Posted on 07/07/2004 7:16:03 AM PDT by ultima ratio
When?
And the Berlin wall is down.
If you think the Blessed Mother was referring to some sort of "political conversion" of Russia, you are beyond hope.
1. Of course Lefebvre consecrated without a papal mandate. But the Pope refused to allow the consecrations of traditional bishops in order to starve the traditional Mass of traditional priests. No traditional priests could be ordained without a bishop--and no traditional bishops had ever been permitted during the pontificate of John Paul II. Perverts and apostates and fools were consecrated--but no traditionalists. So the Archbishop consecrated traditional bishops anyhow and thereby preserved the Traditional Mass in a time of great emergency.
If you believe this was a schismatic act, you are wrong. Schism implies a rejection of papal authority. That was not what happened here. The Pope was disobeyed because he threatened to harm the Church irreparably. The intent was to preserve Catholic Tradition, not to deny papal authority. Nor is disobedience itself evil if one is obeying instead God's will. Here is what St. Robert Bellarmine states: "Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff that aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior."
On the second point: A Church Council is infallible only if it defines a dogma that is binding on the universal Church. It is a negative protection--that is to say, an infallible declaration would be one that is divinely protected from error by the Holy Spirit. But Vatican II was a pastoral council only--and a minor one at that, though modernists sometimes seem to make it the greatest event in human history next to the Incarnation. In fact, nothing it declared was binding--and this was in accordance with Paul VI's own wishes. This being the case, there is much that may be disputed and will be argued-over for centuries. But nothing it stated was actually infallible.
On the third point--hardly anybody I know who is a traditionalist doubts the Novus Ordo is valid. That is not the complaint we have against it. Even valid Masses may be bad ones if they do not express a Catholic theological perspective and if they actually subvert Catholic dogmas--as is the case with the Novus Ordo which radically distorts Catholic beliefs. So it's a bad rap against traditionalists. Let's put it this way: both a brand new Mercedes and a Chevy clunker with a bad transmission are valid cars. But I wouldn't want to drive the Chevy cross-country. So with the Novus Ordo. It's a bad Mass--very dangerous to the faith.
And the Berlin wall is down.
And Russia still won't let the Pope set foot on Russian soil, despite his repeated requests.
With your own personal interpretation of the facts, i.e. hard evidence, you'd make a good ICEL translator.
Pluribus ditto-um to you! :oD
Speaking of Latin, a few years ago, I'd sing in my church choir for Midnight Mass, and we'd do the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei in Latin. Absolutely beautiful.
There were also some other occasions when we got in Gregorian chant. Latin must be the language of the Angels.
Anyway, one day I sat with the missalette and my sheet music, and compared those 4 prayers. We've been so deprived of the richness and holiness of accurate translations. There is some interest of restoring them in Latin, to the vernacular Mass. I pray that happens.
Not so! Why keep saying this? Posting quotes from Msgr. Lefebvre where he admits he could have got his bishop on August 15th 1988 is getting tiring. It was Msgr. Lefebvre who refused to give Cardinal Ratzinger candidates for ordination, once his men like Fr. Williamson were rejected.
What you mean to say is that Msgr. Lefebvre couldn't have a Bp. Williamson, but only a perfectly traditional bishop such as Dom Gerard Calvet, prior of Le Barroux.
Whenever it was that you say they didn't. (You know what I'm talking about.)
If you think the Blessed Mother was referring to some sort of "political conversion" of Russia, you are beyond hope.
Millions of free people were free to turn to God. I get a newsletter from the Archdiocese of Anchorage, which updates the progress of the Church of the Nativity in Novobiersk. (The Tundra, no less.) I've followed their story since the first two missionaries left Alaska in 1994.
Multiply that by only God knows how many times, all over the former Soviet Union.
The Archbishop tried to pin Ratzinger down on a date and a name and got vague promises. Apparently the Pope wanted to be obeyed without his own commitment to anything concrete. The Archbishop went along as much as he could--until he realized he was being given the runaround. He was old and ill--and he was convinced Rome intended to run out the clock and renege after he was gone. He knew how the game was played and decided to obey God instead. The man showed heroic sanctity in my book, single-handedly preserving the Traditional Mass. The Pope showed he had little respect for Catholic Tradition--and he's still showing it.
