Pete Vere or Harry Potter?
Posted on 06/23/2004 4:45:59 AM PDT by ultima ratio
It is always a good argument to use the opposition's own words to condemn his side. I used Lara's comment, because he acknowledges--however reluctantly--that disobedience itself is not schism. He covers for the Pope by then saying the schism ANTEDATED the consecrations. But he offered not a shred of evidence for this--nor could he. The Archbishop never denied the Pope, not ever, not even in his notorious Declaration which reads today as a harmless recitation of what is all-too-obvious. The opposite is true, in it he affirmed his loyalty to the pope. The only thing the record shows therefore is continuous and unrelenting Vatican duplicity and injustice.
Yes, it "merely" renounces an entire ecumenical council of the Church as "neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant" and says that it "derives from heresy and ends in heresy". It's really quite impossible to see why the Pope had a right to be concerned about such a "mere" declaration, by a bishop who was going around denouncing the normative Mass of the Church, saying things such as:
the present problem of the Mass is one extremely serious for the Church… All the endeavours to recapture what is being lost, to reorganise, reconstruct and rebuild, have been stricken with sterility, since we no longer have the true source of holiness which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Now that it has been profaned, it no longer gives grace, it no longer channels grace.
Econe had no books published after 1962 in its library. An ecumenical council of the Church was entirely rejected. Such a seminary can hardly be described as "traditional".
As for schism:
The intent of the act of consecrating bishops is already to create a church with its own hierarchy. In this sense, the consecration of bishops becomes an act of schism. (Cardinal Lara)
We have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and identifies itself with the Novus Ordo Missae ... The faithful indeed have a strict right to know that the priests who serve them are not in communion with a counterfeit church... (Fr. Schmidberger and many SSPX superiors, on the occasion of the consecrations)
The SSPX continued as if the Pope had never said a thing. In a way, to the members' minds, he hadn't. Lefebvre was convinced the Roman Curia was misleading Paul VI.... So life at Econe continued as usual.
This, of course, meant preparing seminarians to receive the sacrament of holy orders, with the first class set for ordination during the summer of 1976... "despite the letter from Pope Paul dated 29 June 1975, the entire legal process taken against [the SSPX] had been so irregular that it could not be considered as having been legally suppressed" (Davies, p. 202).
The Vatican disagreed. "You should, at the same time, inform Msgr. Marcel Archbishop Lefebvre that, de mandato special Summa Pontificis, in the present circumstances — and according to the prescriptions of Canon 2373, 1 °, of the [Pio-Benedictine] Code of Canon Law, he must strictly abstain from conferring orders from the moment he receives the present injunction" (Secretariat of State, Prot. N. 307, 554, 12 June 1976, trans. in M. Davies, p. 194).
Lefebvre wrote a public letter beseeching the Pope to have a change of heart. The Pope directed that the archbishop be informed his mind had not changed and reminded Lefebvre that he could not ordain his seminarians.
Lefebvre refused submission to the Pope's order: He ordained the seminarians to the priesthood. The Vatican suspended him. The Holy See also declared that, "those who have been ordained are ipso facto suspended from the order received, and, if they were to exercise it, they would be in an irregular and criminal situation" (R. Panciroli, press conference, July 1, 1976, trans. in M. Davies, p. 216).
On July 29, 1976, the Pope suspended Lefebvre a divines. According to canonist Peter Vere, this meant Lefebvre was "now forbidden by the Holy See from the exercise of holy orders, a prohibition reserved to the Holy Father personally. In other words, his suspension was now perpetual until its absolution and applicable to more than simply the ordination of seminarians to major orders" (Vere and Woestman, op. cit.). Lefebvre said, "This conciliar church is schismatic because it has taken as the basis for its updating principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church . . . The church that affirms errors like these is both schismatic and heretical. This conciliar church is just not Catholic."
