Posted on 04/25/2005 7:11:26 AM PDT by murphE
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.