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.
Very good answers in #'s 77,78,79.
Campos is a good example. Likewise, other fraternities that were set up specifically to provide the Traditional Latin Mass, and under Rome's approval, they have all now been required to start to morph into the NO liturgy, OR ELSE severe penalties forthcoming. No congregations remain that have not been so subverted. If not for Lefebvre's consecrations, we would today be without any serious episcopal line devoted to Tradition. The only severely penalized group under JPII were clerics who were devoted to the perpetuation of the Traditional Mass. This has, therefore, been defined (by a pope who seemed afraid of definition, per se) in action as the most punishable offense against JPII's pontificate, an offense far more offensive than any other malicious behavior, e.g. pederasty and episcopal protection for same, ordination of women, promotion of contraceptives, support and/or defense of abortion/stem cell research, wild liturgical abuse, embezzlement of Church funds for nefarious purposes. These ghosts in the closet will not remain silent for long. And Benedict XVI is facing their emergence in due time. He might have to come up with another Ecclesia Dei type movement, perhaps of a different stripe, but a "diversion" nonetheless.
If history is any teacher, whatever "return" to the Old Mass he allows, will likely be tainted by a requirement to follow the tried and true evolution of liturgy into the NO liturgy: i.e. 1962 missal, then 1966 transitional rite, then the 1967, 68, and 69 versions. We would be wise to remember that Padre Pio was commanded to celebrate the late transitional liturgy, the one being used in 1967, and he experienced such severe physical agony that he was not able to finish even one time. He appealed and was given special permission to say the Traditional Latin Mass only. Then, as his eyesight was failing, he was allowed in the end to say daily only the Mass of the Immaculate Conception, Dec. 8th, because he knew it by memory.
Modern depictions of him facing the people with the explanation that he said the NO liturgy are lies. He never used that liturgy, but was obedient in turning around to face the congregation, although having to do so was a severly cruel penance for him.
Ora pro nobis, Sancte Padre Pio, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.
Archbishop Lefebvre insisted that his irregular consecration of bishops without Rome’s permission was carried out in a state of necessity. However, the Holy See foresaw the situation in which the archbishop found himself before he consecrated the bishops, yet still denied him permission to proceed with such an action. As Cardinal Gantin, on behalf of the Holy See, wrote in a letter to Lefebvre dated June 17, 1988: “Since . . . you stated that you intended to ordain four priests to the episcopate without having obtained the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff as required by canon 1013 of the Code of Canon Law, I myself convey to you this public canonical warning, confirming that if you should carry out your intention as stated above, you yourself and also the bishops ordained by you shall incur ipso facto [by that very fact] excommunication latae sententiae [imposed automatically] reserved to the Apostolic See in accordance with canon 1382.”
In essence, the Holy See did not agree with Lefebvre’s analysis of the situation in the Catholic Church, namely that a sufficient emergency existed to warrant the consecration of bishops without Rome’s approval. This is an important point in resolving the dispute between Archbishop Lefebvre and Pope John Paul II, for where there exists a difference in interpreting the application of canon law, canon 16 states clearly: “Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation.”
In Lefebvre’s situation, he knew in advance that his interpretation of canon law in this case was not acceptable to the Roman Pontiff, who is the highest legislator. So even though Lefebvre disagreed with the Roman Pontiff’s interpretation of canon law, it nevertheless remained up to Pope John Paul II to interpret that law authoritatively. Therefore, because the idea of a state of necessity in Lefebvre’s circumstances was rejected by Pope John Paul II, I came to realize that I could not legitimately invoke the state of necessity canons in defense of Lefebvre’s consecration of bishops without Rome’s permission.
See my post #83
Didn't the SSPX commit an act of scism by not obeying Rome?
1. It is fascinating to me that the American church deliberately mistranslates the Latin of the NO at so many points. All of the mistranslations have the effect of demystifying the mass and making it more banal.
2. One of the mistranslations has an interesting history elsewhere: the "Credo..." The Anglicans also have a "We believe..." formulation (although only in their Rite II, I believe.) The technical historical grounds for this is that the decree of the Councils read "We believe..." This was because it was the joint statement of the Fathers of the Councils. But liturgically, it has always been "I believe..." East and West alike, from the beginning. This is a personal statement of belief at baptism by the godparents (and the one being baptized, if adult), and by each person present. Technically, the Symbol of Faith (as we Orthodox call the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed) is recited by the priest serving the Liturgy -- we faithful came over the centuries to sing or say it along. But liturgically at the Divine Liturgy it is first and foremost a personal statement of faith on the part of the priest or bishop preparing to read the prayers of consecration over the Holy Gifts.
Where this gets interesting is in the Episcopalian experience. An Episcopalian bishop (forget his name) was once asked how he could recite the Creed, when he most obviously did not believe many of its tenets. His straight-faced and serious reply was that he always used the "We believe..." formulation, since probably most of the people present believe the Creed -- he could therefore say "We believe..." without being dishonest, in his eyes... The "I believe..." formulation makes it a personal statement of faith for everyone, from the bishop on down.
2. I am struck by the beautiful liturgical English in the TR translations presented. I have an old St. Joseph's missal and an old Douay-Rheims, and an old English Catholic Psalter in my library, all in liturgical English. I haul them out for ammunition when some of my Orthodox compatriots try to make the case that good, beautiful liturgical English is only a sentimental Anglican thing...
3. It continues to be mind-boggling to me that the NO has a seemingly infinite number of choices for everything (this alone is mind-boggling to me as someone used to Orthodox liturgics), but that absolutely none of the choices on offer are straight-forward translations of the old TR!
It continues to be mind-boggling to me that the NO has a seemingly infinite number of choices for everything
I can give a simple explanation for why these things were allowed, but many people would just reject it outright and then proceed to question my sanity.
Contrary to the well publicized steps taken by the Vatican against the Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the usual suspects developed lockjaw in their capricious failure to apply the same church law to the appointment heretic bishops within the Chinese communist government controlled Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (CCPA).
The anti-Dogma anti-Tradition Holy See is not 'modernist' it is a jelly fish trying to stay afloat in a bowl of sludge called public opinion.
The Holy See has no shame in displaying to the world its' bigoted determination to crush any sense of Sacred Dogma and Traditions followed by the faithful for hundreds of years. It is my guess ( I will confirm this ) the underground Roman Rite Catholic Church in China is using the traditional Tridentine Mass, and for this reason has no support from the pope. The Vatican doesn't get it. The faithful in China have suffered intimidation, oppression, imprisonment, torture, and death rather than deny their fidelity to the Vicar of Christ. It is these very souls the Vatican is determined to drive into the arms of the communists. This is the Holy See that is oblivious to the fact that by their purposeful absence from the funeral of JPII and the installation of BXVI these bishops who dare call themselves Catholic spit in the face of both men, and more importantly - all that they represent.
The atheist commies have been given a pass, and the faithful are getting the shaft.
My question is in regards to the SSPX and not the CCPA. Did the SSPX commit an act of schism?
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.