Things were relatively quiet after this, if you can call "quiet" the intemperate things the archbishop was saying about the Pope and the Church. On August 4, 1976, for instance, Lefebvre said, "All those who cooperate in the application of this upheaval, accept and adhere to this new conciliar church . . . enter into schism" (Fr. Noel Barbara, Econe Full Stop, Fortes in Fides [www. the-pope. com /econefs. html]). This is the height of irony when one considers the definition of schism: The refusal of submission to the Roman pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2089, cf. CIC, can. 751).
There is nothing binding in anything Vatican II decreed--so it can hardly be used as a pretext for claiming someone is in schism. Nor did Vatican II envisage anything so monstrous as what followed in its aftermath--the virtual annihilation of Catholic Tradition everywhere.
As for equating Lara's comments with those of Schmidberger, it is the latter who comes off as speaking truly, not Lara. A counterfeit Church is one which renounces its own past and the Magisterium of previous popes and councils. Insofar as there are bishops who do this--and their name is legion today--then they represent what is not authentically Catholic and is outside of the true Church.
But even Lara must know he is lying when he says there was an intention by the Archbishop to create a new church. SSPX created nothing except bishops--everything else was as it was--same Mass, same doctrines, same Pope, same everything. The only thing it leaves out are the NOVELTIES that contravene the faith and which were designed to destroy Catholic Tradition. Nothing has been rejected except what cannot ever be binding.
Peter Vere?
That same former Satanist who butchered his first born child?
The pope is not a god. He cannot order the destruction of God's Church. His whim is not the law of the Church. In fact, its laws and precepts are the reason for his authority in the first place. He is given power precisely to sustain them and to protect the deposit of faith. He cannot do as he wishes with his subordinates, without just cause. In this he is subject to Church canons, as is anyone else, since they are based on Divine Law. He must therefore act justly, not as a tyrant.
We say the pope is supreme. But what does that mean? We say the Supreme Court is the supreme law of the land also. But we don't believe the Supreme Court has a right to act as it pleases, to depart from its own limitations, to act as chief executive, for instance. We recognize in the word "supreme" certain limits. So too with the pope. There are limits to his authority. He abuses his power when he exceeds these limits--as he would if he acted unjustly.
I wrote this on another thread regarding the mass rejection of Trent by bishops. I believe it's an accurate summary of the present situation:
"The truth is that we are living in a time when two Churches are co-existing--a false and a true one. JPII is pope of both the old and the new religions. One denies Catholicism's basic tenets--of a propitiatory sacrifice, of a Real Presence, of a sacrificial priesthood--and does all it can to destroy these principles without coming right out and saying this is what it intends; the other side affirms the ancient teachings. One side is top-heavy with apostate bishops who side with Luther; the other side has little official authority, but challenges the hierarchy in a grass-roots movement that is growing in force. The two Churches are heading for a show-down--and the Pope is more or less playing it down the middle, siding with Tradition in his official writings, but instituting policies designed to support its destruction."
I agree! Filicide is terrible.
Christ whom we adore is really present
Jesus is no longer present to men in the same way that he was on the roads of Palestine. After the Resurrection, he appeared in his glorious body to the women and to his disciples. Then he took the Apostles and "led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. ...He parted from them, and was carried up into heaven" (Lk 24:50-51). But in ascending to the Father, Christ did not distance himself from men. He dwells forever in the midst of his brethren and, just as he promised, he accompanies them and guides them with his Spirit. Henceforth, his presence is of another kind. Indeed, "at the Last Supper, after celebrating the Passover with his disciples and when he was about to pass from this world to his Father, Christ instituted this sacrament as the perpetual memorial of his Passion..., the greatest of all his miracles; and he left this sacrament to those whom his absence filled with grief, as an incomparable consolation" St. Thomas Aquinas, Office of Corpus Christi, 57, 4). Every time we celebrate the Eucharist in the Church, we recall the death of the Saviour, we proclaim his Resurrection as we await his return. Thus no sacrament is greater or more precious than that of the Eucharist; and when we receive Communion, we are incorporated into Christ. Our life is transformed and taken up by the Lord.
