Posted on 01/02/2005 1:59:29 PM PST by wagglebee
"No, silly. The archbishop isn't excommunicated. The Pope just THINKS he's excommunicated, but the Pope can't REALLY excommunicated because he doesn't have the authority to excommunicate anyone."
You're the one who's silly--and ignorant. The excommunication was automatic--latae sententiae--which means that it depended on the intention of the Archbishop, what was in the mind and heart of the Archbishop, not what the Pope THOUGHT was in the mind and heart of the Archbishop. The Pope did not excommunicate him personally, remember. But even if he did--such an excommunication would have a legal validity only, but absolutely no moral validity. Why? Because while the Pope is the Supreme Legislator and cannot be limited from below, he is limited from above--by God's Divine Law.
It is Divine Law on which all of Canon Law is predicated. Its basic premise is that the innocent should not be punished. If the Archbishop acted to defend the faith, therefore, it doesn't matter what the Pope says or does, he acted innocently and cannot be judged as culpable. It is what was in the Archbishop's heart that counts. If he were judged to have acted schismatically, then that judgment has no moral validity whatsoever. It DOES have a legal ramification, however--and people like you and your friends are damned quick to hurl abuse on the basis of that slim thread alone. But the excommunication has no real validity in the eyes of Heaven--and that's what counts, not what a what this heterodox Pope dreams up in lieu of the real reason for resistance--the clear desire to save Catholic Tradition from modernist destruction.
"If the Pope is preaching the gospel authentically, then this sentence does not apply to the conversation. If he is not, then this sentences establishes that he is anathema."
We have to use prudence in judging this--which is why I have never insisted the Pope was a heretic, only heterodox--which is obvious. The following is from a June 30, 2001 article in the Remnant by Brian Harrison on papal heresy:
_______________________________________________
In short, in order for a Pope to lose office through heresy, all the following conditions would have to be met:
(a) there must be clear evidence of the Pope’s dissent from a truth “of divine and Catholic faith”, i.e, a truth proposed by the infallible ordinary or extraordinary magisterium as revealed dogma (as distinct from those doctrines which are proposed — perhaps even infallibly — as being at least bound upwith revelation, but not necessarily revealed in themselves);
(b) there must be clear evidence that dissent from the dogma in question is really in the mind of the Pontiff, i.e., that we are not dealing merely with a case of faulty or ambiguous verbal expression in his written or spoken intervention(s) that have given rise to misunderstandings;
(c) there must be clear evidence of pertinacity, i.e., evidence that competent persons (cardinals, bishops, or other theologians) have personally remonstrated with the Holy Father (as they did with John XXII in the 14th century), showing him the clear evidence from the previous Magisterium that his opinion flouts revealed truth — but that even so, he has stubbornly refused to recant after a reasonable period of time;
(d) the heresy must be so clear-cut and obvious as to be “notorious”, i.e., recognizable as heresy by a consensus (moral unanimity) of those qualified to judge, namely, other Successors of the Apostles in communion with Rome. They (unlike individuals such as Mr. Larrabee, Fr. Cekada, or myself) have been promised ex officio a special share in the Holy Spirit’s guidance as official teachers of the faith. Thus, a more subtle papal heresy, which left the Bishops and Cardinals divided and confused as to its heretical status — for instance, one which had not so far been clearly and solemnly defined as such by the extraordinary magisterium — could not qualify as notorious. (In a complex, difficult case like that, it is also much more likely that the Pope’s heresy would in any case be material only, rather than obstinate and formal.)
"What separates Lefebvre from Martin Luther?"
The Catholic faith.
Apples and oranges. Saying something is valid does not mean it is good. Many would argue a Black Mass is valid. Nobody would say it was good. The Novus Ordo is dangerous to the faith because it makes Protestants out of Catholics. Since its institution, two-thirds of all Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence. Get the point?
"Because it was approved of by the Pope and the bishops of the entire world, without dissent."
It is Theology 101 that God's will is sometimes merely permissive. If wrong-minded men insist on something, He will allow them to have their way. He does not bless it, He merely permits it--and lets the consequences play out.
Good point.
I think one of the stereotypes of Catholics is that they're big on a lot of things, but they're not too big on Mercy.
Peruse some of the 'Catholic' threads here to catch a glimpse of this. It's quite astounding.
