Inculturation at Papal Masses; next, Poland and St. Faustina

Faustina believed that Jesus had appeared to her in 1931with a message of mercy for all humanity.

It seems the other posters have beat me to the image, so here's an aspect to the Divine Mercy that may or may not be known.

Why would Christ emphasize in our time a doctrine, the Divine Mercy, which has been part of the patrimony of the Faith from the beginning, as well as request new devotional and liturgical expressions of it? In His revelations to St. Faustina Jesus answers this question, connecting it to another doctrine, also sometimes little emphasized, that of His Second Coming. In the Gospel the Lord shows us that His first coming was in humility, as a Servant, to free the world from sin. Yet, He promises to return in glory to judge the world on love, as He makes clear in his discourses on the Kingdom in Matthew chapters 13 and 25. In between these Comings we have the end times or era of the Church, in which the Church ministers reconciliation to the world until the great and terrible Day of the Lord, the Day of Justice. Every Catholic should be familiar with the teaching of the Church on this matter, contained in paragraphs 668 to 679 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Only in the context of public revelation as taught by the Magisterium can we situate the words of private revelation given to Sr. Faustina.

You will prepare the world for My final coming. (Diary 429)
Speak to the world about My mercy ... It is a sign for the end times. After it will come the Day of Justice. While there is still time, let them have recourse to the fountain of My mercy. (Diary 848)
Tell souls about this great mercy of Mine, because the awful day, the day of My justice, is near. (Diary 965).
I am prolonging the time of mercy for the sake of sinners. But woe to them if they do not recognize this time of My visitation. (Diary 1160)
Before the Day of Justice, I am sending the Day of Mercy. (Diary 1588)

He who refuses to pass through the door of My mercy must pass through the door of My justice. (Diary 1146).

In addition to these words of Our Lord Sr. Faustina gives us the Words of the Mother of Mercy, the Blessed Virgin,

You have to speak to the world about His great mercy and prepare the world for the Second Coming of Him who will come, not as a merciful Savior, but as a just Judge. Oh how terrible is that day! Determined is the day of justice, the day of divine wrath. The angels tremble before it. Speak to souls about this great mercy while it is still the time for granting mercy. (Diary 635).

It is clear that, like the message of Fátima, the urgency here is the urgency of the Gospel, "repent and believe." The exact timing is the Lord's. However, it is also clear that we have reached some critical phase of the end times that began with the birth of the Church. To this fact Pope John Paul II alluded at the consecration in 1981 of the Shrine of Merciful Love in Collevalenaza, Italy, when he noted the "special task" assigned to him by God "in the present situation of man, the Church and the world." In His Encyclical on the Father he urges us "to implore God's mercy for humanity in this hour of history ... to beg for it a this difficult, critical phase of the history of the Church and of the world as we approach the end of the second millennium." (Rich in Mercy

St.Chuck and sinkspur, I notice neither of you, or others of your ilk, EVER attempt to refute the FACTS - BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.

I refuted the claim that Chris Ferrara is a reporter. He described the events at the canonization as "insane", which is a subjective comment, worthy of an editorialist. He is not, nor ever been objective, so to describe him as some kind of journalist with any legitmacy is erroneous, and needed to be pointed out.I suspect you would do the same thing had you noticed.

More generally, facts don't necessarily need to be disputed. What is more pressing is the (in)significance, (lack of)meaning, and (mis)application of facts by some people. Take this fact from Ecclesia Dei:

" In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."

I don't need to refute it. It is crystal clear to me what it means. But for some, it means that the authority and primacy of the Vicar of Christ is illegitimate. For others it means the French bishops are really in control. These are the things that need to be refuted.

Instead like your father, the Father of Lies, you attempt to divert attention from the facts, ignore the truth, chip away slowly like all heretical liberals at the Deposit of the Faith, and basically gnash your teeth, rent your garments and generally foam at the mouth in indignation whenever the light of day reveals your nefarious actions.

