Posted on 07/31/2004 3:18:06 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid
Catholic canon lawyer Peter Vere and I have co-authored a new book critiquing the claims and controversies of extreme traditionalism that will come out in September, published by Our Sunday Visitor Publishing.
Written in a popular and accessible style, More Catholic Than the Pope provides a detailed analysis of and response to common arguments raised by extreme traditionalist Catholics (in particular, adherents of the Society of St. Pius X) against the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II, the fact that the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre committed a schismatic act by illicitly ordaining four bishops in 1988, and more. Chapters include a history of the SSPX, a background on the controversy between the SSPX and the so-called "Conciliar Church," and answers to several standard canon-law and historical arguments often raised by extreme traditionalists.
Our hope is that, by God's grace, the evidence presented in this new 224-page book will inform, encourage, and strengthen Catholics who have been shaken or confused by the misguided arguments raised against the Catholic Church by some extreme traditionalists and, with regard to those who have adopted a schismatic mindset, that this book will help them recognize the errors of extreme traditionalist groups, help them to see why they should abandon those errors, and help them come home to the Catholic Church.
Additional details on More Catholic Than the Pope will be available soon at Envoy Encore weblog.
Your post 458 makes no sense, I doubt if you read Cardinal Ottaviani's letter, or the accumulated findings. The cover letter alone speaks volumes. And I don't think Bugnini was buggering Weakland - or maybe he was - can you prove it? FYI Bugnini the mason wrote the NO.
The Letter:
Rome
25 September 1969
Most Holy Father:
Having carefully examined and presented for the scrutiny of others the New Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) prepared by the experts of the Committee for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel obliged before God and Your Holiness to set forth the following considerations:
1. The accompanying Critical Study is the work of a select group of bishops, theologians, liturgists, and pastors of souls. Despite its brevity, the study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo Missae--considering the new elements widely susceptible to widely different interpretations which are implied or taken for granted--represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.
The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery.
2. The pastoral reasons put forth to justify such a grave break, even if such reasons could still hold good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem sufficient.
The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place--if it subsists at all--could well turn into a certainty the suspicion, already prevalent, alas in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound forever.
The recent reforms have amply demonstrated that new changes in the liturgy could not be made without leading to complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful, who already show signs of restiveness and an indubitable lessening of their faith.
Among the best of the clergy, the result is an agonizing crisis of conscience, numberless instances of which come to us daily.
3. We are certain that these considerations, prompted by what we hear from the living voice of shepherds and the flock, cannot but find an echo in the heart of Your Holiness, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. The subjects for whose benefit a law is made have always had the right, nay the duty, to ask the legislator to abrogate the law, should it prove to be harmful.
At a time, therefore, when the purity of the faith and the unity of the Church suffer cruel lacerations and still greater peril, daily and sorrowfully echoed in the words of You, our common Father, we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the integral and fruitful Missal of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness, and so deeply venerated by the whole Catholic world.
A. Card. Ottaviani A. Card. Bacci
There is no fire? Why then did Paul VI himself describe the situation of the Church following Vatican II as a process of "auto-demolition." Why then did he worry that "the smoke of Satan" had entered the sancturary? Where have all these scandals come from? Why is there a vocations crisis, a seminary crisis, a catechesis crisis, a liturgical crisis, a church attendance crisis? Is everybody but the Pope hallucinating? And just to extend the analogy a bit--if the owner of the house says there was no emergency, but if he's in the backyard writing poetry while his house is on fire and his children are screaming at the top of their lungs--is his testimony trustworthy? Even if he's the chief of police?
But let's say you're right for a moment. Let's say the Pope was absolutely correct, that there was no emergency. But suppose the law also said if you break and enter because you sincerely believed there was an emergency, and that if this was the case, whether you were actually right or not, you would not be guilty of any crime-- how then could you afterwards be justly accused of any crime? In effect, this is exactly what happened with the SSPX. The Pope ignored the caveat Canon Law itself provided Archbishop Lefebvre. The Pope couldn't pretend canon 1323 didn't exist--it certainly did; nor could he revise the law itself after the fact--his own Canon Law prohibits such an injustice. So he did what he does frequently, especially when he can't answer his critics reasonably--he simply ignored the canon and rejected out of hand the Archbishop's sincere concern for the faith in a crisis. This was simply an act of injustice on the part of the Pope. No Vatican spin on earth can make it just.
And he compounded this with a false charge of schism besides. Yet a schism must actually exist for such a charge to have any validity. It cannot be unilaterally imposed or predicated on a supposition that disobedience of a papal command is in itself a denial of the papacy itself. Such an assumption violates logic--especially where the evidence shows that the SSPX was acting in defense of Catholic Tradition. Besides, many many times the Archbishop had publicly asserted that his struggle was based on his fear that there was an ongoing effort by Rome to destroy Traditional Catholicism, beginning with the elimination of the ancient Mass. This is all on the record. To imagine such opposition was based on hostility to the office of the pope is bizarre in its assumption. There is simply no evidence that shows this at all.