The Pope holds the keys of the Kingdom, and sits on the Chair of Peter. Lefebre dared to disobey the Holy Roman Pontiff - chosen in the conclave by the Holy Spirit, through the voting of the Cardinals assembled - because Lefebre was acting French.
Your friend is not like the people I know who went there. They believe in it so much that it becomes their mission in life to spread the word about it.
Several years ago, I wrote to the diocese over there and put a page together on it and have steered some folks to it (not many want to wade through all that but it was important to me at the time because it came up frequently on a catholic newsgroup on the net and people really didn't seem to know that anybody was against the thing). I don't bother with it much any more, but it you want to see, in depth, what the bishop had to say, here is a link if you are interested.
I got very good vibes about that bishop, Bishop Peric. He had a lot to gain by endorsing it, and all he got was grief over it and was under a terrible burden. He even got kidnapped by some fanatics and held hostage for several hours until he was released. It boiled down to a church turf war which is better not to rehash now.
Before I wrote and asked them to send me information about their determination, I had read a booklet by Michael Davies (thanks again, trads) and a couple of things by E. Michael Jones who really opened my eyes about it.
I'm sorry, but it's late, and I can't get through the rest. I'll try tomorrow.
While I was facing Cardinal Ratzinger with that alternative, and while he was saying that he would give us a bishop on the 15th of August, he was asking me for still more dossiers in order that the Holy See might choose a bishop who would meet the requirements laid down by the Vatican.
That is vague? And as for the name - Msgr. Lefebvre refused to suggest names.
You're welcome. And thanks much for your contribution. At least it's reasonable and consists of more than personal attacks.
His writing is not thoroughly reasoned, and is very emotional in nature.
It would be nice then if you pointed out the errors. You only talk in general terms about the situation since Vatican II, which is easy to do, but it's harder to get down to brass tacks and handle a topic like the phenomenological personalism of JPII, which was the subject of the article.
Particularly dangerous is his use of materials from a schismatic group (Society of St. Pius X), as a source for the development of some of his positions.
I don't believe the article contained any references to the SSPX, except as references to books for further reading. As a sedevacantist, Derksen takes a very different position than the SSPX.
I think the major problem that some people have with the "New Mass," and with Vatican II, is the liberalism that ended up surrounding them.
If that's what you think, then you ought to make some attempt to document that position. But all the evidence points the other way. Try reading the "Index of Leading Catholic Indicators" by Kenneth Jones, reviewed by Pat Buchanan here: An index of catholicism's decline
Seattle Catholic also had an interesting article in which an mathemetician analysed some of the numbers documenting the decline since Vatican II and quantified the possibility that there was no cause and effect relationship. It was smaller than the odds that OJ's DNA didn't match the drops of blood. Springtime Decay by David L. Sonnier
We English speaking people were cheated by the ICEL (International Committee for English in the Liturgy - I've been following this fight for years!) translations of the Editio Typica of the Missale Romanum.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. The New Mass was always meant to be done in the vernacular. The vernacular missals are the primary documents. The Latin version of the New Mass really has little relationship whatsoever to the vernacular versions because it was created afterwards, and large chunks of it were lifted wholesale from the traditional Latin Mass. But the Consilium always recognized that the Latin New Mass was virtually a dead letter while the vernacular Missals would be used for more than 99% of all instances of the New Mass.
It's not *new* doctrine, but rather an understanding of a doctrine on a deeper level, or a particular aspect of it.
Really? So perhaps you will be able to explain how the quote from Redemptor Hominis is simply "understanding of a doctrine on a deeper level" rather than changing the content of the Catholic faith.
Mario likes St. Thomas Aquinas, but he needs to realize that if there was no such thing as doctrinal development, Aquinas would have been branded as a heretic, rather than proclaimed a Doctor of the Church.
This is an old chestnut with no truth to it. St. Thomas Aquinas was recognized as a great saint and a great doctor of the Church within his own lifetime. So was his contemporary St. Bonaventure. Those teaching genuine Catholic faith are not branded as heretics. But the people in the hierarchy since Vatican II are certainly not to be compared to Aquinas or any other genuine Catholic. They are not developing doctrine, they are destroying it.
