Latin Mass Attracts Young Worshippers and Converts in Bob Jones University Territory

The Greenville News ^ | 4/27/04 | Ron Barnett

[ultima ratio]

We are talking about the 1983 code. Yes, the Pope is the final arbiter of canon law--so tell me, when did he abrogate canons 1323-24? And how, pray tell, is he able to determine the state of another man's conscience--which is what these canons pertain to? In fact, Canon Law specifies that no penalty is incurred if individuals acted without culpability or malice. A latae sententiae excommunication is automatic and especially dependent therefore upon one's motivation, so that innocence or guilt was not for the Pope to determine. He could not possibly have known what was in the Archbishop's heart. If he was so inclined to condemn, moreover, he had recourse to a formal papal tribunal. Instead, in what seemed to be a fit of pique, he announced his reading of the act of disobedience in a letter--which he ascribed to schism, rather than to a wish to preserve the faith--and not surprisingly got it all wrong. Unsurprising also was the way the enemies of Tradition seized upon his comments to marginalize the SSPX within the Church.

It is no wonder you are confused. Another apparent confusion of yours is this notion that because the Pope is unorthodox, this would somehow mean he is therefore heretical, which, in turn, would mean the chair of Peter was vacant. But to be unorthodox does not mean this at all. Behaving in ways which are unorthodox, even speaking and writing in this way--departing from the norm, espousing the novel--does not mean what one does is heretical per se, though it surely is dangerous and reckless for popes to tread this path by way of papal policy. And even if it meant what you suggest--it does not follow the Pope had fallen into formal heresy per se, which is a conscious assent to doctrines which are not Catholic. Other motives may be ascribed to explain his behavior besides formal heresy. There is no indication, for instance, that JPII prayed with animists for reasons other than diplomatic; it was wrong, it was scandalous, it was a betrayal of his office--it may even have been materially heretical. But it was not a formal assent to heresy.

[Mershon]

The Charleston Renaissance Ensemble will be singing a Palestrina Mass and other works for Stella Maris parish in Sullivan's Island with Msgr. McInerny on May 16 on Sunday.

I agree with you on one point. If I were in Charlotte, knowing what I know now, I would probably attend the SSPX regularly also. They are the only place for sanity in some dioceses. However, I believe that when/if a new bishop becomes open to the TLM, one is obligated to work within the diocesan structure as much as possible to bring about regularization.

Despite what many attempt to portray, I can understand wholeheartedly why many people attend the SSPX parish. I just don't think it is right to malign the entire Novus Ordo structure when the Director of Worship and Prayer for the Diocese is going to be regularly offering the TLM, and providing other traditional devotion opportunities.

[ultima ratio]

"You recognize and OBEY."

Not always. Obedience to a superior is not always a good thing. Nor is disobedience--to even a pope--an inherent evil. It is sometimes a good thing. All depends on the command given, whether it were legitimate or not. It would not be legitimate to command something harmful to the Church and to the salvation of souls, for instance.

These are important distinctions. Some acts are always and everywhere evil--abortion comes to mind as such an inherently evil action. Breaking-and-entering a private dwelling would not be, however. Normally, it is wrong to break and enter; but if the house is on fire and you entered to save the lives of children trapped inside, you would be a hero, not a villain.

The Church was on fire. The Pope commanded what was absolutely improper--that the Archbishop participate in the destruction of the ancient Mass--and therefore of Catholic Tradition itself, which was everywhere under assault under the pontificate of JPII. The debris from the destruction was everywhere. So he disobeyed--to save countless souls which would otherwise have perished. He is a hero in my book, not a villain.

As for your analogy--it doesn't go far enough. Here's one we traditionalists like better. A drunken father asks his son for the car keys. The son refuses to obey. Has he therefore denied his father's authority as a father? No. Obviously the father was wrong to issue his command in the first place. The son has properly disobeyed, following the dictates of his conscience--and his own higher sense of morality.