Wow, you're reduced to catcalls. You are sunk, sink. Kabooom
I read this in two books written originally in Italy and then one,possibly sourced by the same books I read,written in English.
"You must have the Pope's consent to be in union with him."
Since when is this a doctrine of the Church? Do you just sort of make this all up as you go along? Do you actually believe a pope can state someone is in schism who is really not--and make it a fact? What if the pope doesn't like blonds--can he refuse union with them, even if they affirm allegiance? Your thinking is not only ridiculous--it shows you will argue any extreme to make the Pope appear correct.
Having said this, I will add that of course a pope may STATE somebody is in schism. No one denies that. But his statement would be a nullity if it were not so in fact. Truth must be the basis for any papal denunciation. No pope can CREATE a schism--it abides in another's heart. He can announce it, but his announcement must be based on something real, there must be ample evidence, it can't be simply based on a papal whim.
The recent reforms have amply demonstrated that new changes in the liturgy could not be made without leading to complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful, who already show signs of restiveness and an indubitable lessening of their faith.
I'm reading a book on the Doctrine of Infallibility right now, and it's just fascinating, and always beacons us to look to the 'Ancient Tradition.' I learn so much from you guys, you're an erudite bunch, all of you. But I fear that the lovers of the Ancient Tradition will soon be 'playing outlawed tunes on outlawed pipes.'
That's your quote. As He said: "Thou sayest it."
You didn't get the gist of my post.
I don't trust Rembert Weakland, for example. Not in the least. No how. No way. He's screwed me personally, viciously, and wilfully.
Having said that, if Weakland says 'thou shalt NOT commit adultery,' I'd still believe it.
The point is that if an individual speaks the truth, regardless of their personal character, it is the TRUTH that we respect and observe.
I don't think you have read the book; it's not yet available, right?
I would hope that the book addresses the truth issues, not personalities, just as we do on this forum, religiously (cough) all the time.
If Vere/Madrid present the facts and their argumentation is irrefutable, then it's a question of true/not true.
You know, 0 or 1.
People will take it personally--but that's their problem. Christ wasn't concerned about hurt feelings, either.
The only conspiracy theory I buy is the one which starts with Satan, and doesn't work too well.
The poor fool relies on humans...but he tries.
Oh, I don't know. I vaguely recall some others being 'cranky' on these threads. So much so that some of them were tossed from FR.
OTOH, the Tomas Torquemada Gentlemen's Club consists solely of good-humored individuals who only ACT cranky just to maintain credibility on FR.
"Furthermore, the SSPX commits a fraud against frightened Catholic lay people, telling them the Church is no longer following Christ's plan, the Novus Ordo is flawed, and that the Pope is committing acts of paganism, without a shred of real proof."
Once again you are wrong. First of all, you confuse Rome with the Church. The SSPX doesn't say "the Church is no longer following Christ's plan", it says Rome is no longer following Catholic Tradition--which had been the way of the Church for two thousand years. It says this because this is simply the fact, Rome is at war with its own past. Nor is it the SSPX alone who says these things. Cardinal Ratzinger has said it over and over. Cardinal Ratzinger also criticizes the New Mass with almost as much intensity as the SSPX. It is he who called the new liturgy a mere "fabrication" by a committee, not something that had evolved under the aegis of the Holy Spirit. And the great theologian Klaus Gamber himself called the Novus Ordo a disaster.
As for your third point--that the SSPX charges the Pope with committing acts of paganism--Assisi I and II speak for themselves, as does the Pope's admission in his own diary that he actually prayed animist prayers with animists. Bishop Fellay in his letters mentions the Pope's having poured out libations in the Togo Forest. Rome has never denied any of this--though it doesn't like to publicize these issues either. One can understand why since these acts are highly scandalizing. So are the so-called inculturations that involve syncretic actions--invocations to false gods. But do you think if the SSPX had been spreading false rumors and acting irresponsibly, the Pope would have entered into negotiations with the Society in an attempt to resolve differences? And never once did his papal representative, Cardinal Hoyos, argue the SSPX was speaking falsely or even bring these issues up, though he brought up many other points of disagreement. In fact, these pagan events took place and may be tracked down in newspapers.
No--REALLY??
Mein Herz!
Here's another real secret: Weakland was the "celebrant" at the trial run in PaulVI's chapel.
As to the cover letter you indicate "speaks volumes:" no it does not.
It says that O. and Co. would REALLY prefer that the NO not be implemented.
ANOTHER Shock to my delicate system!!!
Next you'll tell me that Quo Primum prevents the Supreme Legislator (that's the Pope) from changing one jot, or one tittle, in the Mass.
Yup.
FYI, I think that the NO is a disaster.
But it IS the Perfect Sacrifice.
No "flaws"--kapische?
Edited for the WHOLE truth.
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.