for his online rag.
It appears that Somerville has chosen the SSPX. Rome's not going to touch this with a ten-foot pole.
How on earth will he have an upper hand? He thumbs his nose at his bishop, hands over all of their correspondence to a two-bit journalist in an attempt to show up the Cardinal, then acts like it's the Cardinal's fault when he comes back with five conditions for Somerville's return?
Castrillon de Hoyos is going to tell Somerville to honor those five requests from his bishop or stay exactly where he is.
His appeal to a motion picture as justification for disobeying his bishop is one of the biggest howlers I've ever read.
My beloved ones, avoid idolatry.
I am speaking as to sensible people;
judge for yourselves what I am saying.
The cup of blessing that we bless,
is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ?
The bread that we break,
is it not a participation in the Body of Christ?
Because the loaf of bread is one,
we, though many, are one Body,
for we all partake of the one loaf.
This is about more than just a dumbed-down eunuch of a Mass. Compare the above with the Douay:
14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, fly from the service of idols.
15 I speak as to wise men: judge ye yourselves what I say.
16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?
17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.
The differences may be subtle, but they are enormous nonetheless.
“Avoid idolatry?” How wimpy is that? Compare Paul’s robust, “Fly from the service of idols.”
“Sensible people?” Compare with, “I speak as to wise men.”
“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ?” Compare with “The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ.” Aside from the extremely lame phrasing of “blessing that we bless,” it obscures the meaning of the word “benediction” as “an invocation of divine blessing,” and leaves it looking like we are doing all the blessing.
And what the heck does “participation in the Blood of Christ” mean? “The communion of the blood of Christ” is entirely intelligible, and clearly communicates the concept of people individually receiving the blood of Christ.
And again, compare “participation in the Body of Christ” with “partaking of the body of the Lord.” What IS this “participation” craparoonie?
The rewrite of the last line is the most subtle, but also the most significant.
New: Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one Body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
Old: For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.
The Douay version says that all who receive communion are one bread, one body. What it DOES NOT say is that all who receive communion are one body because the loaf of bread is one—which, to be more charitable than is warranted, is complete gibberish.
All who receive the body of Christ are one body by virtue of Our Lord’s bitter Passion and Death, not because “the loaf of bread is one,” whatever that is supposed to mean.
The new version has US making ourselves one body through our own efforts in partaking of the one loaf. That’s a sentiment that Catholicism never embraced.
Clearly, this passage was rewritten to rob it of its intelligibility and power.
To endorse the NO is to endorse all of this as just hunky dory. Well, it’s not.
The divide in the Catholic Church between the NO progressives and those who revere tradition – conservatives – is an analogue of the secular cultural war. The NO advocates are Catholicism’s Democratic Party, and the traditionalists are the Church’s Reagan Republicans.
The Democratic Party has scum like Ted Kennedy and John Kerrey, and the Catholic Church has people like this bishop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.