[Mershon]

when did he abrogate canons 1323-24

The Pope did not. His interpretation of them was such that the state of the Church was not in such an emergency that Archbishop Lefebvre was OBLIGATED to ordain 4 bishops against his express wishes. The code provides for that means in an objective situation requiring an Archbishop to do so, presumably with the implicit improval of the Pope, if for some reason, they were not able to communicate. This Pope communicated through his representatives specifically NOT to ordain bishops. In fact, he had agreed (which Lefebvre reneged on) to ordain one bishop. The Holy See merely wanted input in the process, not for Lefebvre to say "Ordain among these choices or else."

Despite all the cloudy accusations, this is why Lefebvre and Castro de Mayer and the ordained bishops all incurred "ipso facto" excommunication. There is NO JUSTIFICATION EVER for ordaining bishops specifically AGAINST the will of the Pope. This is what the Eastern Orthodox do. Do you not see that?

[Mershon]

"Nor is disobedience--to even a pope--an inherent evil. It is sometimes a good thing."

To ordain bishops AGAINST the express and explicit will of the Holy Father is NEVER a good thing. Archbishop Lefebvre reneged on an agreement allowing him to ordain ONE bishop that would be approved by the Holy Father (AS ARE ALL BISHOPS), not simply one of Archbishop Lefebvre's choosing.

[kstewskis]

And even if it meant what you suggest--it does not follow the Pope had fallen into formal heresy per se, which is a conscious assent to doctrines which are not Catholic. Other motives may be ascribed to explain his behavior besides formal heresy. There is no indication, for instance, that JPII prayed with animists for reasons other than diplomatic; it was wrong, it was scandalous, it was a betrayal of his office--it may even have been materially heretical. But it was not a formal assent to heresy.

This is a fascinating topic, and I find all of your posts informational.

I am confused a bit with the term heresy, in the way that there is a "conscious" or "deliberate" intent to resist to the authority of God, who communicates revelation through Scripture and tradition, and teaching authority through The Church.

Ultima, when you mentioned "formal assent." For my own clarification, would that mean "from the heart" per se, as opposed to when JPII prayed with animists, i.e in an act of diplomacy?

In other words, the conscious and deliberate act in heresy is willful "from within"...not just to an act to "be polite," diplomatic, or material as you put it.

JPII has been called a "Koran Kisser." Was he doing this act to show "respect and politeness" to the Islamic community? Or was it willfull intent to "respect" the Koran?

Either way, I agree 100%. It was wrong, scandelous, and inappropriate. Is he a heretic? I'm struggling with the definition as you can see, lol.

Thanks for your kind explanations to this recently baptized and received (5 years ago) Catholic.

[Grey Ghost II]

To ordain bishops AGAINST the express and explicit will of the Holy Father is NEVER a good thing.

Sure it is. Otherwise I would be forced to be in "union" with a bishop who covers up for child molesters, peddles pornography disguised as sex-ed to little children, disobeys the Holy Father's directives as outlined in Ecclesia Dei, and coddles the leaders of all religions but snubs his nose at his own faithful who request the Trdientine Mass which was never abrogated and wrecks Churches to make them more Protestant looking.

You tell me who's in union with Rome? Those who are disobedient to the Holy father but love the Faith or those who are disobedient to the Holy Father and want to destroy the Faith?

[Mershon]

Otherwise I would be forced to be in "union" with a bishop who covers up for child molesters, peddles pornography disguised as sex-ed to little children, disobeys the Holy Father's directives as outlined in Ecclesia Dei, and coddles the leaders of all religions but snubs his nose at his own faithful who request the Trdientine Mass which was never abrogated and wrecks Churches to make them more Protestant looking.

You tell me who's in union with Rome? Those who are disobedient to the Holy father but love the Faith or those who are disobedient to the Holy Father and want to destroy the Faith?

You are obligated to follow and obey your bishop in matters of doctrine or discipline in the Catholic Faith unless he ORDERS YOU TO SIN. Has he done that? You seem to be taking refuge, or comfort in the Bishop's apparent scandalous behavior. To "take scandal," especially if it removes one from union with one's bishop, is sinful in itself. Please tell me if your bishop has ORDERED you to sin. Also, JPII did not ORDER the bishops to implement Ecclesia Dei guidelines. He REQUESTED they do so. It is ultimately up to them to consider his wishes and act appropriately. I am not defending them at all, but merely correcting with shades of gray that you are ignoring. Taking scandal in another's bad example is sinful behavior. Spreading it to others is called slander and detraction, and could be seriously sinful.

