CAN WE ATTEND THE INDULT MASS?

Society of Saint Pius X ^ | June 1993 | Father Van Es

[ultima ratio]

He was not an admirer of the Unabomber--another piece of slander. He admired some of the man's writings on the threat to the environment by technology--which many, including journalists for the NYTimes who commented on the same Unabomber literature, have done. Many have compared his views, in fact, to Al Gore's. But to suggest--as you do, and do periodically--that Williamson admired the man for the murders committed--is calumny, pure and simple. I am no great fan of the bishop--but neither do I cotton to the kind of filth you are peddling.

[ultima ratio]

He was not an admirer of the Unabomber--another piece of slander. He admired some of the man's writings on the threat to the environment by technology--which many, including journalists for the NYTimes who commented on the same Unabomber literature, have done. Many have compared his views, in fact, to Al Gore's. But to suggest--as you do, and do periodically--that Williamson admired the man for the murders committed--is calumny, pure and simple. I am no great fan of the bishop--but neither do I cotton to the kind of filth you are peddling.

[ultima ratio]

He was not an admirer of the Unabomber--another piece of slander. He admired some of the man's writings on the threat to the environment by technology--which many, including journalists for the NYTimes who commented on the same Unabomber literature, have done. Many have compared his views, in fact, to Al Gore's. But to suggest--as you do, and do periodically--that Williamson admired the man for the murders committed--is calumny, pure and simple. I am no great fan of the bishop--but neither do I cotton to the kind of filth you are peddling.

[ultima ratio]

He was not an admirer of the Unabomber--another piece of slander. He admired some of the man's writings on the threat to the environment by technology--which many, including journalists for the NYTimes who commented on the same Unabomber literature, have done. Many have compared his views, in fact, to Al Gore's. But to suggest--as you do, and do periodically--that Williamson admired the man for the murders committed--is calumny, pure and simple. I am no great fan of the bishop--but neither do I cotton to the kind of filth you are peddling.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Once again, the Pope erred

Ooohh... this is sooo hard... on the one hand, I have you, a renowned internet nobody, self-appointed interpreter of canon law and all-round fine Papal critic of little recongnition. On the other hand, I have the Apostolic See... whom shall I choose to believe?... Hmmmmm.... Oooohhh this is sooo hard.... my faith lies in the balance... Which shall it be... some obscure micro-pope on a web-forum, or the Chair of Peter?... ooohhh it is so hard to decide... I totter between one and the other, pondering... The Successor of Peter a few things going for him... while "ultima ratio" or whatever his name really is... soooo hard to decide.... Ok, I choose the Pope. Therefore you lose. Good bye!

The Pope says... "Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops last June 17, Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law... Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law." (Ecclesia Dei)

Canon law says... "There is no recourse or appeal from a decision of the Roman Pontiff." (Canon 333.3 of the 1983 Code, Canon 228.2 of the 1917 Code)

St Ignatius of Antioch says... "If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Epistle to the Philadelphians)

[ultima ratio]

He was not an admirer of the Unabomber--another piece of slander. He admired some of the man's writings on the threat to the environment by technology--which many, including journalists for the NYTimes have likewise admired. Many have compared the Unabomber's views, in fact, to Al Gore's. But to suggest--as you do, and do periodically--that Williamson admired the man for the vicious murders committed--is calumny, pure and simple. I am no great fan of the bishop--but neither do I cotton to the kind of filth you are peddling.

[ultima ratio]

He was not an admirer of the Unabomber--another piece of slander. He admired some of the man's writings on the threat to the environment by technology--which many, including journalists for the NYTimes, have done. Many have compared these views to Al Gore's. But to suggest--as you do, and do often--that Williamson admired the man for his murders--is calumny, pure and simple. I am no great fan of the bishop--but neither do I cotton to the kind of filth you are peddling.

[ultima ratio]

You can't seem to follow an argument. The very letter you quote is contradicted by the Pope's own Canon Law. So try addressing the arguments I raise. Otherwise you are talking to yourself--which is pretty silly.

[St.Chuck]

Since this brings up ghosts from Arguments Past, I am curious about the state of necessity. If I, for example, were to participate in an abortion would my citation of the existing state of necessity make null and void my excommunication? If not, under what circumstances would I be able to trump canon law with the state of necessity loophole?