Here is the rest of the Davies quote:
"It would be possible to devote endless pages to discussing the merits of each position but even it if is conceded, for the sake of argument, that the Vatican had the law upon its side it did not follow that the Archbishop was necessarily in the wrong. There are many orthodox Catholics who evade the necessity of considering the Archbishop's case on its merits by reducing the entire question to one of legality. 'Archbishop Lefebvre is in breach of Canon Law,' they argue, 'therefore he is wrong.'
"At the risk of laboring a point which has probably been made sufficiently clear already, the Law is at the service of the Faith. It is intended to uphold the Faith and not to undermine it. Given that the manner in which the case against the Archbishop was conducted constituted an abuse of power, then he was entitled to resist.
"Archbishop Lefebvre decided that he could best serve the Church by ordaining his seminarians and incardinating them into the Society of St. Pius x. The question which no Cathodic of integrity can evade trying to answer honestly, is whether this decision constitutes inexcusable defiance of papal authority or a legitimate act of resistance to an abuse of power. The subsequent action taken against the Archbishop must be assessed in the light of the answer given to this question. Sanctions were imposed upon him by the Vatican; they will be detailed in their chronological sequence. Once again, the Archbishop decided to ignore them as they were simply a consequence of his refusal to accept the original command to close his Seminary. Even his worst enemies can-not accuse Mgr .Lefebvre of a lack of logic or consistency. His position is based upon one fundamental axiom: the action taken against him violates either Ecclesiastical or Natural Law, possibly both. If he is correct then his subsequent actions can be justified and the legality or illegality of subsequent Vatican decisions is irrelevant. Those who condemn the Archbishop invariably ignore this fundamental axiom and concentrate upon the legal minutiae of the subsequent sanctions. Those who support the Archbishop will do so most effectively by continually redirecting attention to this axiom rather than allowing themselves to be diverted into futile and endless discussion on these legal minutiae. It is also essential to cite the controversy within the context of the entire "Conciliar Church " where not simply any and every ecclesiastical law can be defied with impunity by Liberals but any and every article of the Catholic Faith can be denied with equal impunity .Reduced to its simplest terms, the true problem posed by the drama of Econe is not whether Archbishop Lefebvre is right to defy the Vatican and continue ordaining priests but whether the Vatican is right to order the most orthodox and flourishing Seminary in the West to close."
You may think I am calling the Pope a liar. But I am simply stating the facts. They speak for themselves. He says one thing, then does another. What are we to think? His outdoor papal Masses have caused grave scandal--and have been written about in the secular press. Sacred Hosts are passed around like potato chips, falling into the ground, getting trampled underfoot. Even worse things happen. Yet he lectures the world on liturgical abuses. He writes to the bishops that prohibiting kneeling for Communion would contribute to a diminution of faith in the dogma on the Real Presence--then signs onto it anyway. How does this protect the treasury of faith--which is his primary job, after all.
I just cite the facts--make of them what you will.
Pete Vere or Harry Potter?
The "supreme theory" is not mine. Please read the article on Ecclesiastical Abuse of Power which I have posted. This is the considered opinion of all the best theologians in the Church from time immemorial. The reason the pope's authority is not supreme is that he must, above all, obey the Divine Law which comes from God and on which Church law is based. That is to say, he must act justly in his dealings with others.
By the way, in this matter of justice, it is not just for a pope to let liberal bishops deny the truths of the Gospels, deny the decrees of the Council of Trent, affirm Martin Luther while denying the teachings of preconciliar popes--then turn around and pounce on a single traditional bishop for defending Catholic Tradition. That is injustice of an obvious sort. What is most galling is it is done by deceit. Neither popes nor cardinals will admit the truth--that it is Traditional Catholicism which they oppose.
What a pathetic bio! Pete and his college sweetheart murdered their first child. They don't have "one child". They have two children, the first was butchered by his parents, and to this day, those parents don't acknowledge that murdered baby as one of their own children.
Yet they are they are hoping God will send them more!
The reason the pope's authority is not supreme=the reason the pope'a authority is not supreme in the sense you suppose...
Irish, Thanks for the ping. I yearn to find a similar Catholic atmosphere here in the US.
Ultima, Great article.
Question: Any recommendations for a CD with the Latin Chants in it which could be used to learn?
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.