Posted on 09/20/2004 7:38:56 AM PDT by NYer
Taking a break from judging annulments earlier today, I visited a number of French traditionalist websites. I also had the opportunity, yesterday, to speak with a friend of mine who is a canonist from France following the situation as well as another friend who keeps tabs on the traditionalist movement in both the English and the French speaking world. Everyone agrees -- the situation has degenerated into total chaos, as nobody knows exactly what is going on with the highly-respected French SSPX clergy that have criticized what they see as the SSPX's growing rigidity.
It does appear that Rome has refused to take competency over the case, more-or-less stating that the SSPX denied Rome's jurisdiction over them when Lefebvre carried out a schismatic act through the 1988 episcopal consecrations. Beyond that, Rome refuses to comment other than to say, "Our door remains open for their return to full communion."
Beyond that, the rhetoric, polemic and accusations suggest that indeed civil war is breaking out among the laity and clergy within the SSPX's French District. In fact, two websites have now popped up that are exclusively devoted to tracing all the news stories associated with the crisis. What I find personally find interesting is that every news report, commentary, polemic, etc... mentions Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion from the SSPX around this time last year.
In the months that followed, it appears that the SSPX more-or-less tried to sweep Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion under the rug. But in so doing, even the regime currently in charge of the SSPX had to admit the important role played by Fr. Aulagnier in the founding of the SSPX. This is probably why the SSPX appeared to hope the issue would go away.
Yet it is also well-known that Fr. Aulagnier was a close friend of Fr. Laguerie as well as Fr. de Tanouarn -- two of the SSPX's leading priests. (As Fr. Laguerie's assistant, Fr. Henri appears to have just happened into the situation). It is also well-known that a number of French (and some American) SSPX priests were not happy with Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion. Therefore, I will venture to guess that the current SSPX chaos is the effect of Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion coming back to haunt Bishop Fellay. As for the particular details, this is the first time in almost fourteen years of being a traditionalist that I find the fog of war too thick to reasonably discern what is going on. (What I find even more troubling is that behind the scenes, under the flag of truce, other SSPX and traditionalist commentators with whom I am in contact have admitted to having the same problem.)
So if I can end on a personal note to the moderate SSPX clergy and their supporters who follow this blog, I'm more than happy to abide by the flag of truce and keep you guys in prayer while you fight whatever battles need to be fought, but I honestly cannot make heads-or-tails of what is happening. But like Rome has said, the door is open for you to return. I will pray that God gives you the necessary strength to walk through it.
Words, even those of the archschismatic, have meanings.
Bears repeating.
How does the religious/philiosphical equivalent of Woodstock get virulently defended on a website purportedly intended to re-elect George Bush?
Vatican II = John Kerry = liberalism
Can the supporters of Vatican II cite 1 conservative effect of its promulgation? John Kerry, Daniel Berrigan, Ted Kennedy, Frances Kissling, Andrew Greely and Roger Mahoney all love Vatican II
Conservatives, neo-conservatives, rightists and Bush supporters would be correct to be wary of these neo-Catholics. They are pulling the lever for Kerry in overwhelming numbers and they are burrowed deep inside the Religion forum of Free-Republic.
Credit the place of burial and what is (weakly) known about that, i.e., not a tar pit or source of construction materials but a place of burial for martyrs (inter alia?) purchased and prepared by wealthy Christians as an expression of piety; that there was a vial which appears to have contained her blood that was buried with her (give benefit of any doubt since that is very highly likely to indicate that whoever the girl may have been she was probably martyred) and we have a martyr of uncertain name (actual name is irrelevant compared to evidence of Christian martyrdom), some evidence that she was lanced and a claim that she was attached to an anchor and drowned (how hat correlates with the fractured skull is not immediately apparent.
The rest is pious stuff emanating from enthusiasts but based upon what may not very well be called evidence. Rather think of her as the unknown matrtyr because that is what she is. To presume an entire biography from what little evidence is available is the sort of thing that has often brought canonization into some disrepute.
If non-Catholics do not have confidence in our canonizations, I will survive. This sort of thing gives rise to a very reasonable skepticism among Catholics who care about the truth.
Pope Gregory XVI did not canonize a biography. He canonized an apparently martyred young girl. On one interpretation of the letters on the broken tiles above her grave, she was named (by Gregory XVI at least) at her canonization as Philomena. Fair enough.
Let us not be carried away by private revelations (if they were revelations at all) to assume biographical details entirely devoid of evidence. Many more people have been martyred for the Faith and whose biographies and even names are long and permanently forgotten on earth. We will know all of the truth when we are dead.
I will concede that even the meager available evidence seems quite persuasive that this girl was martyred, was martyred for the Faith, and thus a saint.
God wills His justice when the time comes to mete it out as to any given individual.