[ultima ratio]

Strictly speaking, a heresy is a denial of a dogma of faith. But such a denial may be intended or unintended. If unintended, the denial would constitute a material heresy. If deliberately intended, it would be a formal heresy.

Another distiction is pertinent here: that of dogmas and doctrines. All dogmas are doctrines (teachings of the Church), but not all doctrines are dogmas. Dogmas are definitions of teachings which are made binding on all the faithful. Only denial of these would be heretical. It would not be heretical to deny a doctrine which was not a dogma--to insist that women should be allowed to be ordained, for example.

Regarding the teaching authority of the Magisterium, by the way, there are further distinctions. For instance, not all teachings of the Magisterium are infallible, but only those teachings which are aligned with what has always been taught by the Magisterium. Any novel teachings would be therefore fallible--and subject to dispute. The Pope's opinion on capital punishment, for instance, would be such a fallible teaching. Vatican I made this abundantly clear:

"For the Holy Spirit was not given to the Successors of Peter that by His help they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation that has been transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth."

Novelty has no divine protection. Only that which has been "transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith." In other words, only those declarations which affirm what the Church has always believed and handed-down through the ages, are divinely protected.

[Grey Ghost II]

Please tell me if your bishop has ORDERED you to sin.

He certainly encourages sin.

Also, JPII did not ORDER the bishops to implement Ecclesia Dei guidelines. He REQUESTED they do so.

Ecclesia Dei states: "moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962."

Since when is a directive a request? Might want to get a refund on that PhD.

[ultima ratio]

No, I don't see that at all. There are a number of facts you need to appreciate. First, that the "state of necessity" was an objective reality--not something even a pope might wish away. Who can deny the Church was then--as it is now--in a state of acute crisis? Millions upon millions of Catholics stopped attending Mass within five years of the institution of the Novus Ordo. By 1988--at the time of the Archbishop's act of disobedience and eighteen years after the institution of the Novus Ordo--two-thirds of all Catholics had stopped believing in the Real Presence. By this time, moreover, the landscape of disaster had already taken shape and was undeniable. The Church was lurching from crisis to crisis--liturgical, catechetical, moral--and this was undeniable. Even Paul VI called the state of the Church an "auto-demolition" and bewailed Satan's entry into the sanctuary.

In the face of all this--who would deny there was not a "state of necessity"? Who would believe this Pontiff, rather than the Archbishop--except for the fact that the Pope's prestige of office is such that he can declare the moon is made of blue cheese and be believed. He spoke incessantly of a "new advent", a "new Pentecost", a new springtime in the midst of the coldest winter. But none of this was true. It was the Archbishop who spoke more truly and saw more clearly.

Second, even if the Archbishop had WRONGLY evoked the state of necessity canon, the canon states specifically that if he did so in good conscience he would not incur a penalty. No one who is honest can doubt the Archbishop was sincere, since he had spoken of his fears concerning the crisis in the Church and dread of the spreading loss of the Catholic faith, publicly and often, and it could have been no secret that he thought this way and therefore was acting upon his fears that souls would be lost--rather than out of a desire to deny the authority of the Pontiff, which was nowhere on his radar screen.

Finally, you should realize that while there were many traditional priests at large throughout the revolution, the traditional priesthood could not perpetuate itself. It depended on a bishop's consecration of trained seminarians for the ancient Mass to survive demolition. There was only one such seminary in the entire world--at Econe, the one which the Archbishop himself had established. It was a seminary which the Pope's own representative reported was above reproach in every way--morally and theologically. But yet it ran against the revolution and was therefore marked for destruction--even while other seminaries had students cruising gay bars and were openly professing dissent. Only the devout seminarians at Econe were singled out for elimination. Do you think Lefebvre didn't know it was because Catholic Tradition itself was under the gun?