The Catholic Fathers of the Church evolved the early Faith into this beautifully thought through and logical masterpiece. The sects that broke off, not including the Eastern Orthodox, found the complexity to their advantage in keeping the Catholic Church on the near perpetual apologetic defensive.
Being on the defensive can rout a general, joyful Mercy, and probably some of the other Graces you mentioned as well. It can also disadvantage the Church insofar as Converts are concerned.
And while I think Catholicism is complete, it's too complex for the regular Joe or Jane. Who has the time and ability to read, retain and incorporate the entire Catechism? It seems to me, if you don't do that (and I haven't, although I'm trying), you don't fully know, and cannot defend your Faith. And in order to feel comfortable with it, you need to be able to do that.
>>I disagree with you about this. In dioceses where the indult is generously offered, the numbers at the Tridentine Mass are still relatively small. Most Catholics attend the Novus Ordo Masses at their local parishes.<<
Could you please point me in the direction of a reference where the indult is "generously offered". It's not that I don't believe you, it's that I have no clue where that is.
In our diocese, it's one downtown church, The Grotto (which is in a really bad area) and our parish. Our Latin mass on Wednesday is packed!
As I am talking to more people, many children of Vatican II want a more traditional mass. Maybe it's just my friends but when they see a more traditional mass in English they want it. In our vicariate, the only parishes that are growing are the traditional parishes. We blessed to have three of them. The diocese is talking about blending parishes by taking the priests from these and having them do double duty at other churches.
In someways I see this as a blessing. Our priest is not going to walk into a liberal church and walk down the aisle shaking hands nor will he allow discussion groups at the homily or glass vessels on the altar. I would be surprised if he allowed Altar Girls.
In my area, those who direct how the parish is heading have no clue what the people want. I was for a short time on the Education Committee of my very liberal parish. The DRE was trying to figure out how to get more parishioners. She asked what the people want. What would get them in there like at the parish I am at now. (she actually told me that she could not understand people my age who wanted more tradition!) I suggested that she ask the congregation what they would want. She blew me off.
At least in my area, tradition gets parishioners.
Oh, my goodness K, that's terrible! .
I'm with you though, in that I can't attend Mass at that Church I mentioned earlier, that I likened to Schuller's Hour of Power. That overwhelming instinct I had to flee was not born of pride, it was born of a real, un-hyped dread. And it is the Church closest to me, so technically I guess I should attend there. But with the Priest's flip comments on the GIRM, the 'pastoral associate' delivering the homily, I don't have confidence in his Priestly abilities.
>> If I am going to recommend the Church to a non-Catholic I want to be sure they will get at least a valid Mass and real Catholic teaching. <<
It seemed from what you wrote previously that you were hard-pressed to find a place to commend to someone. If you are welcoming people to your home parish, good for you. If you were referring only to encountering people from other places where you did know of any particular Catholic Church, I would think they would understand a little warning not to substitute the priest's own personal opinion for the truth of the magisterium. Beyond that, I would simply entrust them to the Father, the Holy SPirit, the Blessed Virgin Mary's intercession, and their own desire to discover truth.
The archdiocese of Washington, DC, has three Indult Masses each week in different parishes, for instance. Yep, can you believe it? That old modernist McCarrick has a generous attitude toward the Indult!
>>It is Theology 101 that God's will is sometimes merely permissive.<<
Oh, come now. You're mixing apples and oranges. God's will is merely permissive in allowing the actions of world leaders, individuals, natural calamaties and the like. It's not merely permissive regarding protecting the Church from promulgating error. Scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church, that St. Peter shall shepherd the faithful, that Hell shall not prevail against the Church, that what the bishops (in accord) proclaim bound on Earth is bound in Heaven, and what they declare loosed on Earth is loosed in Heaven.
You know that; you're well-educated and you're not an idiot. Why you would make such a lousy argument is beyond me.
Who on Earth would argue that a Black Mass is valid? Or are you supposing that the participants would not recognize it as a Black Mass?
Wow!
K omalley came in right after your post and stated that those masses are full.
I think that if people even know about them (funny how the masses in our area are only known by word of mouth), they will be filled.
In my last Protestant/Catholic parish, when I spoke to the mothers picking up their children from CCD after we attended the "First Reconciliation" meeting, none of them wanted what this parish was passing off as Catholic teachings. But no one was listening to us. We would have to do simple things like teaching the Act of Contrition ourselves.