You are wrong again. The Pope is not "chosen by the Holy Spirit." That's a fairy tale. Where did you pick up your theology? Did the Holy Spirit choose Pope Alexander who had a mistress that he lived with throughout his papacy? God allows cardinals to make bad choices--even those that turn out to be disasters--just as He will allow foolish councils to deliberate--like Vatican II. As for disobeying a pope--it depends on what is commanded. If what the Pope commands will do harm to souls, he should be disobeyed. All theologians agree with this. This is because the Pope's authority, while great, is still limited by Divine Law.
Well, the Russian Orthodox aren't exactly a happy bunch - *they* still won't meet with the Pope. They *do* have some influence with the government.
I'm not saying it's all them, but they do have their power.
Regarding ICEL, the Vatican did crack down on them, and since they didn't get with the program, there's all new personnel. :o) That's the nutshell version.
I'm not good with languages, BTW. But that would be interesting....
Here are the Archbishop's own words on this. Clearly he did not trust Rome as long as it supported all the evils preconciliar popes had warned about. Nor did he trust the commission being set up with Ratzinger, among others, dominating and controlling traditionalism. He believed the agreement was suicidal. And he would have been right--give the hostility of the forces arrayed against him.
________________________________________________________It seems to me, my dear brethren, that I am hearing the voices of all these Popes - since Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII - telling us: "Please, we beseech you, what are you going to do with our teachings, with our predications, with the Catholic Faith? Are you going to abandon it? Are you going to let it disappear from this earth? Please, please, continue to keep this treasure which we have given you. Do not abandon the faithful, do not abandon the Church! Continue the Church! Indeed, since the Council, what we condemned in the past the present Roman authorities have embraced and are professing. How is it possible? We have condemned them: Liberalism, Communism., Socialism, Modernism, Zionism. All the errors which we have condemned are now professed, adopted and supported by the authorities of the Church. Is it possible? Unless you do something to continue this Tradition of the Church which we have given to you, all of it shall disappear. Souls shall be lost."
Thus, we find ourselves in a case of necessity. We have done all we could, trying to help Rome to understand that they had to come back to the attitudes of the holy Pius XII and of all his predecessors. Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself have gone to Rome, we have spoken, we have sent letters, several times to Rome. We have tried by these talks, by all these means, to succeed in making Rome understand that, since the Council and since aggiornamento, this change which has occurred in the Church is not Catholic, is not in conformity to the doctrine of all times. This ecumenism and all these errors, this collegiality - all this is contrary to the Faith of the Church, and is .in the process of destroying the Church.
This is why we are convinced that, by the act of these consecrations today, we are obeying the call of these Popes and as a consequence the call of God, since they represent Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Church.
"And why, Archbishop, have you stopped these discussions which seemed to have had a certain degree of success?" Well, precisely because, at the same time that I gave my signature to the Protocol, the envoy of Cardinal Ratzinger gave me a note in which I was asked to beg pardon for my errors. But if I am in error, if I teach error, it is clear that I must be brought back to the truth in the minds of those who sent me this note to sign. "That I might recognize my errors" means that, if you recognize your errors we will help you to return to the truth. (What is this truth for them if not the truth of Vatican II, the truth of the Conciliar Church?) Consequently, it is clear that the only truth that exists today for the Vatican is the conciliar truth, the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Assisi. That is the truth of today. But we will have nothing to do with this for anything in the world! .
That is why, taking into account the strong will of the present Roman authorities to reduce Tradition to naught, to gather the world to the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi, we have preferred to withdraw ourselves and to say that we could not continue. It was not possible. We would have evidently been under the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Roman Commission, which would have directed us; we were putting ourselves into his hands, and consequently putting ourselves into the hands of those who wish to draw us into the spirit of the Council and the spirit of Assisi. This was simply not possible.
This is why I sent a letter to the Pope, saying to him very clearly: "We simply cannot accept this spirit and proposals, despite all the desires which we have to be in full union with you. Given this new spirit which now rules in Rome and which you wish to communicate to us, we prefer to continue in Tradition; to keep Tradition while waiting for Tradition to regain its place at Rome, while waiting for Tradition to reassume its place in the Roman authorities, in their minds." This will last for as long as the Good Lord has foreseen.
