Sede in the mornin'...
Sede in the evenin'...
Sede 'round supper time!
Posted on 09/20/2004 7:38:56 AM PDT by NYer
Taking a break from judging annulments earlier today, I visited a number of French traditionalist websites. I also had the opportunity, yesterday, to speak with a friend of mine who is a canonist from France following the situation as well as another friend who keeps tabs on the traditionalist movement in both the English and the French speaking world. Everyone agrees -- the situation has degenerated into total chaos, as nobody knows exactly what is going on with the highly-respected French SSPX clergy that have criticized what they see as the SSPX's growing rigidity.
It does appear that Rome has refused to take competency over the case, more-or-less stating that the SSPX denied Rome's jurisdiction over them when Lefebvre carried out a schismatic act through the 1988 episcopal consecrations. Beyond that, Rome refuses to comment other than to say, "Our door remains open for their return to full communion."
Beyond that, the rhetoric, polemic and accusations suggest that indeed civil war is breaking out among the laity and clergy within the SSPX's French District. In fact, two websites have now popped up that are exclusively devoted to tracing all the news stories associated with the crisis. What I find personally find interesting is that every news report, commentary, polemic, etc... mentions Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion from the SSPX around this time last year.
In the months that followed, it appears that the SSPX more-or-less tried to sweep Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion under the rug. But in so doing, even the regime currently in charge of the SSPX had to admit the important role played by Fr. Aulagnier in the founding of the SSPX. This is probably why the SSPX appeared to hope the issue would go away.
Yet it is also well-known that Fr. Aulagnier was a close friend of Fr. Laguerie as well as Fr. de Tanouarn -- two of the SSPX's leading priests. (As Fr. Laguerie's assistant, Fr. Henri appears to have just happened into the situation). It is also well-known that a number of French (and some American) SSPX priests were not happy with Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion. Therefore, I will venture to guess that the current SSPX chaos is the effect of Fr. Aulagnier's expulsion coming back to haunt Bishop Fellay. As for the particular details, this is the first time in almost fourteen years of being a traditionalist that I find the fog of war too thick to reasonably discern what is going on. (What I find even more troubling is that behind the scenes, under the flag of truce, other SSPX and traditionalist commentators with whom I am in contact have admitted to having the same problem.)
So if I can end on a personal note to the moderate SSPX clergy and their supporters who follow this blog, I'm more than happy to abide by the flag of truce and keep you guys in prayer while you fight whatever battles need to be fought, but I honestly cannot make heads-or-tails of what is happening. But like Rome has said, the door is open for you to return. I will pray that God gives you the necessary strength to walk through it.
Similar to the phony third secret of Fatima...can't approve of the apparition and then deny the message. That would be like going to the Novus Ordo but claiming to be traditional or orthodox.
"Here is it admitted. Only the Tridentine Mass is a true sacrifice..."
If you had any smarts, you'd know Trent and its definition of the true Mass is at the heart of what all the conflict is about. The Novus Ordo subverts the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, as well as the dogma of Transubstantiation. You need to study up a little more on the issue.
"If we actual Catholics are going to be shot in the back by those who purport to be Catholic..."
You are getting paranoid again. Nobody's shooting you in the back. Traditional Catholics on this site are just reminding you that popes who pray with witchdoctors and kiss Korans are not especially reassuring. The last thing you should be doing is worshiping them.
Your steady, patient and intelligent apologetics here make me very proud to know you.
As usual, ultima, you provide no evidence for your assertion. The fact is, the standards you apply to the 1970 Missal would result in the conclusion that the Mass of St. Gregory the Great subverts the sacrifice of Christ and transubstantiation.
Only to die-hard SSPX adherents is the absurdity not readily apparent of labeling a rite which can and should be offered with the traditional Latin chant, with the traditional Roman Canon, the traditional Mozabaric Words of Consecration, and with many of the traditional Roman secrets as not a sacrifice.
I challenge you again, ultima, to explain away the fact that in the 1970 Missal Christ is explicitly offered to the Father and the priest clearly prays that the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Somehow this is a subversion of the Catholic dogmas?
