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
"Typical. SSPXers always slip into snideness."
Just the opposite. It is you who do this consistently. You sooner or later start flinging insults when the argument doesn't go your way. You're doing it right now, saying SSPXers "slip into snideness." Just who is being snide? If I call you on this, is it snideness? I don't think so.
"They are not in union with the Pope, yet they celebrate the Tridentine Mass"
But the SSPX acknowledge the Pope--and always have. They are therefore in union with him. It is he who rejects THEM because they will not relinquish the old faith. It is a unilateral rejection--and one which he cannot adequately explain or excuse--and it is patently unjust.
Please stop citing the General Instructions. They were rewritten to appease orthodox Catholics who were appalled by the first version--which more genuinely reflected the radical intent of the humanists who invented the New Mass. In other words, the Instructions were deceitfully and deliberately peppered with orthodox expressions to make the new liturgy seem more acceptable to Catholics. But the liturgical text remained untouched and is what it always was--an abomination to Heaven and a danger to the faith.
You can say this all you want, UR, but everybody who reads this knows it is simply not true.
Good night.
How can anyone know better than the SSPX itself? It not only acknowledges the Pope, it prays for him daily--and always had. The problem is with this Pontiff, not with the SSPX. JPII wrongly confused resistance to his destructive policies towards Catholic Tradition with a rejection of his authority per se. Good night.
Amen!
Nearly all N.O. churches have a table, the altar, along with the tabernacle was removed.
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)
There is no Requiem Mass *at all* any more as it was replaced with the "Mass of the Resurrection" and requires white vestments.
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)
While some churches still have a few statues, they have mostly been replaced by banners
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)
Gregorian chant and guitars? I don't think so. Gregorian Chant has no place in the N.O. How many N.O. Catholics know Tantum Ergo or any Gregorian chant at all?....yet I bet "Amazing Grace" is popular.
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.
An all vernacular Mass has been prescribed by Rome since November 26, 1969.....Pope Paul VI: It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.
No, none of us know it's true and neither do most people who read this. Which is why those like yourself can no longer get away with marginalizing us as you used to when people had little understanding of what it is we believe.
Sleep tight.
not me.
The same result would have occurred under the 1962 or 1965 Missal. As is demonstrated, the behavior you bring in evidence is contrary to the wishes of the Holy See and the prescriptions of the General Instruction for the 1970 Missal.
An all vernacular Mass has been prescribed by Rome since November 26, 1969.
In the same Audience he states that Mass can still be offered in Latin and also:
But, in any case, the new rite of the Mass provides that the faithful "should be able to sing together, in Latin, at least the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass, especially the Creed and the Lord's Prayer, the Our Father"
In 1974 the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship sent a letter to every bishop with a copy of the chants "Jubilate Deo" in Latin and saying that the faithful should learn it. Guess how many bishops followed that?
Remember your original argument was that by accepting the "New Mass" the SSPX would be surrendering to the modernists. But in fact, the errors listed by Pius XII and the condemnation of the same which you rightly commended to me are also censured in the "New Mass" instructions. So is it really the "New Mass" that is at fault - or the many priests and bishops who disobey what is in fact laid down by the "New Mass"?
In other words, they were fixed after Paul VI realized what he had signed without reading. The revised version far more accurately conveys the wishes of the Council and of the Pope. The Missal was not revised because, unlike the General Instruction, it was not full of neo-Protestant error - and the Missal's truly orthodox character and proper interpretation was confirmed by the new Preamble to the GIRM.
It is simply absurd to suppose that the 1970MR in Latin, with the traditional chant, the First Eucharistic Prayer, the words of consecration as in the ancient Mozabaric Rite, and the traditional prayers (on Corpus Christi, for instance, the collect, secret, and post communion are exactly the same as in the 1962MR), is an "abomination to Heaven". Nor is there any reason to suppose that the same Mass, accurately and faithfully translated to the vernacular, would be any more of an abomination, for in the first centuries of the Latin Rite Latin was in fact the vernacular.
Stop praying to Mary...she can't help you...only Jesus can...
Dogma is "platitude"
I stopped reading right there.
May God have mercy on your soul.
You appear incapable of understanding the simple meaning of the Dogmatic Teaching of Vatican 1.
Pray and think about it
You have lost the Faith. Pray this "Lord be my strength and my salvation."
Oh my Lord. You are sitting in judgement of the Pope. Have you no shame?
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.