It is not for me to know when Tradition will regain its rights at Rome, but I think it is my duty to provide the means of doing that which I shall call "Operation Survival," operation survival for Tradition. Today, this day, is Operation Survival. If I had made this deal with Rome, by continuing with the agreements we had signed, and by putting them into practice, I would have performed "Operation Suicide." There was no choice, we must live! That is why today, by consecrating these bishops, I am convinced that I am continuing to keep Tradition alive, that is to say, the Catholic Church.
You well know, my dear brethren, that there can be no priests without bishops. When God calls me - no doubt this will be before long - from whom would these seminarians receive the Sacrament of Orders? From conciliar bishops, who, due to their doubtful intentions, confer doubtful sacraments? This is not possible. Who are the bishops who have truly kept Tradition and the Sacraments such as the Church has conferred them for twenty centuries until Vatican II? They are Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself. I cannot change that. That is how it is. Hence, many seminarians have entrusted themselves to us, they sensed that here was the continuity of the Church, the continuity of' Tradition. And they came to our seminaries, despite all the difficulties that they have encountered, in order to receive a true ordination to the Priesthood, to say the true Sacrifice of Calvary, the true Sacrifice of the Mass, and to give you the true Sacraments, true doctrine, the true catechism. This is the goal of these seminaries.
So I cannot, in good conscience, leave these seminarians orphaned. Neither can I leave you orphans by dying without providing for the future. That is not possible. It would be contrary to my duty.
This is why we have chosen, with the grace of God, priests from our Society who have seemed to us to be the most apt, whilst being in circumstances and in functions which permit them more easily to fulfill their episcopal ministry, to give Confirmation to your children, and to be able to confer ordinations in our various seminaries. Thus I believe that - with the grace of God, we, Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself, by these consecrations, will have given to Tradition the means to continue, given the means to Catholics who desire to remain within the Church of their parents, their grandparents, of their ancestors. They built churches with beautiful altars, often destroyed and replaced by a table, thus manifesting the radical change which has come about since the Council regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which is the heart of the Church and the purpose of the priesthood. Thus we wish to thank you for having come in such numbers to support us in the accomplishment of this ceremony.
So where do you see the conversion of Russia having occurred?
Or the supernatural nature doesn't have anything to do with Mother Mary!
Sorry about your friends. I remember the days when my friend said it was important to just believe. I told her that it was important to believe the truth! Well, she finally came to see.
That is an absolutely gorgeous webpage, and thanks for the link. I'm bookmarking it, so I can take my time going through it. You really did a very nice job - beautiful font! I think I going to enjoy it. :o)
I've always had a good impression of Bishop Peric, too. I also have an impression that God used his miseries to prove him out. The Bishop stood firm. What an example!
I think I saw the Davies book, but didn't read the whole thing.
By the way, as I understand it, the date was never pinned down. One was mentioned by Lefebvre--but only by way of indicating that it was ludicrous, that nothing of the sort was really intended. That's why he mentions just after this the request for still more dossiers, etc. He knew they were giving the appearance of movement--he had been through it all before. It was a runaround.
My first thought was to go through the entire article, literally line by line. I realized that was going to take a very long time, so I decided to keep it brief.
You raise interesting questions, and I'd love to address them. However, it's almost 1:00AM, and I wanted to get to bed two hours ago! It's been TOO interesting - I got sucked in! LOL! I want to get back here, but I can't promise. If I can, I will.
By the way, I've honed my flame avoidance skills since I was a kid. My favorite ride was the bumper cars, and I'd purposely avoid bumping into anyone. Of course that made everyone aim for me, and eluding them made it fun. :oD
Basically, you accuse Ratzinger and the Pope of dishonesty with Msgr. Lefebvre for very little reason, if any. There is no reason to think that Ratzinger was lying about the August 15th date, which he told to Msgr. Lefebvre. The idea that Msgr. Lefebvre had been through it before is ridiculous - the Protocol was the first time Rome had agreed to the consecration of a bishop, and previous negotiations were inconclusive because of Msgr. Lefebvre's intransigence against orthodox teaching like religious liberty.
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.