Posted on 09/11/2004 6:35:23 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
www.RemnantNewspaper.com
Canadian Cardinal “Ups the Ante” Against Mel Gibson’s Chaplain:
Father Somerville Responds Again
August 18, 2004
Rev. Stephen F. Somerville
Queensville, Ontario
Dear Father Somerville,
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 12 in which you respond to my letter of suspension of July 15. I notice that, in the meantime, the letter of suspension and prior correspondence have been published on www.RemnantNewspaper.com
The only manner in which you can persuade me to revoke the suspension is by fulfilling the following conditions and this without any kind of qualification:
1. You write all the priests who have been sent your letter endorsing the publication Priest Where is Thy Mass? Mass Where is Thy Priest? and recant your endorsation;
2. You sever all ties with the Society of St. Pius X;
3. You make a declaration of fidelity to Pope John Paul II and your Archbishop;
4. You affirm the authenticity of the teaching of Vatican II;
5. You affirm the validity of the Eucharist celebrated according to all the Canons approved by the Church.
The conditions 2 to 5 are to be fulfilled in writing and sent to my address by August 31. Condition 1 is to be fulfilled in writing to all the addressees by the same date. We wish to see the text of your message before it is sent.
I am sorry it has come to this; we have known each other for a long time. But my fidelity to the Catholic truth gives me no choice but to suspend you. To all your pettifogging arguments I answer with St. Augustine's chief reply to the self-righteously pure Donatist sect, Securus indicat orbis terrarum.
Wishing you all the best, I remain,
Sincerely yours,
Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic
Archbishop of Toronto
Father Somerville Responds
Most Reverend Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic Archbishop of Toronto
23 August 2004
Your Eminence,
I acknowledge hereby your letter of 18 August further to the matter of my suspension and presenting five conditions requiring my unqualified fulfillment.
It was not my intention to cause you annoyance by letting our correspondence appear on the Remnant newspaper’s website and pages. Even though that consequence might have been foreseen. The Editor, Mr. Michael Matt, took his steps as a responsible journalist, and I learned of the result – by a print-out copy from a friend – only on 8 August. I had seen a number of such publishings of written theological disagreements between a bishop and a priest and sometimes a canonist in recent issues of the traditional Catholic magazines.
Much as it is dismaying to see in print this lack of Catholic accord between some priests and the hierarchy, I cannot regret the fact that such cases, my own included, have become rather public because the disagreements are serious in my judgment, as, I hope, in yours too, they touch on the truths of the faith, and express in deliberate language some aspects of the crisis in the Church since the Second Vatican Council. Without careful argument in print by responsible persons and media organs, vital truths might remain hidden or confused, even for intelligent Catholic laity as well as clergy. I have learned a great deal in these last three years since my relatively sudden and deeply moving rediscovery of Catholic Tradition, starting in those five weeks I spent (August 2001) in Houston Texas doing parish-like work and reading many books. You may remember that after my November 28, 2003 meeting with your chancellor, Msgr. John Murphy, I supplied him with a list— for your perusal also – of some 46 books and pamphlets on Tradition and Church crisis that I had acquired and read. I have today many more such books resting on my library shelves.
To exemplify the danger to the Faith, I can hardly do better than point to the big three themes of the Conciliar Church: Religious Liberty, Collegiality and Ecumenism. People are now conditioned to take these three ideas for granted, to see them as progress, as "good things" for the Church. Of course the Vatican II theologians lauded them. But all three are in need of much caveat and criticism. All are novelties in the Church. All were treated severely by earlier Popes. And they show a striking correspondence to the three-fold motto of that cruelly destructive disaster, the French Revolution of the late 18th century, that is, “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.”
I will not further pursue the various theological arguments. But some have been illuminated in our more-than-two-sided correspondence. They might well have been left in the shade if we had been content with a face-to-face settling of our concerns. Your Eminence seems to have a reputation for dominating the conversation with an offending priest. This may have some merit. But forty years after Vatican II, we need a public debate over the consequences of that Council, with serious preparatory reading and study by all participants, and serious appraisal of the achievements of the Traditional Church.
You speak of “(your) fidelity to the Catholic truth” on the one hand, with sweeping bows to “fidelity to Pope John Paul”, “authenticity of the teaching of Vatican II”, “the validity (of the new approved ways) of the Eucharist” and on the other hand you dismiss my efforts to illustrate the Church crisis as “pettifogging arguments.” It seems that your approach does not advance “the love of the truth” (2 Thess 2: 10) but rather an unhelpful, stern control. Forgive me for this tentative criticism. Your five conditions for revoking the suspension seem to require a suspending of my hardly acquired understanding of current Church theologies, and certainly a straining of my Catholic conscience, difficult enough to attempt at leisure, but all the less manageable within the few days you grant me before 31 August.