You need to understand who this man was. He was not a prince of the Church who had spent a lifetime in European palaces, but spent much of his mature life as a missionary in Africa. It was not his nature to buck the system or defy a pope. But he would not be complicit in the destruction of Catholic Tradition, though he was tempted to concede--which was why he at first gave his trust to the Pope, then withdrew it upon reflection. The issue was too enormous and the consequences too potentially dangerous to leave to those who opposed Tradition.

[Mershon]

So I will take that to mean that no bishop nor Pope has directly ORDERED you to sin. OK. Glad we have that established.

Funny, I don't see the word MUST in bold in the original text. How about if we do not bold MUST, but instead bold RESPECT. Then, afte that, we can discuss what the word "respect" means. He orders no bishop to give every Catholic who petitions, a right to the TLM. That is clear.

And I am sorry, I never claimed I was working on a doctorate or dissertation. Perhaps you have been misinformed. A thesis is what is written for a master's. Funny, I thought SSPX adherents were above ad hominem attacks. Silly me.

Good news in the heart of the Bible Belt, don't you think? Lots of converts. They want to become traditional priests. How about that for some hope and sunshine in your day?

[Grey Ghost II]

Ok. My apologies, you are not a PhD. That explains not understanding what the word directive means.

As for sunny days...everday is sunny where I live because I can practice the Faith of our Fathers without asking for special permission like I'm some convict in a prison.

[Mershon]

No, I don't see that at all. There are a number of facts you need to appreciate. First, that the "state of necessity" was an objective reality--not something even a pope might wish away.

BCM: I never said there was no crisis. What I said was the Pope decided the crisis was not going to be solved by ordaining Bishops against his express will. This is what Lefebvre was excommunicated for. Right? Has the crisis abated since he ordained these bishops? Or are things throughout the Church getting better solely on the impetus of the SSPX? If things are not getting better in the Church, it appears that ordaining the bishops did not solve the crisis. Therefore, the Pope was right. Ordaining them against his will would not solve nor abate the crisis. No one denies there is a crisis. You are obfuscating.

Who can deny the Church was then--as it is now--in a state of acute crisis?

BCM: No one. See above. He was not excommunicated because the Church was in crisis. All the more reason to rejoice in the hope of the good news of the article that is supposed to be the topic of this post. Alleluia! Praise God!

Millions upon millions of Catholics stopped attending Mass within five years of the institution of the Novus Ordo.

BCM: And began using contraception as well. Was that caused by the Council too?

By 1988--at the time of the Archbishop's act of disobedience and eighteen years after the institution of the Novus Ordo--two-thirds of all Catholics had stopped believing in the Real Presence.

BCM: And 90+ percent of married couples practiced artificial contraception. Was this the result of the Council, or did their darkened intellects due to sacrilegious communions, contribute to their loss of Faith in the Eucharist?

By this time, moreover, the landscape of disaster had already taken shape and was undeniable.

BCM: Read my lips. No one denies there was/is a crisis. This is not why Lefebvre was excommunicated.

The Church was lurching from crisis to crisis--liturgical, catechetical, moral--and this was undeniable. Even Paul VI called the state of the Church an "auto-demolition" and bewailed Satan's entry into the sanctuary.

BCM: Ibid.

In the face of all this--who would deny there was not a "state of necessity"?

BCM: A state of necessity to ordain four bishops against the express wishes of the Sovereign Pontiff (READ Vatican I again! I don't think you are really reading it!)Once again, has it borne out that the crisis was solved or mitigated by Lefebvre ordaining 4 bishops who operate outside the communion of the Church?

Who would believe this Pontiff, rather than the Archbishop--except for the fact that the Pope's prestige of office is such that he can declare the moon is made of blue cheese and be believed.

BCM: Hyperbole proves nothing. Archbishop Lefebvre reneged on his agreement with the Vatican. I have read the Pro Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre, have you?

He spoke incessantly of a "new advent", a "new Pentecost", a new springtime in the midst of the coldest winter. But none of this was true. It was the Archbishop who spoke more truly and saw more clearly.

