Posted on 01/25/2005 2:58:28 PM PST by csbyrnes84
Among proposals advanced by "reform the reform" advocates -- proposals Trautman described as "alarming" -- are six listed by Fr. Brian Harrison in a series of articles that appeared in the Adoremus bulletin in 1995 and early 1996, all representing a partial return to pre-Vatican II styles:
•Reciting the eucharistic prayer in Latin rather than in English.
• Eliminating the optional forms of the eucharistic prayers in the official lectionary and allowing only the first choice, the preconciliar form, also known as the Roman canon.
• Restricting communion to one species (for example, the host and not the cup).
• Having the priest and people face the same direction during the eucharistic liturgy.
• Using two scripture readings instead of three.
• Barring women from liturgical ministries. (National "Catholic" Reporter)
This is worse? It seems substantially identical to the TLM. Only the Roman Canon, and only in Latin? If only...
That need not be left so much in the air, uncontested or unresolved. Clearly, we can establish certain Protestant belief against Catholicism, particularly historically when many Protestants created new denominations because they cared or believed what they said and thought it mattered. Then we can compare some of the cross-Protestant beliefs with those expressed by 'reform' bishops, authors, 'liturgical specialists', 'worship design consultants' like Fr. Voske, the subject of that particular thread, and so on. Establish certain Protestant notions. See if 'reform' Catholicism is more Protestant than not.
You might come to the conclusion that the old believing Protestant was, as he made war on the battlefield with Christendom, more Catholic than priests wearing the collar today in the institutional church; more Catholic perhaps even more clearly than many who 'religiously' attend service on Sunday, or even daily. It would depend on whether the sliver of Catholic teaching remained with a Zwingli, or Beza, a Calvin or Luther, but has eluded those with a self-professed Catholic affiliation in 2005.
Thurian doesn't say that it was incompatible. He says that the commission rejected it. That's just a matter of counting the votes. The fact that it was proposed is significant enough. Somebody there didn't think it presupposed transubstantiation. Anglicans used to not have any gay bishops or women "clergy" now look.
The SSPX are not outside. The Pope will not clarify the doctrinal issues that the SSPX brings. They will not accept a zoo compartmentalism. Until the Pope rules unambiguously on the rite of all priests to say the Novus Ordo, and he lifts the invalid excommunications no questions or compromises demanded. The SSPX will continue to do what they do. In fact, the Pope can declare the SSPX "inside" the Church whether the SSPX do anything or not. It's all up to JPII. Their status is irregular because of him, he can regularize it without recourse to anyone.
But that suggests they are somehow outside The Church. And it is precisely this fear of submission not to the papacy, to which the SSPX does, or even JP II, to whom the SSPX swear almost as a personality cult (which I believe is wrong for them to do), but to those more vehemently pushing 'reform'. They suggest that an in again, out again, strategy would only reflect worse on themselves than on those constantly pushing 'reform'. I suspect they would want all agreements signed and all sanctions understood, for all parties, before anything is finalized. That's what I would suspect. Because there must be sanctions against those in the institution who would seek to violate terms of the agreement, as well. Sanctions would, I think, include removal from office to contemplate their mischief in quiet, somewhere, to perhaps even fines. Under Christendom, of course, offending bishops might find themselves in the clutches, ultimately, of civil authority with far more brutal sanctions awaiting them. But there are not even papal states, any more, much less that. Still, a Sodano seeking to violate either or both letter or spirit of such agreement, would I think be subject to immediate dismissal from his post and reassignment to permanent retreat in order to do penance for his sins. Without such sanctions, I think the SSPX would indeed be wise to bide their time. If violation of such agreement by those in institutional power carried no penalty, then they would feel free, perhaps even compelled by their 'reform' agenda, to violate such agreements in the worst way.
That's not how it was described, if I recall correctly. If I remember, the proposed innovations went the Pauline rite one better.
You may have noticed what Luther and Marcel had in common: apostasy, excommunication, defiance of papal authority, gross disobedience and each did not merely violate but wantonly massacred his vow of obedience as a priest. You can prattle on in defense of these anti-papal and antiCatholic trash for another century but the bottom line as to both is their ringing cry of "Non serviam." It is their common, ummmm, "tradition," whatever their defenders may pretend.
Oh, and TRUTH is a complete defense to any form of alleged defamation. The truth is that dead Marcel was excommunicated and refused to do what Feeney had the sense to do. That is a shame but it is Marcel's shame.
You want to persevere in schism????? Persevere in schism. God gave you free will and the freedom to exercise it to perdition if you choose. No skin off my nose. I owe you and your sorry schism and your colleagues in schism nothing but abject contempt. Debate God on your delusions when the time comes.
Obviously #388 was directed only in the direction of the schism and not at ninenot.
Gotta love those Rainbow Flags! The complement Father Liberace so well!
Are you kidding?
MarcelMouse is an excommunicandi--a schismatic.
BlackElk's description of LeF as a "schismatic" is not an insult--it is the truth!
After Marcel went schizzie, all else falls into place.
And so long as ALL SSPX Bishops and priests (and a noticeable percentage of their lay-adherents) remain defiant of the Pope's authority, they remain schizzies.
