Posted on 04/25/2005 7:11:26 AM PDT by murphE
SMOKE gets in your eyes; and if it happens to be white smoke, announcing the advent of Pope Benedict XVI, and you belong to the "liberal" coterie of fantasists that equates the Catholic Church with Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory, it may be a serious irritant.
Is the Pope a Catholic? There is a strong suspicion among the global media, sometimes amounting to hysteria, that the startling answer may be Yes. Is the madness finally over? Have 40 years of Mao-style continuing revolution within the Church run out of steam? Perhaps. Only time will tell; but the election of Pope Benedict raises a variety of hopes, prospects and possibilities that demand examination.
Firstly, it is necessary to dispose of the sexual distractions that obscure the more important issues because the secular media is interested in fornication, not transubstantiation. It is a depressing measure of the cloacal character of our age that the election of a successor of Peter is greeted with a raucous clamour over condoms. The so-called "liberals" are behaving at the moment as if the Church was in the grip of a fierce reaction. That is not happening. The reality is that, after four decades of demolishing the liturgy, devotional practice and Church authority, the wreckers have hit bedrock, reaching the essential core doctrines of the faith, which the indefectible nature of the Church makes it impossible to revise or abandon.
The catalyst of revolution was the Second Vatican Council. It was only a pastoral council, never comparable in authority with Trent or Vatican I. Only two of its documents had any dogmatic pretensions; but that is academic, since the documents were deliberately worded so vaguely as to admit of radical interpretation later. Among the foremost "progressive" advisers (to Cardinal Frings) at the Council was Father Josef Ratzinger, himself greatly influenced by Karl Rahner, the most powerful of the periti (experts) guiding the Council fathers.
All the evidence suggests that, like Blessed Pius IX, the present Pope has resiled from his early liberal tenets. The reasons are not far to seek. "By their fruits you shall know them" was Christ’s advice in Matthew 7, 16. What were the fruits of Vatican II, hyped as a great spiritual "renewal" of the Church? In France, "Eldest Daughter of the Church", attendance at Mass is now down to 8% (2% among young people). In the United States, in 1965, the year Vatican II ended, there were 49,000 men in training for the priesthood; by 2002 it had slumped to 4,700. Today there are around 3,000 parishes in the US without priests. Renewal?
In Britain, 90% of pupils attending Catholic secondary schools lapse from the faith before leaving. The number of baptisms in England and Wales in 1964 was over 137,000; today it is less than half that number. Nearer home, Glasgow archdiocese had 334,000 Catholics and 361 priests on the eve of Vatican II; by 1996 those numbers had fallen to 250,000 and 209 - and that was a decade ago. A survey last year found that, worldwide, 50% of Catholic priests no longer believed in transubstantiation. Renewal?
It falls to Benedict XVI to remedy this situation. He is exceptionally qualified to do so, because he has shown evidence of understanding the roots of the crisis better than his colleagues. Although a number of cardinals in the recent conclave were described as "conservative", Cardinal Ratzinger was probably unique in attaching key importance to reform of the liturgy, as a means of restoring the Church. In 1997 he said: "I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy..."
That was perceptive and accurate. There is an old Church maxim that runs "lex orandi, lex credendi," meaning simply that the rules by which people pray inform the way in which they believe. The Protestant Reformers acknowledged that and acted accordingly. So did the leaders of the Second Reformation (for that is what the post-Vatican II offensive against Catholic practice and belief amounted to). That is why such extreme measures of repression were employed against the Old Rite of Mass, known as the Tridentine, but dating from the fourth century.
The Old Mass, which has fought its way back into liturgical currency on an extraordinary scale, largely at the behest of young people, would be the ideal instrument of Pope Benedict’s re-evangelisation of the Church and the world. In tandem with a reform of the modern Mass, already tentatively under way, the foundations could be laid for a return to dignified worship and reassertion of doctrine. John Paul II had little interest in liturgical matters: the new Pope is deeply engaged. Therein lies a great hope for the Church. The notion that the Mass - in Catholic belief the bloodless continuation of the sacrifice of Calvary - should be disguised as a Protestant service, in pursuit of false ecumenism, is not tenable.
How will Benedict XVI carry out his mission? His choice of name is significant. By rejecting John, Paul or a combination thereof, he has departed from the blinkered, post-Conciliar psyche that suggests the Church was founded in 1962, rather than two millennia ago. Taken in conjunction with his recent homily, addressing the need to embark on evangelisation of the developed world, it signals a commitment to Europe, whose patron is St Benedict, rather than abandoning it in favour of the Third World.
The European Union’s rejection of Commissioner Buttiglione, for being faithful to the Catholic teaching on homosexuality, and its refusal to include even the most token reference to the continent’s Christian heritage in its proposed constitution, were straws in the wind. The 21st century will be an era of persecution, of one kind or another, for the Catholic Church. Objectively, that is good news: history has shown nothing reinvigorates Catholicism more than persecution, from Diocletian to the filth that was the Spanish Republic.
The Reformation began in Europe in 1519; the Counter-Reformation did not get under way until the Council of Trent, which ended in 1563. The Second Reformation began in 1962: we may soon see the first stirrings of a Second Counter-Reformation. Evviva il Papa.
"Hippolytus was reconciled to the Church just before his matyrdom. He was not separated from the Church on his death.
I would think that Marcel Lefebvre would need to be reconciled with the Church prior to his death in order to be considered for Sainthood."
"Hippolytus of Rome was reconcilled with the Church BEFORE his martrydom. So when he died, he was not at the time considered excommunicated."
You are both correct re Hippolytus, however, Joan of Arc died excommunicate and was still raised to the altars.
There are also other instances of excommunication being lifted posthumously. Notably when Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras lifted the excommunications of Michael Caerularius and Cardinal Humbert after Vatican II.