You don't like my posts.

You've been given a free pass by the real Catholics on this list for much too long. Your tactics with them in every posting are to pressure them to concede as much territory to the right as possible or to separate themselves from brother Catholics. As Pope Pius XI said, there are no enemies on the right.

The political spectrum is circular. The far right, let's say libertarians, can have leftist or liberal tendencies.Drug legalization is one example where leftists and the far right come together. As well, leftists can have fascist qualities. Socialism and communism are leftist philosophies with large doses of totalitarianism. In the case of right wing schismatics in the church, they have moved around the circle to join the Call to Action and We are Church crowd. They all share the same elements of cafeteria Catholicism that puts them in a precarious position. They all reject certain elements of the Magesterium. Yes, the pope is once again right. There are no enemies on the right.

You hold on to Ecclesia Dei as though it were Sacred Scripture. But it cannot undo, and did not undo, Canon Law, which is also the Pope's word. And these canons provide that a State of Necessity can void an excommunication. These were clearly the canons Archbishop Lefebvre knew exonerated him. But even if they did not exist, the Doctors of the Church themselves have taught that a command to harm the Church is unlawful and must not be obeyed, even if the command were given by a pope.

SSPX is virtually the memory of the Catholic Church. It is Catholicism as it had always been practiced before the post-conciliar debacle. Its Masses and devotions and teachings are what the Church has always prayed and taught. Nor does it reject this Pope. In fact, it prays for him at every Mass, though it would openly deny he has any authority to oppose traditional Catholicism. This is because his authority exists only to GUARD the traditional faith, not to undermine or destroy it.

There are some on this thread who believe the Pope himself decides what is tradition. Such a notion is an absurdity and would deny tradition its own objective content. Tradition is what is passed on, not what is invented. It is what guarantees the validity of the deposit of faith. It is precisely because such truths are handed down UNCHANGED from apostolic times to our own that we affirm them. If they may be altered, then the whole of the deposit would be placed in doubt. Yet tradition itself is what this modernist Pope and his appointees are now actively dismantling.

Here is what the papal oath of office says:

I VOW TO CHANGE NOTHING OF THE RECEIVED TRADITION, AND NOTHING THEREOF I HAVE FOUND BEFORE ME GUARDED BY MY GOD-PLEASING PREDECESSORS, TO ENCROACH UPON, TO ALTER, OR TO PERMIT ANY INNOVATION THEREIN.

And the oath closes with this powerful avowal:

ACCORDINGLY, WITHOUT EXCLUSION, WE SUBJECT TO SEVEREST EXCOMMUNICATION ANYONE--BE IT OURSELVES OR BE IT ANOTHER--WHO WOULD DARE TO UNDERTAKE ANYTHING NEW IN CONTRADICTION TO THIS CONSTITUTED EVANGELIC TRADITION AND THE PURITY OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH AND THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, OR WOULD SEEK TO CHANGE ANYTHING BY HIS OPPOSING EFFORTS, OR WOULD AGREE WITH THOSE WHO UNDERTAKE SUCH A BLASPHEMOUS VENTURE.

If the Pope himself had the power to determine what tradition is, would he be obliged to take such an oath? Yet this Pope acts as if he may violate it at whim--as he did most flagrantly at Assisi--and he does nothing to check those who continue to attack the very traditions he is obliged under pain of excommunication to protect. In fact, these ecclesiastical forces are imposing upon the people what is tantamount to a totally new religion, replete with its own new Mass, its protestantized culture and its own set of newly-minted doctrines.

The recent declaration of the American bishops on our relations with the Jews is only the latest test for this papacy. If Rome either ignores or supports this heretical declaration, it will make utterly clear that John Paul II does not intend to reject apostasy or oppose the forces which oppose the Catholic Faith, as he is bound by the papal oath to do.

You hold on to Ecclesia Dei as though it were Sacred Scripture.