I note that conditions 4 and 5 are the points demanded by the Vatican for the reconciliation of the traditional priests of the Society of St Pius X, conditions they have been unable in Catholic honesty to meet. The SSPX also lays down two conditions to open the discussion: the lifting of the 1988 excommunications of their bishops and the freedom for all priests to say at any time the traditional Mass as it was up to 1962. Do these violate the Catholic conscience of the Vatican authorities?
It is true, as you indicate, that the orbis terrarum Catholic majority accepts the new Catholic order of things. But not by informed judgment (securus judicat). Rather, by somnolent unawareness, because traditional Catholic magazines and books are banned from their churches and bookstores. Liberate that literature and you will see a surge in traditional Catholic numbers.
I lay down my pen for the time being. May the Lord who sent the twelve apostles now send us prophets and thinkers and saints to restore the Church, the shining Truth and the kingdom of Christ.
Respectfully in Him,
(Rev.) Stephen Somerville
Father Somerville Appeals to Rome Once More
His Eminence Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos Prefect - Congregation for the Clergy Vatican City
23 August 2004
Your Eminence,
The letter of August 10, accompanying this present letter is, as you will see, a copy of my formal letter of recourse for requesting the lifting of my suspension by my Ordinary, Cardinal Ambrozic. I send you this copy simply to be sure that my appeal is registered in your office. The original letter was mailed to Cardinal Ambrozic, my Ordinary, following his chancellor's instruction.
Cardinal Ambrozic has written again to me, in evident annoyance because the Editor of The Remnant chose to publish our correspondence on his website and in print (15 Aug. 04). The Cardinal’s five new conditions for revocation are much sterner, but I do not lose hope for eventual resolution of this conflict. I am enclosing copies of the full correspondence between us, for your fullest convenience and information, with apologies for the many pages.
While not admitting to any fault, I understand, Your Eminence, that my rights in the Church may have been unrecognized in that I have not been advised re: requesting revocation or modification of the decree (c. 1734§ 1), re: services of an advocate (c. 1723), or whether one would be provided.
In the Autumn of 2002, I had the honour of an invitation to be the Catholic priest chaplain of a well-known traditional Catholic, Mel Gibson, during the shooting of the film The Passion of The Christ in Rome. Every morning Mr. Gibson served my Mass and counted on this to obtain God's graces for himself and his actors before he went on the set to start work. The result has been a monumental film, breaking records all over the world, inspiring conversions, and reviving the precious Catholic devotion to the Passion. Yet a number of Catholic clergy had belittled this film from their universalist and modernist viewpoint, certainly not for the good of souls.
The traditional Catholic Mass is closer to the Passion in its frequent affirmations of the Body and Blood of Christ as genuine sacrifice offerings to God, unabashed by the modem pressure to see only a memorial of the Last Supper. We discern here a need to strengthen the place of the traditional Mass in the Church.
With prayers for your work in the Church, I am,
Respectfully yours in Domino
Rev. Stephen Somerville
That is a platitude that does not stand the test of time, because it imo is misunderstood. It is used by men to prove that they must be right. But to believe it in that context, one must believe that the Holy Ghost is standing at the elbow of every Bishop FORCING him to make a moral decision.
while the Church itself remains perfect, because Jesus is perfect, at what point does the influence of men cease to be compatible with the perfection of the Church?
The words and doctrine that formed the Church are indellible, and go on forever, perfectly, but men's interpretation of those words apparently are subject to change.
For instance, the Arian heresy developed because of interpretation, and was actually taught in the Church, from the Pope on down, but not ex cathedra, until it was declared false. So the Church of men, differentiated from he perfect Church of Christ, was able to teach false doctrine.
What I'm getting at, is that I don't think the Holy Ghost FORCES men to be true to the Church, though the Church itself remains perfect and unchanged because it is the Body of Jesus Christ.
There seems to be two Churches. The imperfect Church of men, ministering to the perfect Church of Christ. One, changing and capable of error, and one never changing and incapable of error. I think it is the second one that the Holy Ghost protects from error, a Church that the faithful can always turn to, because the Holy Ghost guarantees it will always be there for us.
Though men may screw over the words, the Sacraments will go on forever, even though confected by imperfect men. Their degree of imperfection will be noted and dealt with at the final judgement. The Sacraments, however, from their hands, will be guaranteed by the Holy Ghost.
The damage caused to the faithful however might be insurmountable for those who are swayed with false teachings. Lex Orandi; Lex Credendi (how you pray is how you believe)
And in this age of the heresy of modernism, what of the Pope? Surely the Holy Ghost must be standing at his elbow? How else could he be elected, except by Grace? Or is that only guaranteed only if the Bishops actually listen to the Holy Ghost?