Thanks for your imput!
The funny thing about this is that my parish tries to lay low with all of our traditions. Our DRE actually warned me to be quiet about it for fear that the diocese would come down on us.
It would seem that you are implying the same old lie that many proponants of the New Order tried to put over in the 70s......namely that the new mass is the same as the old - but in the vernalcular.
That contention is totally false - and would be laughable were it not so sad. The new mass and the True Latin mass are not the same rite - the same mass at all. They are completely different. Numerous very rational and scholarly studies published over the last 35 years have abundantly proven that. The "resemblence" which you point to in only in the most broad outline, and certianly not in specifics, nor in the prayer.......which have been so watered down and bastardized as to change their very nature in most cases.
And BTW.......if you have studied your modernism well in the seminary, you would well know that there is no Offertory in the NO.....just the Presentation of the Gifts, complete with jewish prayers.
Psst......God does need nor want bread and wine. Yet, according to the text of the NO, that is what is your "sacrifice of praise".
We still await your definitive defense of the NO, and of Vatican II. Come and enlighten us!
The Church is not dead in Europe.
The same dynamic that is going on in America is going on in France, but it is so far under the radar screen that nobody notices. And unlike in America, where religion is a statistic the government keeps and political parties use, in France religion is not tallied by the government.
And yet, if one looks very carefully and thinks about what one sees out in the provinces, one discovers something that is not commented upon or noticed, but which is real.
The French ARE having children. Lots and lots of children.
As many children, in many cases more children, than the Arabs in the Paris banlieu.
And yet France is said to be depopulating of the European French.
It is, but it isn't.
Follow me, because this stealth trend is not remarked anywhere.
The French who are having children: 3,4 even 5 of them, are the devout Catholics in the provinces. They are not small in number. They are real, and they are persistent, and their faith has not died. In the North and in the South, and sometimes even in the Ile de France when the talented mandarins move there because they do well on the national concours, the devout Catholics are still having babies.
France is not disappearing. It is changing on two poles. Arab immigration and reproduction are increasing Mohammedan numbers, but Catholic reproduction in province is increasing the population of devout Catholics. The secular middle is riding down the train of diminution.
Over time, the balance of the population is shifting with the new generation. There are more Catholics being born than meets the eye, because no eye is looking for that, and yet one need only travel about and really LOOK and one sees it.
Those people are Catholics, and devout. Full stop. They fill the Churches at midnight on Noel, from Normandie through Anjou and the Languedoc. And they are there, most of them, the next Sunday too. The Catholic universities of the provincial towns are not empty caverns, but full of students, and many of them are Catholic, and believing.
No, the Catholic Church in Europe is not dead. It CANNOT die. There is remnant of the faithful which is not only holding fast, but having children. What the American commentator Taranto calls "The Roe Effect" is happening in the province of France (and presumably elsewhere too), but there is no organ of the state to document this, and no think tank that cares about these things or would think it worthy of tracking were it to be noticed.
This does not mean that Europe will experience a Great Awakening any time soon. But the Church is alive, and will always be alive wherever there are believers in Christ. The meek are, ah slowly, inheriting the Earth.
Interesting. I recall being frustrated in catholic school at the ages of five, six, and seven (through college) when nuns and priests could not or would not answer my perfectly logical questions and nastily attacked me for asking. Perhaps they felt I was too "regular" (or possibly too irregular). It seemed to me, however, that they simply didn't have answers.
Defending the faith always seemed beside the point. Takes too much time and energy away from trying to understand the ineffable.
In the vatican museum, quite close to the cistine chapel, I saw the most amazing metal sculpure done in the 1920s. Went back the next day to see it again. In a long gallery, both long walls were covered with metal relief sculptures of nearly life-sized cardinals in tall hats followed by priests, followed by upright lay people, followed by ever-more simple peasants. Everyone was lined up behind the church officials on both long walls. On the shorter wall at the far end of the gallery that they faced, all you could see were towering flames, again in metal relief. The idea was, the church fathres protected their sheep from the flames. Thing was, if you stood in the center of the hall, looking directly at the flames, you could take in the experience on your own. Flames did not look like hell, but like the fire of faith and ecstatic spiritual, mystical experience that many churches talk about.
In other words, for one not standing behind the church, the possibility of direct experience of God was much greater. Possibly dangerous, but really, much more profound. I choose to stand there.
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.