There was no "violation of his vow of obedience", there was no "massive sin of scandal", there was no "grand theft ecclesiastical", and your saying so doesn't make it so. No pope may command what would inflict great harm to souls. The Pontiff's command, intended to destroy the ancient Mass and to deal a final blow to Catholic Tradition itself, was illegitimate and was consequently owed no obedience. Thus there could have been no sin of scandal on the part of the Archbishop. The scandal was on the part of this Pope who persecuted traditional Catholics even while he elevated perverts and public heretics. Nor was there any grand theft--the Archbishop had every canonical right under emergency circumstances to consecrate, and did so for the sole purpose of assuring the survival of the true Catholic faith. The fault, therefore, was the Pope's for for maligning the innocent. After twenty-five years of this pontificate, moreover, how can you argue it has been successful? The fruits have been rotten. It is JPII, not Marcel Lefebvre, who has proven to have been the false prophet.
You are absolutely right. The problem is that people like Black Elk cannot connect the dots. They blame the bishops, but not the pope who put them in their seats of power. They see the corruption and apostasy and think it has just sort of happened on its own without being part of the Roman agenda. They admit the Pope has supreme authority--but then do not blame him for not using that authority to reform the corruption and apostasy that permeates the Church. They see with their own eyes that he has awarded red hats to heretics and has given Holy Communion to known abortion activists and has prayed with animists THEIR prayers--but they do not question these anomalies any more than they would question God Himself. In other words, they consider the Pope above morality and the faith itself. They accept the exaggerated notion of the papacy most Protestants would falsely claim the Catholic Church teaches.
But the "See of Peter" is not synonymous with the Pope. This was like saying "the White House is full of traitors". It is an ambiguous term--deliberately so--and may mean either the pope himself or his staffers. Obviously Lefebvre was not referring to the Pope since he rejected sedevacantism--and even in the same letter urges his bishops not to ever abandon the "See of Peter".
"Please continue to bray in the outer darkness and do NOT come home to the actual Roman Catholic Church."
I may bray, but you hiss as you slither through these posts spitting venom.
"Please continue to bray in the outer darkness and do NOT come home to the actual Roman Catholic Church."
I may bray, but you hiss, spitting venom.
"Words, even those of the archschismatic, have meanings."
Sure. And the meaning was on target. There are Antichrists in Rome. The Pope has given some of them red hats.
I heard Jimmy Breslin condemning the Catholic bishops for being Republicans. "Abortion, abortion, abortion, that's all they talk about." I guess it all depends on which particular beef with the Church one has that determines the color with which one perceives it.
According to a poll cited by Rush Limbaugh recently, most regular churchgoers favor Mr. Bush. 62%. I would assume that figure also applies to practicing Catholics.
Well, not bad, considering the only information I passed along was that which I culled from the Internet. I'm sure further research would bear out your conclusion.
I think we should chalk this up to a misunderstanding - or at least poor communication - as we all agree that God doesn't not will anyone to be damned, but His justice will result in them being damned if they die with unrepentant mortal sin on their souls.
Can you site another pontifical document with similar language over a disciplinary matter? (this is a curiosity question, not a challenge)
I've always thought that Pius V did intend exactly what his words said he did, but since he has no power to bind his successors, it didn't matter.
. A pack of liberal bishops in the 1960s hijacked the Church, Protestantized the Mass, knowingly became a hive for predatory homosexuals, mismanaged the Church in a way to bring it massive ridicule, and generally discredited the Church as an institution before billions of people throughout the world, and many virulently defend the sordid legacy of Vatican Two
Spiritual blindness is a major causative factor here. Because of the tremendous influence of the Devil in these times, men will easily see bad as good, black as white, and not know the difference.
On the Traditional & Conservative end of the spectrum we have folks hissing and spitting at each other over matters which, in some cases are so inconsequential as to be silly.
"Satan seeks to sieve you all like chaff", as he knows that if you are divided against yourself, you cannot fight what is really important.
On the Liberal end of the spectrum, we see people gleefully supporting all manner of liturgical and theological madness, which a generation or so ago would have earned one the brand of being a heretic. Here again, Satan seeks to blind and lead astray.
Political ramifications aside, all are affected by a form of spiritual blindness, and mental disorientation - to a greater or lesser personal extent.
The solution lies in prayer. Genuine prayer. Totally humble and submissive prayer, where the suppliant totally opens himself up to the grace and the will of God, and allows the Holy Spirit to work on and in him. The suppliant must be willing to be totally stripped of all - mind, memory, everything......like a junk car, and completely rebuilt from the ground up. Only then, can he see with the light of truth....only then can he see, with the gifts of KNowledge, Wisdom, and Understanding what is reality.
Christ had the power to make the blind see when he walked the earth. He still does. But like that blind man, he must fall at the feet of Christ, forsaking all else, risking all, and beg to be made whole.
Such restoration is given freely by God - but you must want it with all your heart and soul, for "it is awful to fall into the hands of a loving God".
If your mind and your soul were the subject of "This Old House".......Bob Vila ain't got nothing on God!
