Bishop Bruskewitz to the Society of St. Pius X: "You can't have it both ways!"

St. Joseph Foundation ^ | August 22, 1996 | Charles M. Wilson

[ninenot]

I thought it was the enemies of Catholicism who are into situational ethics, moral selectivity, cafeteria Catholicism to justify birth control by whatever name, abortion, homosexuality, and Heinz's 57 varieties of heresies because of their own private judgment.

You thought, as usual, correctly.

Two things are evident in your statement: 1) There are enemies to the Left AND to the Right; and 2) Chesterton's Church/chariot poetry..."wildly reeling but still erect" was a rather inspired vision.

[ninenot]

Feel free to improve:

OOOOOOO!!

The Drums are Bangin', the Cymbals playin', the Horns they blaze away;

The Rack-er racks the Heretics, while I the whip do play,

And, Bruskewitz, he tootles the flute, and the torture is something grand,

While doing in the Heretics, in Torque's grand old Band!!

[ninenot]

Is there a document that I am unaware of?

Yes.

Paul VI suppressed (but did not obrogate) the Tridentine Rite. You can find the document in a book entitled "Documents on the Liturgy" published by Collegeville.

Paul VI could not obrogate the Old Rite because it is a valid Rite. But he could, through his canonical authority, establish the New Rite as the norm for the RC Church, and he did.

While being submissive, I am in no way pleased with his pastoral judgment in the matter.

[ultima ratio]

You write, "Try to bear in mind that Roman Catholic Tradition and your own personal (unauthorized and schismatic distortion) interpretation of Tradition of (YOPIOT) or dead Marcel's (MOPIOT), for that matter, are quite different things."

No, they are not different. The ancient Mass said by SSPX was what has been handed down from antiquity, its Canon going back to the fifth century. The teachings of SSPX, the seminary training, the prayers and penances, the sacred music, the catechism, the customs, the art, the architecture are those of Catholic tradition. The SSPX never broke with Catholic Tradition in any way. Its Tradition IS the Catholic Tradition. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ignatius--all would have been at home with the SSPX. They would have been totally alienated in this New Church--which is a new religion.

As for the keys of the kingdom, they were a sign of stewardship, not ownership. It is well to remember the steward is not the master. He is caretaker of the master's house and treasures. It is not the steward's duty to tear down the house and build a new one with new furnishings. It is not his job to assume ownership, but to protect the true owner's property and pass it on intact. You need to understand this better. You confuse the Pope with Christ and blame me for not treating him as a god to be worshipped as you do. He has become your faith. But he is not the faith, he is only a steward charged with protecting the ancient faith.

[ultima ratio]

You need to study this a little more before you charge me with lying. What's happening is a revolution, not a mere change. There has been no aspect of Catholic life that has remained unchanged. The fasts and penances are gone. The prayers are gone. The old Mass is gone. The veneration of the saints is gone. The Latin is gone. The Gregorian chant is gone. The Thomism is gone. The seminary training is gone. In their place is the new ecumenism, a modernist theology, and a newly concocted liturgy that is a variation of the Lutheran worship service. It is a new religion.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Thanks for the advice, I will stick with the Pope. I must admit that I am not too 'up' on the SSPX movement and am a bit disarmed. I will have to study.

I still believe there is something 'proud and presumptuous' about SSPX.

[Cap'n Crunch]

I've got some snickers for posting the prophecies of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich but have you ever read any of the things that she said? She describes the Church being undermined by 'the secret sect' and others who work for the destruction of the Church.

I agree with alot of the things you say in your post mentioning the Chant being gone, Latin being gone, fasting, penance etc. However I do not see this as the fault of the Pope. I see it as a very deliberate attack by those bent on destroying the Church.

I also believe that people who love the Church, such as yourself, are leaving. And I think they leave to their own peril. I think they wrongly blame the Holy Father.

I think our Church is under attack and alot of her sons are deserting their posts as soldiers to fight for her.