There are likely 3 gigs of posts on FR alone describing, in excruciating detail, the cause for the decree of schism and excommunication. Read them.
Only one counts: the deliberate disobedience exercised by MarcelMouse in his "ordination" of 4 Bishops against the express written orders of the Pope.
All the rest of your arguments w/BE are the usual strawmen, dross, and typical Luther/Zwingli/Marcellian "I AM the Interpreter of Scripture/I AM the interpreter of Tradition/I AM the repository of Authority."
At some point in time, it will occur to you and other MarcelMouse adherents that the above arguments are joined at the hip with "Non Serviam," the "argument" made by Lucifer on his way out.
And 'out' is the operative word here...
Your facts are inexcusably erroneous---this is RECENT history...
Fessio was "deposed" from the Ignatius Institute (which he founded) by the Jesuits at U of SanFran. He spent some time as a chaplain in an old folks' home (?) in obedience to his Jebby Superior, but recently was allowed to found Ave Maria University of Florida.
As of the June 2004 masthead of Adoremus Bulletin, Fr. Fessio is listed as a Member of the Executive Committee, along with Fr. J. Pokorsky (now in Lincoln, on loan from Arlington) and Helen Hitchcock.
Any other mythology you'd like debunked?
For what?
It lost.
In whose opinion are the excommunications "invalid?"
Yours?
MarcelMouse's?
Ultima Ratio's?
Someday you may undertake a study of the term 'authority.' Hint: begin with the word "author."
Well, your recollection of the work of Fr. Harrison is flawed, at best.
Like the rest of the schismatics who adhere to the Marcellian schism, you obviously operate under the delusion that teh Church and actual Cathlics owe you explanations, endless attention to your creed of "Non serviam" and/or the time of day.
Nonsense. I'm just pointing out that your worthless screeds are the lunatic babblings of a madman divorced from any reason whatsoever. LeFebvre and traditionalists rain on your conciliar parade and you don't like it. That's the beginning and the end of your little dance.
You want to persevere in schism????? Persevere in schism.
You want to persevere in error???? Persevere in error.
God gave you free will and the freedom to exercise it to perdition if you choose.
God gave you free will and you tossed it away in the pursuit of non-Catholic error. And you've been lead by the nose right out of the Church you think you are in.
No skin off my nose.
So says the typical lazy conciliar Catholic.
I owe you and your sorry schism and your colleagues in schism nothing but abject contempt.
This shows just how non Catholic and utterly ignorant you are. If you do believe that trads are in error you are obligated in Charity and Justice to intercede for us. I've just done that for you.
Debate God on your delusions when the time comes.
Nope. I'll beg for mercy, while you make pathetic excuses and point to the Pope in the way that Protestants think they can point to Jesus and you think that'll be your free pass. God will know how vincibly ignorant you are and how you failed the test and then, the trap door opens and it'll be quite a lot of skin off your nose.
In whose opinion are the excommunications "invalid?"
In whose opinion is 2+2=4? Opinion doesn't come into it. JPII's own Code of Canon Law exculpates LeFebvre (the irony being that the 1917 code does not)
Someday you may undertake a study of the term 'authority.' Hint: begin with the word "author."
So? First we know JPII didn't "personally pen" the code of Law. Second, the Pope is granted no freedom from error or corruption in his judgements on matters of law. He is however the final authority and cannot be overruled. That still doesn't make him correct. And he is blatantly objectively incorrect. Neos can't go any further than "JPII said so." and that is not where the truth goes. It goes further. Unless the neos want to promote papal impeccability officially. They don't have a leg to stand on.
For what? The fact that some Protestants in that commission along with Thurian thought it was theologically possible to have the Novus Ordo be a Protestant service.
It lost.
No it didn't. I'll dig up the information on the various Protestant denominations that have adopted the Novus Ordo. I'll have to do that later though.
Are you kidding?
Nope. Neos don't have a grasp of any reality. They sound like Protestants trying to argue from Scripture about the truth.
MarcelMouse is an excommunicandi--a schismatic.
No he isn't.
BlackElk's description of LeF as a "schismatic" is not an insult--it is the truth!
No it isn't. It's a series of insults, half truths and full lies that have no doctrinal support in Catholic morality and justice.
After Marcel went schizzie, all else falls into place.
LeFebvre never went "schizzie" if anything the Vatican when "schizzo" and "yes" it is possible for that to happen.
And so long as ALL SSPX Bishops and priests (and a noticeable percentage of their lay-adherents) remain defiant of the Pope's authority, they remain schizzies.
No. So long as JPII acts as the engine that is dismantling the Catholic Church and persecutes traditionalists. He is not going to get any help in his evil acts. The SSPX are the best friends the papacy ever had. As I stated before and the neos are scared to death to face. The SSPX didn't appoint heretics, they didn't write Ut Unum Sint with it "new situation " in regard to exercising Petrine Primacy.
There are likely 3 gigs of posts on FR alone describing, in excruciating detail, the cause for the decree of schism and excommunication. Read them.
Already done. You might want to read the rebuttles. They blow the conciliarists out of the water. They are far more based in reality and don't rely on misconceptions about the extent of Christ's promises to the Church.
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.