Una Voce International President Gives Report of His Visit to Rome

Seattle Catholic ^ | 3/26/2004 | Ralf Siebenbürger

[AAABEST]

"The Cardinal underlined that Archbishop Lefebvre had never founded a proper structure of his fraternity that could be considered as a concrete act of schism."

Well the silver lining is that Rome seems to be settled on the "schism" matter, clearly seeing as we've said all along that WE'RE NOT IN ONE.

As Deborah indicated however, the foul-mouthed name-callers will continue to name-call with their foul mouths.

It makes them feel like good Catholics when their beating others over the head. Phariseeic finger pointing makes them feel valid and holy.

[AAABEST]

As long as things are the way they are, I will never give one single red cent to a NO-church again. As long as I live if need be. Not one single cent.

[american colleen]

He was talking about an Indult parish, not a Novus Ordo parish.

[AAABEST]

Until the "Catholic" church treats traditionalist Catholics as charitably as they do homosexuals, protestants, heathens and heretics they get nothing from me and anyone else I can convince of the same.

My money goes to the Society. Period.

[ultima ratio]

"the Ancient Rite and the Novus Ordo are two forms of one and the same rite."

Is it too much to ask the Vatican to be truthful? The Vatican tells these official lies, then demands we accept such falsehoods. The Novus Ordo is, in fact, not even a truly Catholic rite, it is thoroughly Protestant, very little different from the Lutheran Lord's Supper. The Holy See's refusal to admit the truth of this reveals nothing but its own profound dishonesty.

[Tantumergo]

"JP II wants to be a beloved, people's Pope."

That's the danger of being the most popular Pope in history - if he wants the whole world to love him then the "majority" will just keep nibbling away, breaking down our doctrine and our liturgy bit by bit.

Ha can write all the fine words that he wants to, but if all the bishops know that he intends to do nothing to back those words up, then the words are just empty - clanging gongs and clashing cymbals.

[Unam Sanctam]

He also said that the Holy See was quite annoyed by Bishop Fellay's press conference on February 2nd and the document published on ecumenism at that occasion by the FSPX.

That letter was a deliberate misrepresentation and mean-spirited slap in the face of the Vicar of Christ and demonstrated that the SSPX has no desire or intention of reconciling with the Holy Father.

[ultima ratio]

"That letter was a deliberate misrepresentation and mean-spirited slap in the face of the Vicar of Christ and demonstrated that the SSPX has no desire or intention of reconciling with the Holy Father."

Wrong. That letter was simply telling the emperor he was stark naked and had to put on a few clothes! Kissing Korans and hugging Buddhists while "excommunicating" Catholics for behaving like Catholics was--and is--behavior unbefitting any pontiff, no matter how popular. It was high time somebody in the Church spoke the truth and penetrated its multiple layers of lies and deceptions!

As for "reconciliation"--why should traditionalists reconcile with a hierarchy committed to destroying Catholicism and making their Church Protestant? No thank you, we'll stay Catholics and stay united to the faith of the previous two thousand years, united with previous popes and saints and doctors of the Church and all the Church's many previous councils! It is for Rome to convert once again to Catholicism--not the other way around!

[sydney smith]

There is no such thing as an "indult parish". The $$ still goes to the novus ordo system that continues to suppress the "indult parishes". I can see no reason to continue to support the system. I go to receive the Sacrament. They hold it hostage. It'll always be available in one place or another, Christ has promised us that. I'll no longer be generous to a system that wants to see me gone. Any other 'indulter' would be wise to do likewise. Giving generously to them is really "auto-destruction".

[Unam Sanctam]

Thanks for demonstrating your schismatic views once again.

[Siobhan]

Thank you for posting this article which proves yet again how bizarre things are inside the walls. I'm going away now to read some more of Sister Emmerich.

[ultima ratio]

Yours is the hypocrisy of the times--when those who follow Rome in rejecting Catholicism are called Catholics and those who follow Catholicism are called schismatics.

[Unam Sanctam]

"Rome" has not rejected Catholicism. That is pure anti-Catholic slander. You should join Jack Chick and write pamphlets about the "Whore of Babylon".