If a future Papacy were suitably disposed, it would be quite possible for Lefebvre to be considered for Sainthood, although I think the chances are remote.
You must not have seen post #18, which contains this link:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Appendix_I.htm
It is a very well-written appendix, and quite worth taking the time to read carefully. It covers the historical reality of the early centuries and shows how our own recent history is not very much different in some ways.
There is a lot to learn from history if one pays attention to what really happened, and does not close his mind preferring instead the slanted commentaries of liberal detractors.
In 1965, when Pope John Paul was still Bishop of Krakow, he discussed the phenomenon now referred to as inculturation with a friend, saying "Certainly we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local tradition: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense."
Is this the quote you mean?
This was of course in reference to the reform of the TLM and the creation of the NO, which was an immense reform. It is not in reference to the "reform of the reform" being called for by Pope Benedict XVI, due to the devastating results of the first reform, which this author is speaking of.
Yes he was, but not by the Pope. Check out his entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
He was eventually found to be innocent of any charges against him, was reestablished to the Alexandrian See and was in full communion with the Catholic Church upon his death. His excommunication by the Arians was invalid and was pronounced such while he was still alive.
There have been conspicuous political motives behind the public image of Lefebvre promoted from the Vatican. He and what he stood for was no different than that of the traditional Church. That was the problem. The New Vatican was desperately trying to shed the trappings of the Faith.
The elephant in the middle of the room here is this: Lefebvre nor his bishops were ever accused of having held or taught any erroneous doctrine. This is of no small significance. The spin job foisted on the faithful in this regard has been scandalous, in the very mildest of terms. Diabolically disoriented is a little closer to the truth.
The "official" story that Lefebvre was some kind of rebel is a big farce. What was the basis of the so-called excommunication? It could be compared to impeaching a member of Congress who is too insistent upon relying on the Constitution while other Congressmen are intent on a reform. Does a conservative who wants to rely on the Constitution commit some kind of crime just because everyone else wants to ignore the Constitution??
I can tell you this much: what the key players are willing to admit behind closed doors would shock your pants off.
Was the Traditional Latin Mass ever abrogated? Can it EVER be abrogated?
Can any pastor of the Church of whatever rank or dignity (including Pope!) ever forbid an ordained Roman Rite priest from celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass? (Hint: take a look at Quo Primum, and the Commission of cardinals called by JPII to study this question.)
Was there really any excommunication of Lefebvre and his 4 bishops?
Yes. Lefebvre was excommunicated for disobeying an order from the Pope not to consecrate any bishops, not for celebrating the Tridentine Mass.
No. He sleeps in the woods. :-)
No. He sleeps in the woods. :-)
She was found not guilty of her accused crimes after her matrydom and her excommunication was declared null and had no effect; there was no excommunication.
You are correct.
Entertaining read. Thanks.
Truth can come in a bucket of cold Holy Water. Thank you for Post #7.
Your links to threads about priests from India and such foreign countries are missing something.
In my experience, these priests come visiting to America incredulous, to see for themselves, because they cannot believe that American laymen are as educated as they sound in the Faith. They ask the same questions again and again: Are you a priest? Did you study in the seminary?
They say that in India, laymen are entirely uninformed about Catholicism and it is a constant struggle to teach the most basic things at their parishes.
There is another story going on.
I know a seminarian who tells how several Indian seminarians came to visit, out of their country. They were very surprised to see how much learning was taking place at this other seminary. Within a year, they escaped their own school and came asking for admission to this other, more scholasitically-oriented school. They were accepted, however, upon closer examination, it was determined that these several 3rd-year students would have to start all over in their studies.
Why? This is the kicker:
In India, the course of studies was not teaching the Catholic Faith. All they were learning there was "inclusiveness," "pastoral sensitivity," "appreciation for other religions." What other religions? Well, in India, most people are Hindu, Buddhist, Mohammedan, and other such non-Catholic sects.
In India, apparently seminary curriculum is directed toward anything BUT the Catholic faith. If PRIESTS being formed there are coming out relatively ignorant of Church teachings, why would they not be surprised to see American laymen who are well read in the Faith?
You mean this? "En arkee ein o logos, kai o logos ein pros ton Theon, kai Theos ein o logos." (I hate transliterated Greek!)
Good luck with your studies, but you should know that Ancient Greek and New Testament Greek (koine) are rather different languages.
The book I am using is geared toward NT Greek, rather than Homeric style Greek.
Thanks for the correction. I too hate the transliteration.
"She was found not guilty of her accused crimes after her matrydom and her excommunication was declared null and had no effect; there was no excommunication."
I don't dispute that at all. But the point is that her excommunication was nullified after her death. The same could also happen for the late Archbishop Lefebvre if a future Pope actually decided to look at the Canon Law of the case.
The fact that he believed there to be a case of necessity (whether he was right or wrong to believe this) prevented him from incurring the penalty of a latae sententiae excommunication. The CIC is so shot full of loopholes, that it is nearly impossible for anyone to incur such an excommunication.
Except for the fact that Lefebvre did indeed incur it.
I've read accounts on both sides of the situation and what I really don't understand is the reason why Lefebvre felt it was an absolute necessity to consecrate the bishops against the explicit wishes of Rome.
NT Greek should be just fine. Once you've mastered that, move on to the Byzantine Greek of the Fathers.
How do you presume to know that Archbishop Lefebvre did not believe there was a case of necessity?
what I really don't understand is the reason why Lefebvre felt it was an absolute necessity to consecrate the bishops against the explicit wishes of Rome.
In order to preserve the faith. See post #22 if you have any doubt that it needed preserving.
Do you not know that throughout history there have been excommunications declared for purely political reasons?
What was the necessity?
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.