[ultima ratio]

What is this "recruitment" nonsense? When have I asked others to follow my example? I argue theological points--that is not recruitment. I have yet to hear a single valid refutation of what I have presented. You dismiss the arguments as "lies" and launch personal attacks instead.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Here's a bit from Blessed Emmerich: "I also saw the Holy Father-God-fearing and prayerful. Nothing left to be desired by his appearance, but he was weakened by old age and by much suffering. His head was lolling from side to side, and it dropped onto his chest as if he were falling asleep. He often fainted and seemed to be dying. But when he was praying, he was often comforted by apparitions from Heaven."

"Last night I was taken to Rome where the Holy Father, immersed in his sorrow, is still hiding to elude dangerous demands (made upon him). He is very weak, and exhausted by sorrows, cares and prayers. He can now trust but few people. That is mainly why he is hiding. But he still has with him an aged priest who has much simplicity and godliness. He is his friend, and because of his simplicity they did not think it worth removing him. But this man receives many graces from God. He sees and notices a great many things which he faithfully reports to the Holy Father. It was required of me to inform him, while he was praying, of the traitors, and evil-doers who were to be found among the high-ranking servants living close to him, so that he might be made aware of it."

"When I saw the Church of St. Peter in ruins, and the manner in which so many of the clergy were themselves busy at this work of destruction-none of them wishing to do it openly in front of the others-I was in such distress that I cried out to Jesus with all my might, imploring His mercy. Then, I saw before me the Heavenly Spouse, and He spoke to me for a long time.... He said, among other things, that this translation of the Church from one place to another meant that she would seem to be in complete decline. But she would rise again; even if there remained but one Catholic, the Church would conquer again because she does not rest on human counsels and intelligence."

And here is an interesting one that may fit with our thread: "I see many excommunicated ecclesiastics who do not seem to be concerned about it, nor even aware of it. Yet, they are (ipso facto) excommunicated whenever they cooperate to (sic) enterprises, enter into associations, and embrace opinions on which an anathema has been cast. It can be seen thereby that God ratifies the decrees, orders and interdictions issued by the Head of the Church, and that He keeps them in force even though men show no concern for them, reject them, or laugh them to scorn."

[Cap'n Crunch]

I've read your post #108 several times, I must say I think it is brilliant. Thanks.

[ultima ratio]

You're right, many are leaving. Someone very close to me just joined an Eastern Orthodox parish. This amazed me because she had always been a model Catholic. The Remnant carried an article by Michael Davies, reporting from London. He made the point that in Australia a recent survey found that 97% of young Catholics abandoned the faith within 12 months of completing high school. In England and Wales the rate is 91%.

The problem is a lack of catechesis. We've got the same problem in spades in the United States. Young Catholics are growing up woefully ignorant of the faith. This is still one more reason why I blame this pope. World youth rallies can't make up for a sound foundation in the faith. This our kids are not getting anywhere.

As for myself, I haven't left, whatever some others may believe out of ignorance. Black Elk likes to hurl his peculiar brand of vitriol, throwing around words like apostate, schismatic, whatever. But these are just words. Our Lord said, "By their fruits you'll know them." I can see the fruits of the Vatican II Church--failure everywhere. When I point this out, people are outraged. But it's the simple truth.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Interesting that your friend went to the Orthodox parish, here's another quote by Blessed Emmerich (if I may) "The Protestant doctrine and that of the schismatic Greeks are to spread everywhere."

She says that soon afterward the Roman Catholic Church's would be nearly empty.

I believe this is a spiritual war. Of course men are used in this war but primarily I think it is against the "powers and principalities" and Satan is doing everything he can to destroy our beloved Church. I again point to Pope Leo XIII's vision of Satan boasting that he would destroy the Church in 100 years.

I would urge you to stay and fight. I believe that our Church needs us in these hours of crisis.

[ultima ratio]

Let me give you my reading on the papacy so that you will understand where I am coming from and that I am not in denial of the papacy itself.

Like any Catholic, I believe Christ gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter, initiating the Office of the Papacy itself. He also gave him the power to bind and loose--that is to say, to exert his authority through teaching and by disciplining others.

