Posted on 02/04/2005 10:15:40 PM PST by narses
A schismatic ultra-conservative Catholic group, whose leader was excommunicated in 1988, has sent a letter to Australia's 1400 Catholic priests trying to recruit them.
The Society of Pius X, followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, rejects the 1960s Vatican II council that liberalised much Catholic practice and teaches that only the Latin (Tridentine) Mass is valid.
The eight-page letter, from Father Francois Laisney of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour in Hampton, invites priests to return to "the Traditional Mass, the Mass of all times, the Mass of the Saints", and offers a free kit to enable them to say the Latin Mass.
Kate Mannix, editor of the independent Catholic internet magazine OnlineCatholics, said yesterday it was significant that no Australian bishop had objected to the letter and the society was being quietly rehabilitated by forces opposed to Vatican II.
Swiss Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre formed the Society of Pius X to reject the "novelties" of Vatican II, which the recruiting letter identifies as collegiality (as opposed to hierarchical authority), ecumenism and religious liberty. He was excommunicated in 1988 for consecrating his own bishops.
Advertisement AdvertisementMs Mannix said most Australian bishops did not support the Latin Mass but did not want a row with Cardinal George Pell, who favoured conservative groups.
"There's been enormous concern about liturgical abuses (by liberal priests) in recent years, yet every time this organisation conducts a Mass it perpetuates liturgical abuse," she said.
Former priest and Catholic author Paul Collins said the concern about the society was its links with neo-fascist groups in Europe and South America.
"For example, they act as de facto chaplains for the Le Pen movement in France," Mr Collins said.
Now officials in Rome understood their fascist connections less and had more sympathy for their conservative view on liturgy. "The Vatican have been falling over themselves to get these people back into communion with Rome," he said.
In Australia the society remained small, with only a few thousand adherents and one church in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Perth.
Brian Lucas, secretary of the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference, said he was aware the society had sent the letter.
"The position of this small group is well known, and we look forward to the day when through dialogue and understanding there can be a reconciliation," he said.
Father Laisney, who is overseas, could not be contacted.
"The archbishop, whom I hope is one day canonized,"
Um, Archbishop Lefebvre died excommunicated from the Church, the Barque of Peter, outside of which there is no salvation. If you believe he was really, truly and justly excommunicated, on what do you base this hope that he will one day be canonized?
Both syncretism and indifferentism are contrary to the Catholic faith. Offering our most sacred altars to heathens for the worship of their gods was a clear violation of Church doctrine. I have no intention of accepting such teachings--not in the name of ecumenism nor anything else--because the Church has consistently considered such actions heretical. No pope is exempt from these teachings any more than he is exempt from not commiting murder.
Their is nothing to discuss, really. The Seat is Empty Sede Vacante', JP II knows this just as John XXIII knew it whe he read the Third Secret Of Fatima. The Third Secret of Fatima which was to be read in 1960 remains closed -- and for a reason. The Heretics that hijacked Vatican II and brought the Heretic Modernisn and Socialism into the Catholic Church.
The Novus Ordo is Heresy, it goes against the Laws of the LORD plain and simple. No Language, even the greasy, sleasy French language cannot be used to interpret the Liturgy in any way to justify support of the Socialist/Communist agenda.
John Paul may be Pope, but Pope to who? Leader of what? The Papal Edicts were alwasy adhered to followed to the letter. Parishoners never had to question the practices of their Bishops or Priests before Vatican II or 1962. Now the Bishops question JPII's Edicts and decide for themselves if they will follow the Edicts from Rome. So JPII has been NAMED POPE, OK, Pope to who, Pope to What??
Their has not been a true and valid POPE since Pope Pius XII and there will not be a true and valid POPE until the Requsets of the Blessed Virgin are completed and The Third Secret of Fatima revealed. The SSPX is a small but important step, back to the Laws of God.
The Third Secret my friends will be the end of the Novus Ordo, the end of the Orthodox Rite, The Catholic Church will be ONE. Until then we suffer, because without the Love of God, Life has no meaning. Sede Vacante
You're not helping his cause with your attacks on him, his bishops and priests, and those lay Catholics who assist at Masses offered by them.