[ultima ratio]

Not at all. I say only what Cardinal Ratzinger would say in loftier terms. Here is a segment of a recently posted article, "Reinstating Trent":

_________________________________________________________

The lex credendi-lex orandi relationship, which is implicit in the liturgical reform, should be viewed in the light of the new theology which prepared the way for the Second Vatican Council, and which above all tried to give direction to what developed from it. In this sense, the lex credendi expressed bv the Novus Ordo appears as a revision of the Catholic faith by refraction through the anthropological and secularist “turn” of the new theology – a theology, it must be emphasised, which not merely re-presents the themes of Modernism, but appropriates these themes in a Marxist sense, that is to say, by way of a system of thought which offers itself as a radical “philosophy of practice.”

This is a very serious and very radical criticism. Can it in any way be justified? Note in particular the reference to the fact that this new theology prepared the way for Vatican II. Cardinal Ratzinger certainly accepts that this is the case. He analyses the thinking of a representative selection of contemporary theologians and liturgists and concludes that: “A sizeable party of Catholic liturgists seems to have practically arrived at the conclusion that Luther, rather than Trent, was substantially right in the sixteenth century debate”, and adds: “one can detect much the same position in the post-conciliar discussions on the priesthood.” He refers also to theologians who share Luther’s opinion that it is, “the most appalling horror and a damnable impiety to speak of the sacrifice of the Mass”. The Cardinal then articulates a conclusion which many of us considered to be the case, but have not put forward for fear of provoking accusations of exaggeration:
"It is only against this background of the effective denial of the authority of Trent, that the bitterness of the struggle against allowing the celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Missal, after the liturgical reform, can be understood. The possibility of so celebrating constitutes the strongest, and thus (for them) the most intolerable contradiction of the opinion of those who believe that the faith in the Eucharist formulated by Trent has lost its value."

The fact that such theories are being propagated by Catholic theologians and liturgists would be bad enough if they were confined to their particular circles, but, insists the Cardinal:

"The serious nature of these theories comes from the fact that frequently they pass immediately into practice. The thesis according to which it is the community itself which is the subject of the Liturgy, serves as an authorisation to manipulate the Liturgy according to each individual’s understanding of it. So-called new discoveries and the forms which follow from them, are diffused with an astonishing rapidity and with a degree of conformity which has long ceased to exist where the norms of ecclesiastical authority are concerned. Theories, in the area of the Liturgy, are transformed rapidly today into practice, and practice, in turn, creates or destroys ways of behaving and thinking."

The Cardinal insists that this is an intolerable situation. We can, he insists, have confidence in the Council of Trent. “ Trent did not make a mistake, it leant for support on the solid foundation of the Tradition of the Church. It remains a trustworthy standard”. In his recent books Cardinal Ratzinger has made frequent references to the fact that, since the concept of offering the divine Victim has now been lost, the community is now celebrating itself, its own consciousness of what it is, which means that, in effect, it is celebrating nothing. He continues:

"One thing should be clear: the Liturgy must not be a terrain for experimenting with theological hypotheses. Too rapidly, in these last decades, the ideas of experts have entered into liturgical practice, often also by-passing ecclesiastical authority, through the channel of commissions which have been able to diffuse at an international level their “consensus of the moment”, and practically turn it into laws for liturgical activity. The Liturgy derives its greatness from what it is, not from what we make of it. Our participation is, of course, necessary, but as a means of inserting ourselves humbly into the spirit of the Liturgy, and of serving Him Who is the true subject of the Liturgy: Jesus Christ. The Liturgy is not an expression of the consciousness of a community which, in any case, is diffuse and changing. It is revelation received in faith ind prayer, and its measure is consequently the faith of the Church, in which revelation is received."

______________________________________________________

The unspoken truth, however, is that this situation is tolerated by a Pope who is indifferent to underlying liturgical suppression or subversion of Catholic dogmas. In almost every instance in which the bishops have challenged Rome on liturgical issues attacking the very heart of Catholic worship itself, it has been Rome which has backed down, never the bishops.