Over the years this authority has been better and better understood and further defined. The pope has full power to discipline his subordinates, but its exercise must serve the purpose of the Church. Nor may a pope teach novelties and then expect Divine protection from error. These limits had been set by Tradition, but were affirmed more exactly by the doctors of the Church and by the Frst Vatican Council.

In other words, a pope is not an absolute monarch. His power is mitigated. For instance, he is not infallible except when he speaks officially and in the area of faith and morals, ex cathedra. Likewise when he exercises his ordinary magisterium, only those teachings aligned with the doctrines of past popes and councils are infallible. Not every papal speech or letter or casual observation, therefore, is necessarily true or factual or correct. Popes can sometimes make big mistakes--and do.

I believe the present pontiff has made such mistakes that have led to catastrophic consequences for the Church--and I have said so. One of these mistakes, in my view and in the view of many much wiser than myself, was in 1988 with his announcement in a letter that Archbishop Lefebvre had been excommunicated for disobedience and was therefore in schism. The Pope, remember, had not himself excommunicated the Archbishop, but was merely announcing that this had been a penalty incurred automatically--that is to say, latae sententiae.

But the Pope apparently mispoke because the Archbishop had availed himself--legally and properly--of a valid Canon Law provision for disobedience in a "Time of Necessity". This canon rested on a recognition of the subject's own conscience at the time of disobedience, not on the objective act of disobedience itself. If the act of disobedience was posited in good conscience, no penalty could have been incurred. There is no doubt the Archbishop acted in good conscience and believed the Church was in crisis. Thus he evoked the canon and incurred no penalty. Yet the charge of excommunication and schism stuck because of the Pope's letter, however mistaken it was. The SSPX has been unfairly accused of schism by people like Black Elk ever since.

Another way the Pope has erred has been in an opposite way--by failing to admonish openly heretical and corrupt subordinates, even after decades of scandals. He has seemed amazingly impervious to even the most outrageous liturgical and moral abuses, neither removing bad prelates, nor even moving to correct offenses. In addition to this, his own record of elevating bad prelates has been abominable. Nor has he shored-up the dogmas of the faith which have been under daily assault in careless liturgies and widely-deficient catechesis, not even in the face of a massive falling-away of the faithful everywhere throughout the first world. The defections have been catastrophic.

To summarize, I have been critical of this Pope, but I have never denied his authority nor his power to discipline and to teach. But I have been cognizant of the confusions and chaos that can result when a pope is seriously mistaken or when he delays necessary disciplining of bad prelates on behalf of the suffering faithful, or when he is simply inept in administrating his high office. By being critical, I may well be exercising bad judgment and arrogance as some of you claim. But this does not make me a schismatic or apostate. It just makes me another sinful Catholic.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Have you gentlemen seen the Holy Fathers Eucharist encyclical released today? Be interested in your thoughts. Do you think he was addressing some of the problems we have been discussing?

[ninenot]

Wow.

[ultima ratio]

Yes, and I've commented on it--favorably, by the way. It was long overdue. Apparently the Pope has finally come around to viewing with alarm the abuses that have been going on for thirty years and which have resulted in a steady subversion of Catholic dogma. This has happened because liturgists have had an agenda--which has been to undermine belief in the Real Presence. In the past liturgists had evolved elaborate protocols for the protection of this dogma, as well as to protect the dogma of the Mass as a bloodless sacrifice.

But this changed after Vatican II. Along with the Novus Ordo came an actual tearing-down of the differences between ourselves and Protestants who do not view the Eucharistic liturgy as sacrificial, nor the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ Himself. An attempt has been made to reduce such differences. This is why the new Mass feels so Protestant to anyone familiar with the Mass codified by Trent. Actual changes were made to Protestantize the Catholic Liturgy and to change many Catholic customs accordingly.

For instance, the tabernacle was shunted off to a remote corner of the church, away from the central place of honor within the sanctuary. Communion rails have been removed from most churches and the faithful now stand to receive the Sacred Host--in their hands instead of on their knees. The altar has become a table. Sacred vessels are no longer made of costly precious metals, but are ceramic or glass after the fashion of ordinary tableware. The priest, his sacrificial duties now obscured, has become primarily a "presider" over the assembly--another minister among a good many lay ministers. Everybody now gets to touch the sacred Host and chalice in a familiar way, whereas before only an ordained priest might do so. Genuflections have disappeared. In the old Mass many fewer people went to Communion--cognizant of their need to receive worthily by going to confession beforehand. in the new Mass, everybody receives communion and confessions are few and far between.