I'm still looking for a Parish that gives masses in Semaphore, but have not had any luck.
This is ecclesiastical Art Bell stuff, charlie. Really. Does this weirdness explain why you want to kill every Muslim on earth?
But people like Mershon will counter that for all his flaws as a leader, this Pope is a holy man. The only trouble is, it's impossible to achieve sanctity if a person neglects his primary station in life. Unfortunately for JPII, it's a pope's primary duty to defend the Catholic faith, not to pal around with witchdoctors and preside over youth rallies.
Pius VI - Charitas - On the Civil Oath in FranceThe enemies of religion then realized correctly that their vicious plans would come to nothing unless they persuaded some bishop, either by appealing to his ambition or his stupidity, to take the oath to observe the Constitution and to undertake sacrilegious consecrations and so, to initiate a schism. Among those who have been overcome by this wicked deceit the first was Charles bishop of Autun, the greatest enthusiast for the Constitution; second was Jean-Joseph bishop of Lidda; third was Louis bishop of Orleans; fourth, Charles bishop of Viviers; fifth, Cardinal de Lomenie, Archbishop of Sens; and a few wretched pastors of lower rank ... From this series of sins schism is being introduced and spread in the kingdom of France, which is so dear to Us and has served religion so well; for the same reason pastors of first and second rank are being everywhere elected as the days go by, legitimate ministers are ejected from their positions, and ravening wolves are put in their place. We are certainly saddened by this sorrowful situation.
Their has not been a true and valid POPE since Pope Pius XII
Was Bl. John XXIII a heretic? How you could read a beautiful exposition of Catholic doctrine such as Ad Petri Cathedram and say such a thing is beyond me.
Well of course that's correct, Mershon. There isn't any.
That's not the problem. The problem is that faithless prelates suppress true Catholic belief and practice, burden us with crap, and use a myriad of deceptive and coercive means to get the faithful to go along with a new understanding of Catholcism, and a new practice of it.
But that's not nearly as bad as the over-zealous right-wing liberals calling themselves conservative Catholics they are manipulating into their service, who fall all over themselves to embrace a stupid new way of being Catholic in our age of enlightened so-called. It's these people who are the brainless inertia of conciliar Catholicism. The faithless prelates are merely enablers by dropping a truckload of the manure of ambiguity in their driveways. They know they can count on the pious newbies to make of it what they will and to distribute it accordingly.
What, do you think you caught him in some sort of trap here?
Here's the fact: a New Catholicism is being brandished as if it were something we were under pain of obedience to buy into and to practice. Don't pretend like you don't know this, eh? Check it out: every instance of a traditional Catholic priest getting the axe is based not on any errancy in doctrine or practice, but on some dorky trumped up disobedience charge. And they trap them into the disobedience charges, too. They lay out traps for them, and make compliance impossible. That's because they could never deal with true Catholic teaching and true Catholic practice up front. Never. They know this.
How about this. What's his error? You would be at equal loss to identify it. Is he going to Hell, or what? What's at stake here?
It isn't vacant.
"The Heretics that hijacked Vatican II and brought the Heretic Modernisn and Socialism into the Catholic Church."
That's true.
"The Novus Ordo is Heresy, it goes against the Laws of the LORD plain and simple."
It would be better to say that it facilitates heresy and heretics.
"John Paul may be Pope, but Pope to who? Leader of what?"
The Catholic Church.
"The Papal Edicts were alwasy adhered to followed to the letter. Parishoners never had to question the practices of their Bishops or Priests before Vatican II or 1962."
They should have, because modernists were well in place a century previous to 1962.
"Now the Bishops question JPII's Edicts and decide for themselves if they will follow the Edicts from Rome."
They'll pay in Hell if they don't repent.
"So JPII has been NAMED POPE, OK, Pope to who, Pope to What??"
The Catholic Church.
"Their has not been a true and valid POPE since Pope Pius XII and there will not be a true and valid POPE until the Requsets of the Blessed Virgin are completed and The Third Secret of Fatima revealed."
This is not the case.
"The SSPX is a small but important step, back to the Laws of God."
It can't be a step if it never moved in the first place.