The problem with that argument is that Paul VI and the Consilium both strenuously insisted that the sacrificial meaning of the Mass remained intact. The Preamble to the GIRM is clear that the 1970 Missal is in-line with Tridentine theology.
The "sacrifice" in the New Mass is that of Thanksgiving for salvation only, not that of Propitiation and the Cross.
That simply doesn't make sense. The 1970 Missal is clear that the sacrifice is that of Christ, the Victim.
Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.Look with favor on your Church's offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood ... (Eucharistic Prayer III, ICEL)
Can you explain how exactly "this holy and living sacrifice" is only "thanksgiving for salvation only"? Does "thanksgiving for salvation only" have body and blood? Did it die to reconcile men to God? I don't think so.
This is why one of the first things Bugnini did was to throw out the Offertory
But the Offertory wasn't thrown out. The prayers super oblata include many of the traditional secrets, and they clearly communicate the offertory idea (we are dealing with Bugnini here, and he worked in Latin):
Fac nos, quaesumus, Domine,
his muneribus offerendis convenienter aptari,
quibus ipsius venerabilis sacramenti celebramus exordium. (1st Sunday of Lent)
This is the same prayer as that of the 1962 Secret for Ash Wednesday.
Haec hostia, Domine, quaesumus, emundet nostra delicta,
et ad celebranda festa paschalia
fidelium tuorum corpora mentesque sanctificet. (2nd Sunday of Lent)
Here is the Secret for Quinquagesima Sunday in the 1962 Missal:
Haec hostia, Domine, quaesumus: emundet nostra delicta: et ad sacrificium celebrandum, subditorum tibi corpora, mentesque sanctificet
So this super oblata is almost identical to a traditional prayer, and "hostia" (sacrificial offering) cleansing our crimes is a clear profession in the propitiatory nature of the Sacrifice.
His sacrificiis, Domine, concede placatus,
ut, qui propriis oramus absolvi delictis,
fraterna dimittere studeamus. (3rd Sunday of Lent)
This is one of the prayers composed by the Consilium. That it teaches that the Lord is "appeased" by "these sacrifices" shows that the Consilium was not a collection of Protestants!
Remedii sempiterni munera, Domine, laetantes offerimus,
suppliciter exorantes,
ut eadem nos et fideliter venerari,
et pro salute mundi congruenter exhibere perficias. (4th Sunday of Lent)
This prayer is loosely based on one from the Gelasian Sacramentary. Here we see that we are to faithfully revere the gifts which are being offered at Mass and display them for the salvation of the world. The offertory idea is clearly there.
Exaudi nos, omnipotens Deus,
et famulos tuos, quos fidei christianae eruditionibus imbuisti,
huius sacrificii tribuas operatione mundari.
There is no ancestor of this prayer in the 1962 Missal, but here again we find the idea of "this sacrifice" cleansing those who hold the christian faith. There is nothing here to make us think that this sacrifice is only one of thanksgiving, and much in the Eucharistic Prayers to make us conclude that "this sacrifice" refers to the sacrifice of Christ.
What happens is that while the Great Mystery of Faith does occur, the Real Presence is deliberately ignored by the priest and the assembly. Instead of a focus on the living Presence on the altar, attention is immediately trained instead on the virtual Presence of Christ in the assembly.
What are you talking about? Right after the words of consecration, the priest genuflects. Then the priest proclaims that Christ is present to the congregation: "the Mystery of Faith!" and the people respond by glorifying him made present on the altar.
a. Mortem tuam annuntiamus, Domine, et tuam resurrectionem confitemur, donec venias.
b. Quotiescumque manducamus panem hunc et calicem bibimus, mortem tuam annuntiamus, Domine, donec venias.
c. Salvator mundi, salva nos, qui per crucem et resurrectionem tuam liberasti nos.
Conservatism has EVERYTHING to do with holding to what is true and rejecting what is not.
You should learn the difference between the baby and bathwater before you have children.
St. Pius V's bull reforming the breviary used similar language. I could see an argument made for the Mass (if the Pope actually had that power), but the liturgy of the Hours isn't even a sacrament, and Pius X was totally unaware of the idea that Pius V's bull "Quod a nobis" tried to do such a thing as bind Pius V's successors. If Pius V had actually tried to do that, Pius X would have had to explain the problem in Divino Afflatu, just like Pius XII had to deal with the Council of Florence in Sacramentum Ordinis.
Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to venture to go contrary to this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult declaration, will, decree and prohibition. Should anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. (St. Pius V, Quod a Nobis)
If you look over "Quo Primum", there is never an explicit statement binding his successors. Interestingly, I did just recently come across a Papal attempt to forbid action by his successors:
Thus, moreover, by the authority of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul we entirely forbid that at any time any of our successors from this our permission take or fix a rule for himself or another, because the authority of the ancient Fathers has not promulgated this by order or grant, but too great a necessity of the time has forced us to permit it... (Nicholas II, Council of Rome in 1060, Dz. 354)
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.