All these changes do not include the many subtle textual shifts in the new Missal which deliberately deflect attention from the Real Presence and subvert its significance.

[ultima ratio]

I read this again and it needs further rebuttal. As usual, you cloudy up the truth. You say, "Most excommunications are the sad, unimaginative and undramatic fare of daily life here in this fallen world and most may be resolved favorably to the sinner by worthy reception of the Sacrament of Penance."

It is true, as you say, most excommunications are resolved by confession. What you fail to add is that this is why excommunications revolve around the individual's conscience and his/her internal assent to commit a serious sin. If there is no such assent to do evil, there is no sin and there is no excommunication. This is what I have been arguing all along regarding Archbishop Lefebvre. He availed himself--properly--of Canon Law. It is beyond even a pope's ability to determine whether he did so in good conscience or not. The canon was on the books; the Archbishop used it; he ought to have been given the benefit of the doubt--aside from the politics of the situation. If the Pope had wished to unambiguously excommunicate him, he ought to have instituted an excommunication by tribunal where charges could be openly presented and the Archbishop would be given a chance to defend himself.

You say, "The theory seems to be that if anyone (St. Athanasius) was right but punished by the pope of his time, today's schismatics are, of course, justified in believing that every Tom, Dick, Harry, Suzy, Sarah or Jane with a beef against papal authority has a right to not only sit in judgment on the pope as to his adherence to their understanding of tradition but to actively rebel, revile and despise the pope, giving scandal to others."

But you mischaracterize what critics of this Pontiff actually do. We don't criticize in a vacuum. We are not talking about doctrinal disputes here but a failure to act against apostasy and corruption. What we are talking about is a papacy that will not act to protect the Church's doctrines and its traditions. This is scandalous, but it is not we who cause the scandals. Nor is the Pope above criticism, being a man. In fact, criticizing popes had been a commonplace with Catholics in past eras. Dante comes to mind, for instance, whose poetry has been much esteemed by the Church, but who was a merciless critic of Boniface VIII. (You yourself pass judgment on the wisdom of Pius V.) Or glance through the whole of Catholic history in which popes have been publicly attacked or admonished for the merest suspicion of deviation from Catholic tradition. Only in modern times has the pope been deified and considered beyond criticism by mere mortals--by people like yourself who confuse him with the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. As I've said before, he is the steward of our faith, not its master.

You say, "There are occasions when popes exceed even their authority. One particular example with which these schismatics are in passionate love is the papal bull Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V (a pope of the era of the Council of Trent) who having reviewed the literally hundreds of then current forms of Mass liturgies and compressed common elements of most of them into the Tridentine liturgy remembered by many of us old enough to remember the Mass as said prior to Vatican II."

But here you admit, 1) that popes can exceed their authority, and 2)you may presume Pius V did so. So you do what you claim traditionalists do--criticize a pope and judge the wisdom of his action. You do it with a past pope, I do it with the present one. I see little difference. Both are mortal men who make mistakes--though I do not believe Pius V erred, as you seem to believe, nor did he codify the so-called Tridentine Mass by sifting through hundreds of disparate Mass liturgies as you seem to suggest. Most rites only differed very slightly, very often only in rubrics in very minor ways. Their Canons were identical, having been fixed in the fifth century. Pius V merely attempted to impose unity once and for all. What he didn't do was concoct a Mass out of thin air to appease Protestants as Bugnini did, using the Lutheran liturgy as his guide.

Finally, you repeat the old saying, "Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia," to which I would reply, "This is a pious saying, not a Catholic doctrine." You yourself would not ascribe such a saying to somebody like Liberius or even to some of the Renaissance popes. In the final analysis, the Church and the pope are not identical. The pope serves the Church, not the other way around.