Supplices ergo te, Domine, deprecamur, ut haec munera, quae tibi sacranda detulimus, eodem Spiritu sanctificare digneris, ut Corpus et + Sanguis fiant Filii tui Domini nostri Iesu Christi, cuius mandato haec mysteria celebramus....
Memores igitur, Domine, eiusdem Filii tui salutiferae passionis necnon mirabilis resurrectionis et ascensionis in caelum, sed et praestolantes alterum eius adventum, offerimus tibi, gratias referentes, hoc sacrificium vivum et sanctum.
Respice, quaesumus, in oblationem Ecclesiae tuae et, agnoscens Hostiam, cuius voluisti immolatione placari, concede, ut qui Corpore et Sanguine Filii tui reficimur, Spiritu eius Sancto repleti, unum corpus et unus spiritus inveniamur in Christo.
Yes, these prayers like "we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice. Look with favor on your Church's offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself" clearly are teaching Lutheranism. It's simply amazing that no one noticed!
Hey, that was timely, believe me. Much thanks.
Look in a mirror.
Sede in the mornin'...
Sede in the evenin'...
Sede 'round supper time!
We've been through this countless times. One of the great tricks of modernism, as Pius X warned, was to redefine traditional Catholic terminology so that certain terms no longer carry their original meanings. The word "Sacrifice" is an example of this. The term no longer carries the propitiatory denotation of classical Catholic theology, but rather carries the newer meaning provided by Protestant theologians who emphasize the Paschal Mystery, rather than the re-presentation of Calvary. The "sacrifice" in the New Mass is that of Thanksgiving for salvation only, not that of Propitiation and the Cross.
This is why one of the first things Bugnini did was to throw out the Offertory--just as his mentor Martin Luther had done--in order to remove entirely the notion underscored by Trent of Propitiatory sacrifice. This is also why the New Mass is so short on expressions of our sinfulness and on the punishments due to sin; it scarcely mentions at all our need for intercession, not only of Christ, but of the angels and saints--which characterizes so profoundly the Old Mass. It is rather a Mass of the already-saved, an assembly that rejoices in its salvation, not a Mass of sinners who have need of expiation.
The New Mass is also subversive of the truth of Transubstantiation. Not that Transubstantiation does not actually transpire. It is a valid Mass--but barely. What happens is that while the Great Mystery of Faith does occur, the Real Presence is deliberately ignored by the priest and the assembly. Instead of a focus on the living Presence on the altar, attention is immediately trained instead on the virtual Presence of Christ in the assembly. Everything is done to minimize awareness of the Catholic truth. Even kneeling for Communion has been eliminated. All has been arranged instead to emphasize what most resembles a Protestant worship service. This is profoundly offensive to many Catholics who sense the avoidance of a true Catholic expression. For many others the Novus Ordo has meant a gradual loss of faith in the Real Presence.
You've seen no such thing. Sorry, but the arguments are all on our side. Not only is the Novus Ordo a failure--but so is the exaggerated ecumenism of this Pope. Vatican II has born no fruit. None whatsoever. That is simply a fact.
You write, "This is not the case at all. Nothing in the Novus Ordo conflicts with Trent, unless you quote little tiny pieces of it, from an SSPX pamphlet."
You don't know what you're talking about. Here is Ratzinger himself on the issue, speaking at the conference at Fontgombault:
"It is only against this background of the effective denial of the authority of Trent, that the bitterness of the struggle against allowing the celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Missal, after the liturgical reform, can be understood. The possibility of so celebrating constitutes the strongest, and thus (for them) the most intolerable contradiction of the opinion of those who believe that the faith in the Eucharist formulated by Trent has lost its value."
And here is Professor Roberto de Mattei of Una Voce Italy, speaking at the same conference of Catholic liturgists:
"The lex credendi-lex orandi relationship, which is implicit in the liturgical reform, should be viewed in the light of the new theology which prepared the way for the Second Vatican Council, and which above all tried to give direction to what developed from it. In this sense, the lex credendi expressed bv the Novus Ordo appears as a revision of the Catholic faith by refraction through the anthropological and secularist 'turn' of the new theology – a theology, it must be emphasised, which not merely re-presents the themes of Modernism, but appropriates these themes in a Marxist sense, that is to say, by way of a system of thought which offers itself as a radical 'philosophy of practice.'"