BCM: Then why did the crisis not abate after he disobeyed the Sovereign Pontiff by ordaining four bishops against his express wishes, and after reneging on an agreement allowing him to have a bishop?

Second,

BCM: After all of this, this is only your second point?

even if the Archbishop had WRONGLY evoked the state of necessity canon, the canon states specifically that if he did so in good conscience he would not incur a penalty.

BCM: Lefebvre was warned by the Vatican in writing NOT to ordain the bishops.

No one who is honest can doubt the Archbishop was sincere,

BCM: As Msgr. Smith of Dunwoody seminary, and perhaps the top moral theologian in the U.S. has said repeatedly, "One can certainly be subjectively sincere, but objectively very wrong."

since he had spoken of his fears concerning the crisis in the Church and dread of the spreading loss of the Catholic faith, publicly and often, and it could have been no secret that he thought this way and therefore was acting upon his fears that souls would be lost--rather than out of a desire to deny the authority of the Pontiff, which was nowhere on his radar screen.

BCM: Good hope then that traditional Catholicism is spreading in the heart of the Bible Belt, then, huh?

Finally, you should realize that while there were many traditional priests at large throughout the revolution, the traditional priesthood could not perpetuate itself. It depended on a bishop's consecration of trained seminarians for the ancient Mass to survive demolition.

BCM: Oh, is that how it works? You mean new priests are necessary? Kind of like the one being ordained for our diocese soon is a traditional Priest, as well as the three or four other college students who serve and attend our traditional Mass? You mean like them?

There was only one such seminary in the entire world--at Econe, the one which the Archbishop himself had established.

BCM: And now, there are many, most prominently, the FSSP and the ICKSP, both in union with Rome.

It was a seminary which the Pope's own representative reported was above reproach in every way--morally and theologically. But yet it ran against the revolution and was therefore marked for destruction--even while other seminaries had students cruising gay bars and were openly professing dissent. Only the devout seminarians at Econe were singled out for elimination. Do you think Lefebvre didn't know it was because Catholic Tradition itself was under the gun?

BCM: How about just referring people to the Pro Apologia book rather than giving us all a history lesson right here. Good news in the Upstate of South Carolina near Bob Jones University, don't you think?

You need to understand who this man was. He was not a prince of the Church who had spent a lifetime in European palaces, but spent much of his mature life as a missionary in Africa. It was not his nature to buck the system or defy a pope. But he would not be complicit in the destruction of Catholic Tradition, though he was tempted to concede--which was why he at first gave his trust to the Pope, then withdrew it upon reflection.

BCM: Bad decision, it appears. Lack of trust in the Pope, no matter how humanly understandable, leads to lack of faith. Bad decision, reneging on that agreement. How much more effective SSPX would have been from within the Church...

The issue was too enormous and the consequences too potentially dangerous to leave to those who opposed Tradition.

BCM: Who is opposed to Tradition? Those who adhere to Tradition (See Vatican I posted earlier on the deference to be shown to the Holy Father in matters of discipline; Vatican I is quite a traditional document, don't you think?)cannot ordain bishops against the express will of the Holy Father. That is forbidden in the 1983 and 1917 codes of canon law--pick whichever one you like.

[ultima ratio]

"Archbishop Lefebvre reneged on an agreement allowing him to ordain ONE bishop that would be approved by the Holy Father (AS ARE ALL BISHOPS), not simply one of Archbishop Lefebvre's choosing."

Not the whole story. The regularization of the SSPX also meant the setting-up of a secretariat to oversee relations between Rome and the SSPX which would exercise tremendous authority. The Archbishop worried about the constitution of this commission and whether it would be comprised of traditionalists. Rome obviously was not thinking in that direction. It was clear the end in view for Rome was the destruction of tradition.

So it's true the May 5th Protocol promised the Archbishop the bishop he had requested--actually names on a list, of men about whom he knew very little. But it resolved nothing regarding the proposed commission. And while the Archbishop at first signed the protocol--he properly reconsidered after he reflected on the dire consequences of his action.

[Mershon]

"The regularization of the SSPX also meant the setting-up of a secretariat to oversee relations between Rome and the SSPX which would exercise tremendous authority."