You ignore it as if it didn't exist.

But it cannot undo, and did not undo, Canon Law, which is also the Pope's word. And these canons provide that a State of Necessity can void an excommunication. These were clearly the canons Archbishop Lefebvre knew exonerated him.

Lefebvre was mistaken. It has been shown to you on numerous occaisions how he was mistaken.Your unacceptance of the Church's position can only be attributed to.....well, I don't know the cause. It's very sad though. Your constant repition of your private interpretation of canon law will not change the facts.

But even if they did not exist, the Doctors of the Church themselves have taught that a command to harm the Church is unlawful and must not be obeyed, even if the command were given by a pope.

Nothing the pope has done concerning Lefebvre has been harmful to the church. On the contrary, he acted to protect the primacy of Rome, and the salvation of individual souls.

SSPX is virtually the memory of the Catholic Church. It is Catholicism as it had always been practiced before the post-conciliar debacle. Its Masses and devotions and teachings are what the Church has always prayed and taught. Nor does it reject this Pope. In fact, it prays for him at every Mass....

OK, you point that out every day. I'm glad. He needs all the prayers he can get.

Yet tradition itself is what this modernist Pope and his appointees are now actively dismantling.

Apparantly the prayers the SSPX are saying for the pope are going unheard.

as he did most flagrantly at Assisi

Ah - the Assissi battle cry. ( Yawn )

The recent declaration of the American bishops on our relations with the Jews is only the latest test for this papacy. If Rome either ignores or supports this heretical declaration, it will make utterly clear that John Paul II does not intend to reject apostasy or oppose the forces which oppose the Catholic Faith, as he is bound by the papal oath to do.

I would have thought that it was utterly clear to you already. I doubt that the pope will have anything to say about some obscure committee's ( to you it's all the American bishops)in the hinterland of the Church's frontier, making some meaningless, feel good statement. I suggest you ignore it. I suggest the SSPX continue it's extraorinary efforts in providing missions to convert Jews to Catholicism. You all can continue to hand out Catholic tracts outside synagogues. Defy the pope..er..committee.

Have a blessed Feast of the Assumption.

You write, "Lefebvre was mistaken." Surely you realize this makes no difference--even if he was mistaken, so long as he believed a State of Necessity existed, the excommunication was void. So even if you are correct, that the Pope was right and Lefebvre wrong--which I suggest is absurd in view of the modernist debacle of the past 30 years--the Pope's own canons state the Archbishop incurred no excommunication if he merely believed he was acting out of a State of Necessity. The Pope, moreover, has never abrogated these canons. They are still in force and condition anything he might have said in Ecclesia Dei.

The top canonists in Rome, moreover, believe no excommunication was incurred. And not long ago when the Bishop of Honolulu excommunicated six Catholics for disobeying his warnings not to attend SSPX Masses, the six appealed to Rome and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ruled the excommunication was invalid since the six individuals were clearly not in schism for attending such Masses. Still again, in 2000 when the Prefect for Ecumenical Relations sought to place the SSPX among other churches outside the Catholic Church--i.e., with Orthodox and Protestant churches--the Prefect of the Office of Ecclesia Dei refused to allow this, stating, "The SSPX is an internal affair within the Church."

If I repeat myself as you keep saying, it is because you and others still don't get it. SSPX is not in schism and never has been. Wishing won't make it so. Neither am I or others schismatic for attending SSPX Masses.

1. Msgr. Perle has long had an animus against traditionalism, and against SSPX in particular. He's hardly someone to cite as being fair- minded or objective.

2. It is true the Pope is the supreme Legislator in the Church. He has his Canon Laws and they allow for a State of Necessity which voids any excommunication which may have been incurred for disobedience. (canons 1320 and 1323.) The Pope, moreover, despite the motu prop. has never abrogated these laws. And they apply whether or not the Archbishop was objectively mistaken or not. As long as he sincerely believed there was a State of Necessity, no excommunication was incurred.

