When The Pope's Friends Walk Away

Exactly. Again, the SSJV move in Campos makes my heart sing. While there are dangers ahead, I see great movement and joy in the last two years progress.

"Why doesn't the Vatican monitor the Bishops?"

I suspect that the Vat monitors the Bishops on an 'as-needed' basis, as might any manager in a large organization.

In addition, the Vat operates by the rule of subsidiarity, which gives the local Bishop a fair amount of latitude in areas like prudential judgment, pastoral needs, etc.

What I would like to know is why the extreme problems such as Weakland were not smacked.

Dear narses,

"I don't know. They are closer than they have ever been, imho, to a reconcilliation."

And devout Catholics ought to hope and pray for such reconciliation.

I don't disagree with your point. My point was not that at this particular moment the SSPX aren't possibly on the way back. My point was that, as a rather young organization, the history of SSPX had been to move away from Rome. In the case of the Assyrians, the movement away from Rome is in the truly ancient past. More recent times have brought movement in the other direction.

sitetest

Nicely done response. Anti-abortionists sometimes work with feminists on particular issues; the NRA occasionally works with wildlife nuts. Tis the way of the world.

Well put...in case you were wondering, I agree with you completely. Popes have full authority over matters of discipline. Meat on Fridays, days of observance of Holy Days, priestly celibacy, all of these are matters of discipline. All can be changed by the Pope.

Liturgy is a discipline. However, it is also the primary vehicle of catechesis for the vast majority of Catholics.

The changes in liturgy, being changes in Church discipline, rightfully fall under the authority of a Pope. No previous Pope may bind subsequent Popes on matters of Church discipline, despite protest to the contrary by schismatics.

On the other hand, however, since disciplinary changes are indeed matters of prudential judgement, not matters of faith and morals per se, these prudential decisions are not protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

Any mass a Pope brings forward, if proper matter and form exist, will be guaranteed to be a True Eucharist.

But the form of the liturgy itself may not fully catechize the faithful on the reality of that Real Presence as well as the rest of the faith.

So it is not being infaithful to question the quality, quantity, and fruitfullness of catechesis in a new liturgy.

However, no one may question its validity or licitness or the authority of the Pope to change matters of discipline.

The blurring of lines occurs when people question the right of laity to examine not the licitness not the validity nor the authority but the quality, quantity, and fruitfullness of a new liturgy in catechizing.

So if one is faithful as above yet questions only the quality, quantity, and fruitfullness of a new liturgy in catechizing one is in no way being an extreme trad or integrist or schismatic or heretic.

If however, one denies the liturgy's validity or licitness or the authority of the Pope to change matters of discipline one is indeed in error.

Steve Hand purposely blurs this essential distinction, and brands the former as belonging in the same group as the latter.

Twenty-four years later a revision of her trial, the procès de réhabilitation, was opened at Paris with the consent of the Holy See. The popular feeling was then very different, and, with but the rarest exceptions, all the witnesses were eager to render their tribute to the virtues and supernatural gifts of the Maid. The first trial had been conducted without reference to the pope, indeed it was carried out in defiance of St. Joan's appeal to the head of the Church. Now an appellate court constituted by the pope, after long inquiry and examination of witnesses, reversed and annulled the sentence pronounced by a local tribunal under Cauchon's presidency. quite different that the Lefebvre situation. I have always thought/hoped he was just confused near the end and not culpable for his actions when he reneged on the agreement. He did do many wonderful things and I have never judged him or any other soul and H.M Church never has either.

It is ineluctable he was schismatic and the decision of the Pope, as anyone can read in Ecclesia Dei, was just and apt.

So when Pope St. Pius V said that anyone who "changes the Mass let him be anathema" does that mean that all the hierarchy involved in the creation of the Novus Ordo will go to hell?

Given that the Popes immediately after Pope St. Pius V started changing the Mass again, did they and all the hierarchy since Pope St. Pius V go to hell as well?