BCM: For which "authority" the Pope and the Curia exercise over all Catholics universally everywhere, correct? What is your point here? That the SSPX would have to submit to the Vicar of Christ and his duly appointed authorities? Funny, as Vatican I says, I thought that was part of being Catholic.

Hey, winning converts to the Faith and increasing the presence of Tradition and tradition in the Bible Belt. Great news, huh? Quite hopeful.

Funny, I never hear SSPX types talk about the absolute essential character of unity within the Church. Unity is one of the four marks. I also NEVER hear them talk about the theological virtue of hope. Faith a lot, but not hope, nor unity.

[ultima ratio]

1. "What I said was the Pope decided the crisis was not going to be solved by ordaining Bishops against his express will."

You mistake what is going on. The denial of ordinations was deliberate--a step in the process of eliminating finally all that remained most potent in Catholic Tradition. Don't you find it strange that almost every liturgical kookiness and horror is tolerated in the contemporary Church--but not the ancient Latin Mass? There are clown Masses, gay Masses, Polka Masses, teen Masses--but not the old Mass. Why do you suppose? What explains such hostility?

2. Of course Vatican II and the Novus Ordo did enormous damage to the Church and to the faith! I won't even bother citing the usual statistics. They are copious and have been reported often. Suffice it to say that the Church had survived the collapse of the Roman Empire, the French Revolution and two World Wars in better shape--with the faithful holding steady in their faith. It took only a mere five years after the close of Vatican II for the Church to implode precipitously and calamitously.

The idea that there is no cause-and-effect here, that this moral and religious collapse was coincidental, is ludicrous. Of course there's a cause-and-effect! And much of it we had even been specifically warned about--in the countless encyclicals on modernist heretical intent written by worried preconciliar pontiffs who saw what was coming if we let our guard down. Vatican II let down the guard.

3. "I have read the Pro Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre, have you?"

Stop with this posturing. Yes, I've read it--and much else besides. I suggest you plunge into a few other texts to round out your perspective--such as Iota Unum by Amerio and the works of Atila Guimaraes.

4. "How much more effective SSPX would have been from within the Church..."

It is well within the Church. The question is whether the Holy See--by which I mean the Vatican bureaucracy--itself is within the Church--or whether two thirds of its bishops are any longer within the Church. As it is, the SSPX is far more effective in its present irregular condition--protected as it is by the Holy Spirit from the surrounding corruption.

[ultima ratio]

My point is that while the Church was in crisis, this Pope was asking one of his bishops to deepen the crisis. No way should he have been obeyed under such conditions.

As for unity--it is most galling to hear Novus Ordo types like you speak of this. Did you think that after a Mass had been revered for over a thousand years that it could be trashed with impunity and not affect Church unity? Do you think even popes may assault Catholic tradition and not rend the Church into quarreling factions? The action which cause such disunity was not ours--we hold onto what has always been taught and believed. The disunity was--and is-- caused by those who would impose a new religion--a new mode of worship, a new set of moral standards, a new set of doctrines, a new theology--all the while claiming nothing has really changed, when, in fact, everything has changed. But disunity is not our doing--it is the fault of those who lead the revolution. We're only holding onto a piece of driftwood to keep from drowning after the dam broke.

[Mershon]

Don't you find it strange that almost every liturgical kookiness and horror is tolerated in the contemporary Church--but not the ancient Latin Mass? There are clown Masses, gay Masses, Polka Masses, teen Masses--but not the old Mass.

BCM: Your way with hyperbole is shocking. As far as I can tell, there are more than 120 dioceses in the U.S. with the Traditional Latin Mass. The example of the article I gave is one of them. That is my point. Your view of the "facts" do not match up with reality.

[Mershon]

I suggest you plunge into a few other texts to round out your perspective--such as Iota Unum by Amerio and the works of Atila Guimaraes.

BCM: Have already read 'em. Thanks for the recommendations though. They capture the essence of the problems quite well. What I posted, however, was the article on the revival of the Latin Mass in the midst of the Bible Belt. Did you read it? Isn't it hopeful?