3. Ecclesia Dei has itself declared SSPX is "an internal matter in the Church". It refused for this reason to turn over its files to the Prefect for Ecumenical Relations.

4. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about ten years ago overturned the excommunication decree of the Bishop of Honolulu against six Catholics. The six had been charged with schism for attendance at SSPX Masses. Card. Ratzinger declared that the six individuals were not involved in a schismatic act and could not be excommunicated.

5. Some of the finest canon lawyers in Rome have stated the excommunication of the Archbishop was invalid.

You write, "Lefebvre was mistaken." Surely you realize this makes no difference--even if he was mistaken, so long as he believed a State of Necessity existed, the excommunication was void.

I understand that you hold the " State of Necessity " clause as Lefebvre's loophole. But, as I have explained before, Lefebvre's loophole can, and was, trumped.This is from Canon Law 1323, the pertinent phrase: An excommunication is null and void if someone acted "by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, UNLESS, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls; That word "unless" is key here. I'll grant, for argument's sake, that Lefebvre really believed he had a reason of necessity. But that reason of necessity is voided by the "unless" clause. Because, the pope judged Lefevre's reason of necessity to be intrinsically evil, and/or harmful to souls. How do we know this? In Ecclesia Dei the pope wrote:" Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."A grave offense against God is harmful to souls. I hope you would agree with that. Therefore, the state of necessity becomes void.

I am aware that I have explained this before. I regret that I've needed to again. I just want you to be certain that I understand your defense of Lefebvre. You should understand that I don't buy it because of the "unless" clause. That's all.

Let me get at this from another angle. First, it is certain that the act of consecrating bishops in disobedience to the Pope is not in itself intrinsically evil. This is because an intrinsically evil act is by definition always and everywhere evil. Abortion is considered by the Church an intrinsically evil act. This is because good motives would not change the essential evil of the act, though it would mitigate it.

Archbishop Lefebvre's act of disobediene in consecrating bishops could not be an intrinsically evil act in that sense. Doctors of the Church teach that even the Pope may be disobeyed under certain circumstances--when he supercedes his own authority and commands that which would harm the Church, for instance. Whether this was the case or not with Archbishop Lefebvre, what is indisputable is that his was not an intrinsically evil act. On the contrary, it was an act that was good or bad, depending on circumstances and perceptions. For Lefebvre, the attempt by Modernists to change essential Church doctrines and to destroy Church institutions, coupled with the systemic corruption that was spreading everywhere within the Church, was sufficient reason for believing a State of Necessity existed.

But did his action harm souls? The evidence is it did not and could not--unless it put his followers in formal schism. SSPX, after all, teaches and practices Catholicism as it was taught and practiced for two thousand years, adding nothing that is in any way novel or extreme. Surely such Catholicism is not harmful to souls! But did Archbishop Lefebvre place his followers in schism?

Cardinal Ratzinger himself has answered this question when, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he overturned the excommunication decree of the Bishop of Honolulu against six Catholics who attended SSPX Masses despite repeated warnings. The bishop had charged the six were formerly schismatic. But the decision by Cardinal Ratzinger stated explicitly that their actions did not constitute acts "of formal schism" as the bishop had supposed.

It is no secret that it is the opinion of top canonists in Rome that the excommunication of Lefebvre was void by reason of his perception of a State of Necessity and that his fraternity consequently had never been in true schism. This seems the basis for the Ratzinger decision. It also seems the basis for the continued inistence that the whole matter of Rome's relation with the SSPX is "an internal matter of the Church" and does not properly fall under the aegis of the Prefect of Ecumenical Relations for those outside the Church.