In other words, the change in the Liturgy was made deliberately to change people's faith. Noting these criticisms by renouned Catholics, Michael Davies wrote the following in an article called "Redefining Trent", published in the Latin Mass Society Newsletter:
"This is a very serious and very radical criticism. Can it in any way be justified? Note in particular the reference to the fact that this new theology prepared the way for Vatican II. Cardinal Ratzinger certainly accepts that this is the case. He analyses the thinking of a representative selection of contemporary theologians and liturgists and concludes that: 'A sizeable party of Catholic liturgists seems to have practically arrived at the conclusion that Luther, rather than Trent, was substantially right in the sixteenth century debate', and adds: 'one can detect much the same position in the post-conciliar discussions on the priesthood.' He refers also to theologians who share Luther’s opinion that it is, 'the most appalling horror and a damnable impiety to speak of the sacrifice of the Mass'."
"I will bestow this grace unto you,confident that without too long a delay the See of Peter will be occupied by a successor of Peter who is perfectly Catholic,and into whose hands you will be able to put back the grace of your episcopy so that he may confirm it."
I think you mistakenly posted the wrong letter if your intent was to prove that archbishop Lefebvre "does not accuse the Pope himself of being and Antichrist."(your words) See first italicized post which clearly states that he believes the Pope and those in positions of authority are anti-Christs.
The second italicized post confirms the first. Now please let's stop playing silly games and work together to save the Catholic Church and Western Civilization. Fight the liberals/modernists/progressives/iinfiltrators/homosexuals/bishops who cover/imposters and the devil and call the dogs off of those of us who are orthodox,traditional,conservative,obedient Catholics who only want to save the Church Christ established on earth for the salvation of souls for the God who created us all.
Here is what the Archbishop advised his bishops:
"I beseech you TO REMAIN ATTACHED TO THE SEE OF PETER, to the Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of all Churches, in the integral Catholic Faith, expressed in the various creeds of our Catholic Faith, in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, in conformity with what you were taught in your seminary. Remain faithful in the handing down of this Faith so that the Kingdom of Our Lord may come."
How is this in any way consistent with calling the Pope an antichrist? Clearly he was referring to the apostates who people the highest posts in the Vatican and not to the Pope himself--and in this, he spoke the truth.
As for your second point about playing silly games and working together--you trivialize the conflict by reducing it to such terms. The conflict we are in is not a silly game, it is a deadly struggle. There is no possibility of working with those committed to destroying the Catholic faith.
""Now I don't know if the time has come to say that the Pope is a heretic; I don't know if it is the time to say that. You know, for some time many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying "there is no more Pope," but I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident, it was very difficult to say that the Pope is a heretic, the Pope is apostate."
This may interest you...
http://www.sanctus.cc/siri.htm
Regards my trivializing the battle,you are wrong. I am aware that the battle is intense and of paramount importance and you misread or misinterpreted my plea for uniting and fighting the enemies of the Church.However,the game I was talking about was the one that you engage in with Catholics who have the same objectives as those of you who attend Tridentine Masses that are not sanctioned by the ordinary of the diocese in which you live. It seems that it would be in everyones' interest to accept that there is strong disagreement on several issues and let it go so that we can get the Barque steady and on course. I trust Christ will take care of those things which we cannot,if we pray,live as we should and fight evil.
I have been so interested in working together to save the Church and Western Civ that I frequently overlook the kind of contradictions I pointed out in the first part of this comment. It has taken a concerted effort to overlook them since I constantly notice them but don't comment for the sade of the Kingdom,please think about what you are doing,it is not helping the greater cause.
Nonsense. The confusion in the flock is caused by the Pope praying with witchdoctors and voodoo priests, not by the Archbishop's expressing shock and dismay at such behavior. Everyone understood where Lefebvre was coming from--and from his perspective Rome was apostate. I believe he was right absolutely. It is trying its damnedest to impose a new religion. Thanks to the traditional Catholicism he single-mindedly preserved, this won't happen.
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.