No pontiff has believed the traditionalist argument that Quo Primum means the Pope can’t change the Mass. Mediator Dei:

22. As circumstances and the needs of Christians warrant, public worship is organized, developed and enriched by new rites, ceremonies and regulations, always with the single end in view, "that we may use these external signs to keep us alert, learn from them what distance we have come along the road, and by them be heartened to go on further with more eager step; for the effect will be more precious the warmer the affection which precedes it."[25] Here then is a better and more suitable way to raise the heart to God. Thenceforth the priesthood of Jesus Christ is a living and continuous reality through all the ages to the end of time, since the liturgy is nothing more nor less than the exercise of this priestly function. Like her divine Head, the Church is forever present in the midst of her children. She aids and exhorts them to holiness, so that they may one day return to the Father in heaven clothed in that beauteous raiment of the supernatural. To all who are born to life on earth she gives a second, supernatural kind of birth. She arms them with the Holy Spirit for the struggle against the implacable enemy. She gathers all Christians about her altars, inviting and urging them repeatedly to take part in the celebration of the Mass, feeding them with the Bread of angels to make them ever stronger. She purifies and consoles the hearts that sin has wounded and soiled. Solemnly she consecrates those whom God has called to the priestly ministry. She fortifies with new gifts of grace the chaste nuptials of those who are destined to found and bring up a Christian family. When as last she has soothed and refreshed the closing hours of this earthly life by holy Viaticum and extreme unction, with the utmost affection she accompanies the mortal remains of her children to the grave, lays them reverently to rest, and confides them to the protection of the cross, against the day when they will triumph over death and rise again. She has a further solemn blessing and invocation for those of her children who dedicate themselves to the service of God in the life of religious perfection. Finally, she extends to the souls in purgatory, who implore her intercession and her prayers, the helping hand which may lead them happily at last to eternal blessedness in heaven.
. . . .
44. Since, therefore, it is the priest chiefly who performs the sacred liturgy in the name of the Church, its organization, regulation and details cannot but be subject to Church authority. This conclusion, based on the nature of Christian worship itself, is further confirmed by the testimony of history.
. . . .
49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow--keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact--to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.[47]
50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries. They are the sacred language she uses, as the ages run their course, to profess to her divine Spouse her own faith along with that of the nations committed to her charge, and her own unfailing love. They furnish proof, besides, of the wisdom of the teaching method she employs to arouse and nourish constantly the "Christian instinct."
53. The subsequent advances in ecclesiastical discipline for the administering of the sacraments, that of penance for example; the institution and later suppression of the catechumenate; and again, the practice of eucharistic communion under a single species, adopted in the Latin Church; these developments were assuredly responsible in no little measure for the modification of the ancient ritual in the course of time, and for the gradual introduction of new rites considered more in accord with prevailing discipline in these matters.
58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. [50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.
59. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded.. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days--which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation--to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.
60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.
. . . .
65. In every measure taken, then, let proper contact with the ecclesiastical hierarchy be maintained. Let no one arrogate to himself the right to make regulations and impose them on others at will. Only the Sovereign Pontiff, as the successor of Saint Peter, charged by the divine Redeemer with the feeding of His entire flock,[54] and with him, in obedience to the Apostolic See, the bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church of God,"[55] have the right and the duty to govern the Christian people. Consequently, Venerable Brethren, whenever you assert your authority--even on occasion with wholesome severity --you are not merely acquitting yourselves of your duty; you are defending the very will of the Founder of the Church.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent +AMDG

You are wrong about the Tridentine Mass. All ancient rites in the West differed in merely minor ways from one another. Prayers like the Kyrie were recited in the catacombs. All Trent did was codify one version and impose unity.

As for what the fight is about, you incorrectly state the problem. The problem is with people like you who think the Pope can do anything he pleases and those like me who know he can't. How do I know? Because Vatican I set limits on him. He cannot oppose tradition--he must protect it and pass it on unchanged. He is the guardian of our heritage. Thomas Aquinas made it clear that even if a pope gave the command, if it would harm the Church we would be obliged to disobey. St. Robert Bellarmine made the same point. Both are doctors of the Church. Your notion of what the Pope can and cannot do is incorract. It is papolatry--pope worship. It is blind obedience-- something no one on earth should expect.

You call me a heretic, but these days the heretics are made cardinals and the real schismatics--Protestants, Orthodox--are in great favor. It is people like you who support the new religion that has been invented. But it is not Catholicism. It has the buildings and uses some of the same words, but they mean different things and it is not the ancient Faith. Look in any church--where is the tabernacle? It is no longer central. No one genuflects--because the belief in His presence is not there. There is a table but no altar. The priest presides, but he no longer offers sacrifice.