There is this claim, however, that somehow attending SSPX Masses might eventually lead to a schismatic tendency or attitude--but this danger is never defined or explained and appears as just another attempt to discourage traditionalist Catholics from attending SSPX Masses. Since the SSPX acknowledges the Pope as the head of the Church and prays for him at every Mass and when it leads the faithful in recitations of the rosary, how are the faithful placed in jeopardy? The truth is traditionalists who follow the fraternity must put up with a lot of abuse by badly informed Catholics who claim--on the basis of diocesan pundits who demonize the SSPX every chance they get--that its followers are either schismatic or heretical. These charges are thrown around willy-nilly without any attempt to decipher the legal and moral intricacies of the debate from both sides. This is done to dampen enthusiasm for the traditionalist movement in general.

So getting back to your initial objections: 1) the Archbishop's act of disobedience was not intrinsically evil; 2) it did not in any way harm souls; 3) the argument of the State of Necessity therefore was a valid one and voided any excommunication.

Resisting a pope is not in itself unCatholic. WHAT MATTERS IS THE REASON FOR RESISTANCE. You are very confused about these matters. As for harm to souls, how is it harmful to teach Catholic doctrine and to practice Catholicism as it had always been practiced?

Do you know anything at all about the background to the dispute of SSPX with Rome and the French bishops? Do you know, for instance, about the dismissal of a parish priest by his French bishop for the crime of leading a procession of the Blessed Sacrament? Or of another priest dismissed for the crime of saying the old Mass--though no official abrogation was ever promulgated? These were the same bishops who would use every means available to protect clerical pederasts and heretics. Do you think the Archbishop didn't see what was going on? Give me a break.

There is this claim, however, that somehow attending SSPX Masses might eventually lead to a schismatic tendency or attitude-

I've made an exhaustive list of character traits I've found to be caused by SSPX membership on another thread. I believe that the SSPX tends to inculcate a disordered paradigm. I derived my opinion by talking to many SSPXers. They all have the same tendencies. I think many bishops recognize these tendencies as well.

Since the SSPX acknowledges the Pope as the head of the Church and prays for him at every Mass....

LOL I don't know why you feel you need to keep telling me that. Is praying for the pope in mass somehow supposed to mitigate the insults you hurl and contempt you disply for the pope whenever you are not in mass?

The truth is traditionalists who follow the fraternity must put up with a lot of abuse by badly informed Catholics who claim--on the basis of diocesan pundits who demonize the SSPX every chance they get-

I'm still laughing. This is a good example of the hypocrisy the SSPX is known for. You cry demonization when that is all you do to the Catholic church. You despise the mass, the hierarchy, the theology,the councils, the popularity of the pope-all. Yet you expect your movement to be shown respect by those you despise. Believe me, I am being charitable when I describe that as kooky.

This is it for me Ultima. I'm not interested in repeating myself and that's all we seem to be doing. If I don't repond to anything else you might have to say, it's because it's probably been covered before. Thanks for playing. Pax et bonum.

Your tirade proves my point. Show me where I have used such abusive language against others on this site, yet you and others routinely abuse those who put forth arguments to show the Archbishop was right. You do not address the points argued, you attack the persons making them, talking about vague "tendencies" that all seem to add up to this: we are not to criticize the systemic apostasies and corruptions that have poured forth from the conciliar Church for the past forty years.

In other words, we are not supposed to THINK. We are supposed to accept the revolutionary changes that have been imposed on the laity since Vatican II, including the institution of a Mass that is indistinguishable from a thoroughly Protestant worship service and in clear contradiction to the Council of Trent. If we should speak out against such radical changes and inform others of their illegitimacy, we are being schismatic--or at least tending in that direction.

Yes, I have criticized the Pope--as any Catholic has the right to do for acts which are thoroughly unprecedented and unorthodox--such as praying with voodoo priests and witchdoctors or kissing the Koran. I have done so in a context of extreme adulation of the Pope on the part of some on this site who refuse to attribute to his papacy any responsibility for the systemic wrongs and breakdowns in discipline and doctrine which currently plague the Church. If you don't like this, I am not surprised. But it is not doing anything but placing the blame for the current mess where it rightfully belongs.

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.