Replies

I've come to the conclusion you're one of these people for whom evidence is beside the point. You want to be the leader of a club--somebody who decides who's in and who's out. You are impervious to theological argument--you only want to be able to decide who gets to go to Heaven or Hell. Fine. Be my guest. Sing your looney tunes. Nevertheless, I'll give reason one more try--slowly this time.

First, this fantasy about the "normative Mass" needs to go. It's an inaccurate term. There's nothing normative about a Mass that is out of line with the whole of Catholic history. What actually happened was that the New Mass was FOISTED on an unwilling clergy by a Liturgical Gestapo that demanded exclusive use of the new missal. But the Old Mass was never abrogated. If you don't know this, you need to do some more background reading to understand the full implications of this injustice. In any case, the idea that the New Mass is NORMATIVE is a joke. It is a throwback, a variation on a liturgy invented by Martin Luther, complete with a Protestantizing disparagement of the Real Presence and a dumping of the Offertory. The Liturgical Nazis even turned the altar around to face the people, just like good old Martin did.

Second, the Indult letter of JnPII--Ecclesia Dei Adflicta--guaranteed Indult priests exclusive use of the '62 Missal, even carrying with it the admonition this rite was not to be admixed with any other rite. The FSSP Superior General made the bad mistake of believing Rome meant what it had promised, that this Fraternity was to have a unique charism centered on the ancient Latin rite. Instead Rome used the complaints of a few disgruntled subordinates to decapitate the Fraternity and impose its own guy more willing to mix and match--in other words, it staged a coup. Is it any wonder Indult priests are now offering communion in the hand and doing away with kneeling to receive? Give it time, it won't be long before the Agnus Dei gives way to Blowin' in the Wind.

Third, the "harboring of schismatic intent" is a charge I will gladly accept if it means I must choose between the ancient faith and the calamity now passing for Catholicism. I'll take my chances with the Lord and to heck with the rest of the nonsense--including the perverted priests and the sleazy bishops and the corrupted cardinals and the heretical liturgies and the celebrity pope who will tolerate any abomination in the name of Catholicism, yet only remembers the powers of his office when it comes to disciplining those who insist on adhering to the ancient faith. If this is schism, fine, I'll take it.

It has taken a while but you at least admit being in schism. I realize that you imagine that it is a conditional admission. You are not choosing between the alternatives you suggest but between your preferred alternative of "Non Serviam" and the Faith.

I am no more interested in the arguments of schismatics than I am interested in the arguments of those in heresy. Rome is right. You are wrong.

Even if occasionally you advance a fact or two, you will certainly ignore the fact that the saying of the normative Mass of the Church by one priest does absolutely nothing to deprive a second priest (who is not REQUIRED to say the Novus Ordo by anyone) of his rights.

In fact, if you check out post #70 herein, kindly provided by Sandyeggo which contains the actual text of the letter of Dario Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos, a man of considerably higher standing in the Vatican than his secretary, you will find the unvarnished truth shorn of the schismatic editorial opinions often substituted for truth by you. You would do well to pay that letter serious heed since Dario Castrillon de Hoyos is a long-time favorite and willing assistant to John Paul II in helping him to crush "Liberation Theology" and since 11 of the 20 voting members of the College of Cardinals appointed at the last consistory were from Latin America as is the good cardinal and since he is considered quite papabile.

As you can see from the letter, Dario Castrillon de Hoyos may well prove to be the pope who deals with SSPX as fully as necessary. It is not difficult to intuit from his letter his concern that the Tridentine MAss itself and some alleged exclusivity by which FSSP priests were not to be permitted to say the Novus Ordo were the targets of his action. Anyone who has listened to you ranting and raving against the Novus Ordo as a Protrestantized Mass, assome sort of work analogous to that of Luther, etc., etc., ad nauseam, should have no difficulty figuring out why the Vatican has had enough with your schism anbd why it will act against a tiny and willful band determined to defy Rome at any cost.

At the Novus Ordo Mass, I hear: This is My Body and I hear This is My Blood. What was that about disparaging the Real Prsence? As to the orientation of the altar, ad orientem is preferable to ad populum but it is hardly a crisis of Faith. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. "Quelle surprise!", as your excommunicated founder might say.