Posted on 09/19/2002 7:43:40 PM PDT by narses
The Pope, the Mass and the Society of St. Pius X
Father Pierre Blet, SJ, Professor of Church History at the Gregorian University, celebrated for his defence of Pope Pius XII against the charge of anti-semitism, has given an interview in which he made some interesting comments apropos relations between Rome and the Society of Saint Pius X and the attitude of Rome to the Traditional Mass. This interview was published in the July-August 2002 issue of the journal of Una Voce France. Father Blet considers that there are at present indications that an entente may be reached. Father Blet noted that members of the Society had been very warmly received during the Holy Year, but that things have slowed down a little since then due principally to the question of accepting Vatican II. He added that "this was not an impediment given that the Council had not promulgated any binding dogmatic definition. Everyone therefore has the right to examine what he feels able to accept..."
Where the problem of the Mass is concerned, certain cardinals of the Curia, and not the least among them, would be willing to accept the Mass of St. Pius V. Some of them have celebrated it publicly. Father Blet then made public some information that has remain confidential until now: "The Pope himself celebrated this Mass during his recent vacation." He also reported the suggestion of a cardinal who remarked that in a town in the Middle-East where he had been a missionary the Mass is celebrated in a dozen different rites. "Under these circumstances, he asked, why could there not be two rites in the West?" Father Blet added: "The Curia is ready to make concessions in this matter."
Does your obsession with the "state of necessity" have anything to do with your abandonment of the indult mass? Do you consider yourself acting in a State of Necessity? Do you bring it up day in and day out to justify your own behavior?
I used to drive 90 miles one way to the Indult mass in Miami. One doesn't do that to attend a Liturgy one hates. It is clear who is engaged in hate here, Bud.<>
A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore "tuto doceri non potest". (Cardinal Rzatzinger Commentary of Professio Fidei)
<. It is a characteristic of those on the losing end of an arguement that they seek to divert attention the issue at hand.
The issue a thand is there is NO warrant for a Catholic to reject parts or whole of an Ecumenical Council.
It is characteristic of schsimatics to get bogged down in minituae, accidents, side issues, and they often miss the substantial forest of Unity for the green sapling sprouting peripheral leaves.
As in every other instance, the schismatics and those that succor them are left without an arguement.<>
Why, then, do you wish that the next Pope abolishes the Indult?
I used to drive 90 miles one way to the Indult mass in Miami.
Is that the period when you were flirting with schism?
One doesn't do that to attend a Liturgy one hates.
Do you still attend this liturgy, and if not why not?
<> You say you stand with the Council yet you want the freedom to reject what you feel ought not be accepted. You both want to have your Conciliar Cake and to be able to eat it too. <>
"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council DEFINED NO DOGMA AT ALL, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a MERELY PASTORAL COUNCIL; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.
<>I certainly don't treat it that way nor do I say I am free to reject it if I feel like it. The fact of the matter is that both extremes treat it as the end of Tradition.<>
This idea is made stronger by things that are now happening. That which previously was considered most holy - the form in which the liturgy was handed down - suddenly appears as the most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can safely be prohibited. IT IS INTOLERABLE TO CRITICIZE DECISIOINS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN SINCE THE COUNCIL; on the other hand, if men make question of ancient rules, or even of the great truths of the faith - for instance, the corporal virginity of Mary, the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the immortality of the soul, etc. - nobody complains or only does so with the greatest moderation. I myself, when I was a professor, have seen how the very same bishop who, before the council, had fired a teacher who was really irreproachable, for a certain crudeness of speech, was not prepared, after the council, to dismiss a professor who openly denied certain fundamental truths of the faith. Strange words from the CDF Prefect. He can act against whomever he desires. If heretics abound, why just complain? <>
Even Uncle Jo claims that this was a MERELY PASTORAL COUNCIL. You can hardly blame Fr Blet for thinking likewise.
<> Pastoral, smashtoral. Either way, one is bound by an Ecumenical Council and Fr. Blet's opinion represents protestantism.
Both the extreme left and the extreme right approach this Ecumenical Council as a totally unique Ecumenical Council. The left reinterprets it in light of its own desires and ignores the actual Documents by apealing to "The Spirit of the Council" while the extreme right reads the actual Documents and, appealing to "tradition," says, "Hell, them things don't apply to me 'cause I don't feel they are inconsistent with my personal view of what constitutes "Tradition."
There IS a Crisis of Faith and each extreme is responsible. The left rejects an Ecumenical Council by appealing to "The Spirit" and the right rejects an Ecumenical council by appealing to "Tradition." Neither side can cite any warrant for any Catholic to reject any Ecumenical Council. Both sides follow their own wills and then they wonder why there is such confusion and a crisis of certitude, authority, unity and obedience. I guess it is only others than need be obedient. <> Referrin to Governemt intervention in the Economy, Richard Nixon famously said, "We are all Keynesians now." Maybe it is time for us to simply admit, "We are all Protestants now." Then we can start to pick which Ecuemnical Councils we will reject, in whole or in part - past, present and future- .
If we are all entitled to be theological entrepreneurs in this Economy of Salvation,, let's just say so and drop the rationalising rhetoric and pretentious posturing.<>
<> Comity within the Communion. IMO,far too many of those that support the 1962 Roman Missal see it as a vechicle to "return" the Catholic Church to a pre-1962 epoch and to have an Ecumenical Council repudiated. That would be pure protestantism and I don't want to see that encouraged.<>
<>I used to drive 90 miles one way to the Indult mass in Miami.<>
Is that the period when you were flirting with schism?
<> Yeah<>
<>One doesn't do that to attend a Liturgy one hates.<>
Do you still attend this liturgy, and if not why not?
<>NO. I recognised that, for me, the Indult tempted me to think I was a REAL Catholic while these other "Nervous Order" obedient clowns had the wool pulled over their eyes and didn't really understand what was happening to the Faith.
That,plus all the one-sided literature I was reading; The Remnant, Catholic Family News, Fatima Crusader, Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXTH Century and all the books recomended by those periodicals had cultivated in me a Protestant ideology that seduced me into thinking I had the authority to reject an Ecuemnical Council, the Pauline Liturgy, Papal authority etc. Frankly, that scared the Hell out of me as that ain't Catholic.
<> You know, when I hear it was "Merely Pastoral" I can almost hear, "N'yeah, N'Yeah, N'Yeah, N'Yeah, N'Yeah, we don't gotta obey ...cause it was only Pastoral"
It is as if we need be sheep ONLY when our Pastors are guiding us with Dogmatic Crosiers and, absent that, we are but Lone Traditional Wolves free to not only reject the Doctrines of an Ecumenical Council but anything else, including the normative Mass, if we don't feel like accepting it because "it was merely pastoral."
And when our protestant brethren on there threads see us acting like this, what do we tell them when they accurately say, "See, you guys are no different than us."
<> I just discovered this onlne and sped-read it. This is, admittedly, a lengthy debate over whether or not the Documents of Vatican Two are Infallible. The two debaters disagree but even the gentleman that thinks the Documents are not Infallible agrees one must accept Vatican Two Documents with a religious submission of the mind and will.
Understandably so, that IS the Catholic position. It is NOT catholic to reject an Ecuemnical Council.<>
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.