In 1958, Cardinal Siri was supposedly elected to succeed Pius XII, but was later rejected, (after the white smoke went up) which rejection he supposedly accepted. Would the rejection negate the workings of the Holy Ghost, and leave the fortunes of the Church to men alone? I don't know, but it certainly seems so.
He goes much farther than giving approvals and blessings. He instigated it from the beginning and takes full credit for it nearly twenty years later.
True.
If that were true, there would still be a Requiem Mass.
Amen
Not necessarily in and of itself. It is most certainly a far less reverent method of worhiping our Savior, which I think is at the core of our problems. I can't imagine Christ being more pleased with a less reverent Order of Mass, that leaves such room for creative and sometimes heretical embellishment.
Without a doubt it certainly has produced rotten fruit. We see undeniable evidence of such every single day here.
But don't neglect this part:
The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days -- which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation -- to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.........Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music
The basic question is this: is the institutional structure of the Roman Catholic Church currently in a state of generalised apostacy, which is gradually progressing towards a specific, madated, and open condition of apostacy?
Or is this all a vain inagining, and should we all, like the Teletubbies, be cavorting in a field full of bunny rabbits, in gleefull bliss that "all is well"?
This is the basic question. And from it derive other pertinant questions: is the Novus Ordo Missae a valid mass at face value? Will its performance - as written - always result in a valid mass? Or is it valid only if said with very special care? Can the faithful be sure they are actually receiving the true sacrament - or are they unwittlingly participating in material idolatry of bread & wine? I am posing problems which would cross a rabbi's eyes!
These are very tough questions. And they in turn raise a thousand more.
Is JPII actually the Pope? Was he validly elected? or - if validly elected, has he since 1978, done things which would invalidate his papacy? Or, if so, has he realized the error of his ways, and repented in his heart of whatever wrong he did, and "restored" himself?
I raise those questions about JPII - not so much because they reflect my opinion (I believe him to be the Pope), but because these issues have been raised by others.
And what of the next pope? Will he be a legitimate suceessor to Peter? Will his election be invalid on the face of it......will he confirm as dogma that which is heresy, and formally cause the insitutional church to apostacize?
When I refer to the "insitutional church" I refer to the visible administrative infrastructure. Rememeber, Christ did not create the rank of Cardinal priest - men did. Christ insituted the priesthood, and the concept of a Bishop, as shepherd of the people, and of a cheif Bishop - the Pope - to lead them all in his name and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Christ's promise to His church - that it will survive, against all odds to the end of time is very real. But it does not necessarliy apply to the man-made insitutional organization.
The One, True, Holy,Roman,Catholic, and Apostolic Church does not need buildings, computers, real estate holdings, or even money to survive. It needs none of that. Not one cent. It needs only the willing hearts and souls of those who would crucify themselves to the world for Christ. Into those hearts comes an outpouring of the Holy Spirits gifts of wisdom and spiritual strength. That is all it needs to survive. That is all it ever needed, and all it was promised in Judea, 2000 years ago by the God made man, Jesus Christ - who owned nothing but he clothes on his back, yet had power and spiritual authority infinately. He shared that authority with Peter.
"Take, and receive, O Lord, my liberty. Take from me my will, my mind, my memory.....only Thy grace and love on my bestow, and I am rich enough to ask for nothing more".
For their sins, God allowed the Jews to wander for 40 years in the desert: "until this perverse generation be consumed".
Warts & all, JPII is "the last Pope of these Catholic times". He is the Pope whom Christ has willed for this day.
Like his Master, he suffer greatly as he climbs Calvary.
Men did not want Christ's church, and have sinned greatly - church men, laity, and non-believers alike. Christ does not stay where he is honored not. So he is allowing "this perverse generation" to comsume itself. We are getting exactly what we deserve. Nothing.
Down we will go, as a corporate body. Into corruption, filth - covered with it. A headless, splintered thing. Its death agony will be brutal to watch - and we are seeing it now. The Jews wandered in the desert for 40 years. It has been nearly 40 years since the end of Vatican II.
Have we not been wandereing? Confused? Beset by a great confusion of the mind and spirit? This is not the first time in salvation history that God has allowed this on man.
Very soon there will come a time when men shall ask: where is the church? It will not be visable; it will be entombed, as was its Master. It will live on, for a time, in the catacombs, as it were. It may be a long or short period - that is up to God. But it will be resurrected like its Master, and be raised up, more glorious then ever.
This is not my idea. It is in scripture. In the writing so the saints & the Doctors of the church. It is contained in prophecies which reinforce scripture. And has been promised by Mary.
Nobody has to believe any of this. But neither would anybody living in 1960 believe them if I time-travelled back them and described the church of 2004. The church of 1960 is not the church of 2004. They are not he same - there is no comparison.