I hope that my brothers here will see that same point and withdraw their claims that the SSPX is heretical.

For the record, in case it isn’t clear, I don’t claim the SSPX is heretical. I have used the term heresy here, but not in that sense.

patent +AMDG

I am Catholic. You're attacking me with comments like that and it is truly wrong. You are neither my parent nor my spiritual director. You misrepresent what I say and pretend to know what I believe and to judge what is in the hearts of people you don't know (telling people "you have lost the faith", for example). Frankly, you are just flat out rude

Grow up. You are attacking the Magisterium publicly. You roar when you attack then mewl when you are counter-attacked. I haven't misrepresented a single thing you have said. I have called you out and you have been unmasked as one who accepts from the Magisterium only what he desires to accept and feels free to reject what he desires to reject.

I never claimed to be your parents and I would be aghast to see my children contradicting and correcting and criticising The Magisterium publicly. I taught my kids true Catholicism and they do not mistake their own ideas as equal to the Teaching Authority of a Divinely-constituted Church.

Site test has handled you with kid gloves and illustrated where you are wrong and instead of acknowledging that you bleat about how you are being treated rudely or unfairly. Good grief, grow a set if you are gonna go public and oppose the Magisterium

What a wonderfully done essay. May I suggest you work on it for publication? You have made the points I've fumbled for so very, very well wrt the teaching role of the liturgy. Please consider fleshing it out (perhaps sitetest and patent could collabarate?) and publishing it.

Your continued rudeness grows less and less funny. Your attacks grow more and more angry. Please cease them.

Mediator Dei speaks of "gradual change." The New Order was not gradual.It was radical.

I don't quite understand what point you are trying to convey. As I read the document you attached, I don't see anything that disputes that we are justified by faith and works.

Then you aren’t reading carefully. We are justified by grace, just as I quoted above, as Trent wrote:

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.
And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

.

Do you disagree that "good" works increase actual grace?

I agree that good works increase actual grace. That is a different question. As I said, this isn’t simple, you can’t use simple slogans to represent the true theology. We are justified by grace. We can get grace through the Sacraments, through faith, through works, but these are not our salvation. We are saved if our soul lives and breaths with God’s grace.

You are wrong about the Tridentine Mass. All ancient rites in the West differed in merely minor ways from one another. . . . All Trent did was codify one version and impose unity.

Fine. Let me know where the earliest copy exists or existed, or even simply your source for your contention that the Apostles said the Tridentine.

Prayers like the Kyrie were recited in the catacombs.

LOL. The Tridentine does not have exclusive rights to the Kyrie. It is still said in the Novus Ordo, and in other Rites. So if that is your only way of tracing the Tridentine back, it appears we can equally trace the Novus Ordo all the way back.

Because Vatican I set limits on him.

Very well, please quote from Vatican I what limits it set.

He cannot oppose tradition--he must protect it and pass it on unchanged.

Popes have been changing the liturgy for the last 2000 years. If you consider the Tridentine unchangeable you believe contrary to that tradition. Read the Mediator Dei quotes, above, about the heirarchy's right to adapt the liturgy.

patent +AMDG

So you are saying that Pope St. Pius the V was wrong that any one who changed the Mass was an anathema.

That isn’t at all what I said. Pope St. Pius V said that no layman could change the Mass, nor could any priest, Bishop, or Cardinal. He didn’t say that no future Pope could. He was not wrong. Since it was within his jurisdiction to change the Mass, just as it was for every Pope before him and every Pope after him, he was perfectly right. As is JPII (on this issue).

Dominus Vobiscum

patent +AMDG

May I suggest you work on it for publication? You have made the points I've fumbled for so very, very well wrt the teaching role of the liturgy. Please consider fleshing it out (perhaps sitetest and patent could collabarate?) and publishing it.

Actually, I already wrote the outline for an article regarding this subject at Perpetual Adoration on Tuesday night. I planned on writing it and putting it into my computer Wednesday, but my laptop quit.

I'll probably submit it to New Oxford Review. After they published my last story they encouraged me to submit more materials for consideration.

about how you are being treated rudely or unfairly. Good grief, grow a set if you are gonna go public and oppose the Magisterium

Lets all settle back down here.