"The Third Secret my friends will be the end of the Novus Ordo, the end of the Orthodox Rite, The Catholic Church will be ONE.
It will come to an end.
"Until then we suffer, because without the Love of God, Life has no meaning."
Right.
"Sede Vacante"
Wrong.
Collect yourself, and defend Holy Mother Church.
Very nice. All the blather you have cut & pasted was in reference to the transitional diaconate, through which our ordinand passed before being ordained to the priesthood.
They do not necessarliy or directly refer to the modern confection, post V2, of the "permanent diaconate", which is something not in existence nor conceived of when those things were written.
And......who cares anyway?
The diaconate is not a "modern confection." St. Peter established the diaconate as a separate order, St. Stephen, the first martyr, was a deacon, and deacons in the early Church did not go on to the priesthood; their order was unique and "permanent."
If anything, the transitional diaconate is a modern confection.
Relevant to what you said about JPII, Fr. Malachi MArtin very aptly described him in one of his chapter headings in "Keys of This Blood" as "Nobody's Pope".
That very phrase is pregnant with meaning.
"The archbishop, whom I hope is one day canonized,..."
A lot of hedge betting here I fear. People dining with SSPX priests and attending their Masses, then criticising or misrepresenting them afterwards. We all know some traditionalists move from church to church to sample the brew and cover all contingencies. We have yet to experience the band-wagon effect of a traditionalist revival but when it comes we will be crushed under foot by those wanting to be on the winning side. Mershon may have heard Michael Davies say Lefebvre would one day be canonised. I wonder if his friend Ratzinger concurred.
Perhaps you'd like to explain the difference between the so-called "transitional diaconate" and the "permanent diaconate" which is so great as to make one a Sacrament and one not? The same rite of ordination is used for both.
Although some functions of the deacons, especially in missionary countries, are in fact accustomed to be entrusted to lay men it is nevertheless "beneficial that those . . . who perform a truly diaconal ministry be strengthened by the imposition of hands, a tradition going back to the Apostles, and be more closely joined to the altar so that they may more effectively carry out their ministry through the sacramental grace of the diaconate."[4] Certainly in this way the special nature of this order will be shown most clearly. It is not to be considered as a mere step towards the priesthood, but it is so adorned with its own indelible character and its own special grace so that those who are called to it "can permanently serve the mysteries of Christ and the Church."[5] (Paul VI, Motu Proprio Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem)
who cares anyway?
Apparently you do, since you went to such an effort to impugn sinkspur's Orders and his status as a cleric.
The present so-called "permanent Diaconte" is indeed a modern confection. It really does not matter what occurred in the primitive church, as for centuries the diaconate was transitional.
You are ignoring all of the many intervening centuries when there was no such permanent order of deacons.
It doesn't matter what St. Peter did?
The Council of Trent had the revival of the permanent diaconate on its agenda, but did not take it up.
You don't recognize the diaconate as a separate order, as leaving an indelible sign, and think it's some kind of "confection."
You really do need to read some sacramental theology.
And your support of sinkspur is circumstantial evidence.
Not that direct evidence is lacking.
Please go take your cut & paste ministry elsewhere!
Anyone who has eyes to see or ears to hear knows that the ordination of a priest and of a deacon are two completely different things. I would not even dignify such an argument.
Secondly, there are those like myself who would seriously question the sanity of the creation by Paul VI of the Permanent Diaconate. It serves very little real, practical purpose.........and deacons are not substitutes for priests. Frankly, it makes very little sense........and is not, and would not be used in any TLM setting.
I have no way of knowing for a fact whether or not Sinkspur is actually a deacon. Any more then one could know - or not know - whether I am a priest or a bishop. We are whom we say we are on an anonymous forum.
You think that "transitional" deacons are ordained as deacons using the rite of ordination for a priest?
It serves very little real, practical purpose
Do you question the sanity and practicality of an apostolic practice (permanent deacons). See for yourself the reason of the twelve: "look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business" (Acts 6:3). That doesn't sound like a so-called "transitional" diaconate to me.
Any more then one could know - or not know - whether I am a priest or a bishop.
We can all see, from your manifest lack of theological learning, that you are not a priest or a bishop.
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.