[sinkspur]

But to suggest--as you do, and do often--that Williamson admired the man for his murders--is calumny, pure and simple.

I never suggested that Williamson admired Kasczynski for his murders; I suggested he admired him.

So Williamson's a Luddite too?

[Aloysius]

So why did you immediately think of Williamson when ninenot mentioned "the SSPX figure in the USA who has a large collection of Nazi memorabilia"?

Beacuse he's the only prominent member of the SSPX clergy in the US. Also, you and your ilk are a dime a dozen. One can spot you and your intentions a mile away.

[ultima ratio]

You don't make the necessary distinction between admiring the writings of a man and admiring the man. As I say, many well-respected journalists found the writings compelling. You meant, of course, to suggest Williamson likes murderers because he is some kind of kook--though the bishop himself said that Kasczynski's crimes were evil, despite the fact that he found the writings made a good deal of sense.

[ultima ratio]

Abortion is inherently evil. Disobedience to the Pope is not. That is to say, abortion is never a good thing, it is always and everywhere evil and not even a state of necessity would ever justify such an act, though it might mitigate it.

Disobedience to a pope, on the other hand, is not inherently evil. It would be possible, for instance, for a pope to command somebody to do something morally wrong, in which case such a command should be disobeyed. Therefore the act of disobedience itself is not always and everywhere evil.

[pipeorganman]

Are you sure that they were not confused--that they thought you were referring to one of the excommunicandi cults (Thuc, etc.)?

No, I am not confused. I went back to my original post. I may not have been clear. This was before Ecclesia Dei. In essence, any priest who celebrated the Old Rite publicly was in schism. To attend was, in their minds, a mortal sin. After all, one who attended these Masses was, at the very least, considered to be thumbing their noses at the Church. Do we not see much of the same attitude by some posters toward the SSPX? Fortunately, Rome has slowly been clarifying Her stance concerning the Tridentine Rite, and it has been positive.

[pipeorganman]

The Novus Ordo Mass teaches a quasi-catholic faith that is foreign to the ancient teachings of Catholicism.

It can and certainly DOES remove a good deal of very useful text from what the Old Rite has.

You are saying some of what I am trying to express. It was late and I was trying to be brief. Let me see if I can clarify it somewhat.

By teaching a quasi-catholic faith, I am referring to the change of emphasis that has occurred. Three examples: 1)The de-emphasis of the Sacrificial Nature of the Mass to the increased emphasis of the Memorial Meal, 2) The de-emphasis of the sinfulness of man and his need for God's mercy to the increased emphasis on the assurance of being a redeemed people, and the worst, 3) the de-emphasis of the Real Presence to the increased emphasis on the Presence of Christ in the Liturgy of the Word and in the community.

The NO, as established by Paul VI, CANNOT in itself be "foreign to" the ancient teachings of Catholicism

I agree with you completely. What I said was that the teachings of the NO was foreign. The examples above are 180 degree shifts in the teaching of the Catholic Church. Yes, we have always believed that the Mass was also a Memorial Meal, that man has been redeemed, and that Christ is present during the reading of the Word and in the assembly, but these were always secondary aspects, and not given the prominence that is seen today.

[St.Chuck]

The examples above are 180 degree shifts in the teaching of the Catholic Church.

What is the basis for such strong objection to a shift in the teaching of the Catholic Church. Do you not trust that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church?

Consider that between the time of St. Pius X and Paul VI human knowlege, human development, literacy, and technology had increased exponentially. Civilization went from the horse and buggy to the jet age, from gas lights to universal electricity, from relative isolation to access to the world via radio, telephone and television....and the world shrinks even more as we type to one another through these modems. Why wouldn't the Church change? How could it not? It was ministering to an entirely different race of people. It is perfectly sensible to accentuate the Word to a literate and educated people. It was no longer necessary to appeal to the senses; a more intellectual approach could be taken in hopes of deepening man's understanding of God's love for His noblest creation, and man's responsibilities to that Creator.

Let us also not forget between the time of Pius X and Paul VI the unprecedented amount of carnage that occurred during two world wars and in the vicious oppression that was imposed in locations around the world. Wouldn't an increased emphasis on the community be perfectly fitting in a world culture capable of creating such destructive enmities? Do you not believe that the Holy Spirit was guiding His Church? Why do you not?