So, Fr. Sommerville was converted, by the grace of the "bon Dieu", and restored to the faith of his fathers. He has come to understand all that I have stated above. He has made his choice. He has seen the error of his past ways, and amends for them.
Two roads diverge in the woods: one is pretty, tree lined, the road laden with flowers. All is beautiful, and rich fresh fruits hang from the trees, plentiful fields of grain are to be had, and fish to be eaten.
The other road is dark, rough, strewn with rocks, and shards of glass, on either side of the road is nothing but barreness. There is nothing to eat or refresh oneself with - the water is poisonous. dangerous animals lurk in the shadows.
At the end of the first road - after it takes an unforseen turn, is a lake of unquenchable fire. At the end of the second road is the heavenly Jerusalem.
Fr, Sommerville has chosen the second road - and he is barefoot.
If I am an Eastern Rite Catholic, I am allowed to (for the most part)ignore Vatican II & the Novus Ordo mass, and still be considered in communion with the Roman Church, and in union with the Pope.
If am a traditionalist Latin Rite Catholic - who wants the Traditional Latin Mass - I am vile, disobedient, schismatic, excommunicated?
Strange, ain't it? All I want is my preferred rite of the mass.
But I am treated as if I were a piece of excrement by the clergy, for my "sins against Vatican II".
Yes, it is all about the mass. Destroy the mass - as Communists pondered many years ago - and you destroy the church.
The architects of the Novus Ordo Missae learned well from the Great Architect of the Universe.
Even Luther's canon?
Indeed. But the 1970MR and GIRM sides with Pius XII in all of the points which he singles out.
one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform
The celebration of the Eucharist in a sacred place is to be carried out on an altar; but outside a sacred place, it may be carried out on a suitable table, always with the use of a cloth, a corporal, a cross, and candles.It is appropriate to have a fixed altar in every church ... (GIRM 297-8)
were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments;
Traditional usage should be maintained for the vestment colors ... (e) Black may be used, where it is the custom, in Masses for the dead; (GIRM 346)
were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches;
Thus, images of the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Saints, in accordance with the Church's most ancient tradition, should be displayed for veneration by the faithful in sacred buildings and should be arranged so as to usher the faithful toward the mysteries of faith celebrated there. (GIRM 318)
and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music
All other things being equal, Gregorian chant holds pride of place because it is proper to the Roman Liturgy. Other types of sacred music, in particular polyphony, are in no way excluded, provided that they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful. (GIRM 41)
Pius XII's reference to the vernacular is to those who were on their own initiative holding Masses in the vernacular contrary to liturgical regulations. This is clear from the fact that in Musicae Sacrae he approved of vernacular hymns during Mass.
Furthermore the faithful should be taught to sing the Ordinary in Latin in accordance with the postconciliar directives issued by the Holy See - so an all-vernacular Mass is hardly prescribed by Rome.
The Pope is indeed supreme in the Church. Having said this, it should be understood he is not God, nor is he a god to be worshipped. While not limited by men from below, he is very much limited from above--by the Divine Law itself which demands that he be just. If he is unjust, if he practices and teaches novelties which are false and attempts to create a new religion and foist it on the people, or if he punishes the innocent because they resist him when he does this, then he may be ignored with impunity.
You, like many others on this site, have a false notion of papal authority and imagine it is unlimited. But Papal Primacy does not give a pope the power to invent new beliefs. He has only the authority to pass down to others what he has himself received in the deposit of faith. That is the essence of Catholic Tradition. If a pope finds himself functioning in contradiction to that Tradition, he must expect to be disobeyed. The pope is not Lord of the Catholic faith, shaping it to his own ends. He is its servant who must protect it and defend it against its enemies.
Who says a pope may not be heretical? He certainly may be--at the least materially. Jesus did indeed promise to be with His Church to the end of time. But even after he had promised this, Peter betrayed him three times. Your error is this: you equate the Holy See with the Church. They are not identical.
"But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized."
Your citing Mediator Dei is typical of the deception used by the modernists who pretend that the Novus Ordo is little more than a "revision", a "reform", a "renewal". It is none of these. It is a totally new thing, a protestantizing Mass concocted to appeal to Protestants and to replace with ambiguous expressions whatever was distinctly Catholic. This would have outraged the preconciliar popes who never intended anything more than to sanction modest modifications of the liturgy according to contemporary needs. Pius XII in particular was not anticipating in his encyclical the utter destruction of the ancient Liturgy. It is disingenuous for you therefore to suggest he would have acknowledged or in any way have approved of the work of Bugnini's committee. In fact, there is little doubt he would have been horrified and repelled by the Novus Ordo.
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.