The history of the Church is one of adaptation and assimilation, and always.....always triumph. Saecula saeculorum. Let not your personal preference for and personal experience of the Tridentine mass jaundice your understanding of Christ's Church. No one faults you for that and all would approve of your devotion through that rite. But to condemn the normative rite, despite it's recent implementation, despite the widely publicized abuses, despite your personal preferences, despite the implied alterations in emphasis, is to condemn the real Power of the Holy Spirit that guides His Church.

[St.Chuck]

Abortion is inherently evil. Disobedience to the Pope is not.

The preconciliar church taught that a Catholic was excommunicated for the following sins:

1.Apostasy, heresy, or schism

2.Publishing, reading, or keeping certain forbidden books

3.Publishing books of Scripture without due permission.

4.Profaning the Blessed Sacrament

5.Pretending to say Mass or to hear a conffession when one is not a priest

6.Falsification of relics; distributing false relics; knowingly exposing false relics for the veneration of the faithful

7.Trafficking in indulgences

8.Affiliation with Masonic or similar associations

9.Violation of papal cloister or enclosure

10. Laying violent hands on any cleric or religious

11. Abortion

12. Dueling

13. Attempting marriage before a heretical minister

I find it interesting that schism is listed number one, while abortion is number eleven, not to downplay the severity of such an abomination, but to highlight the importance of disobedience to the pope. For with the matter at hand (and in perpetual hand)it was disobedience to the pope that the progenitor and his named followers of the SSPX were excommunicated. ( Yes, I know you will deny it, but heck, it's there for everyone to see, and only the invincibly schismatic will buy into your Johnny Cochran refutations).

In fact, Lefebvre, and his bishops might well be considered Excommunicatis Vitandus, "which is the technical title given to an excommunicated person when the excommunication is personally and expressly inflicted by the Holy See, when it is made public, and when the decree states that the person is vitandus,to be avoided. Such persons are not allowed to assist at any Church services and are to be avoided by the faithful even in profane matters if possible."

Woah dude. Let's review Ecclesia Dei.

3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.

(4) c) 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 am impressed that these two paragraphs from Ecclesia Dei meet the criteria of the Excommunicatus Vitandus.

1. It is personally and publicly inflicted by the Holy See, and it says to cease support for that movemnet in anyway, which could reasonable interpreted to say that avoidance of that person is required. You undermine and downplay the significance of this pronouncement by the Pope. Even by the standards of Pius XII, Pope John Paul II was not kidding around. Lefebvre's disobedience was akin to performing an abortion, and those that associate themselves with the other Vitandi's are in some serious trouble.

[ninenot]

First of all, my post did NOT MENTION NAMES--frankly, because I simply don't recall the name of the individual.

Secondly, I did, SPECIFICALLY, mention St.Mary's, KS--which I specifically DID recall.

Last, "large" is a matter of interpretation. I never saw the items and do not have them counted out.

I don't really care. There was such a collection, it was at St. Mary's, KS., and it was the property of an SSPX muckety-muck.

Aloysius seems to have named someone. Talk to him about calumny, please.

[ninenot]

In essence, any priest who celebrated the Old Rite publicly was in schism.

Well, that's the way your advisers interpreted Paul VI's suppression of the Old Rite, but they were wrong.

Even in Milwaukee under Rembert Weakland there was an Old Rite Mass celebrated VERY publicly by a priest 'in good standing' with the Diocese (the pastor of a parish) regularly after the Old Rite was suppressed.

Although the priest was asked to retire, (and he did) the Mass continued to be PUBLICLY celebrated, still under Rembert's reign, and there was a tacit agreement: no advertising, no problems.

Too bad you went through all that sturm und drang. Your advisers were at the very least ignorant...

[ninenot]

Well--I agree with the gist of your comments; Pipeorg is also correct in his summary.

In short, so what? That the Church changes emphasis without changing doctrine is not a big deal. Was it prudent? Did the changes have the right effect? THOSE are the questions which Ratzinger and Gamber (and a number of others) are addressing. We shall see.

In minor criticism of your post, there's a good deal of 'progress' cited; I've always responded to the secular evolutionary types by asking them to demonstrate how the increase in the murder rate (e.g.) can be a sign of 'progress.'

STILL haven't gotten an answer.