POPE'S ASTONISHING POWER HAS CHANGED THE WORLD

Father Max Thurian converted to the Roman Catholic Faith and was ordained to the Catholic priesthood. The monastery at Taize is not protestant per se. It is a mixed community of protestants, Anglicans, and Roman Catholics.

Canon Ronald Jasper had some interesting things to say regarding the Observers at Vatican II.

Hoyas has a deficient background in these matters--which is why he failed to snooker the SSPX when he opened up a dialogue with their bishops.

Here is a demonstration of the fruits of the SSPX. First....arrogance and elitism: Hoyas is not as wise as we are. Second....paranoia and conspiratorial fantasies: Hoyas was trying to trick us.

Novus Ordonians think because they have the buidings and the pope, they have the faith.

No...more like because they have the faith, they have the buildings and the pope. The SSPX don't have buildings and the pope because they lost their faith in the church. THey are apostates.

The SSPXers in the Denver area wanted to make a pilgrimage to the Mother Cabrini shrine, but the archbishop said nope...you can't. You are in schism!Alas. The humiliation won't effect them though. Pride and arrogance are not easily defeated.

I agree with you,I went to a teen Mass yestrday.The priest offered a perfect Mass with great reverence. The parishioners were respectful and were even dressed modestly. There was a great sermon.The priest talked about society and catholics being emotion driven and made the point that how we "feel" about things had nothing to do with right/wrong,good/evil,and that he knew many judged things on how it affected them rather than the standard,which was Truth.

No,there are absolutes and evil is always wrong no matter how good it made us feel. He went on to the gospel and how anything of value is purchased at a price and we should be prepared to give up everything for the kingdom.Then he talked about the third part of it,the sorting of the fish caught in the nets and said there would come a sorting and that what was evil and bad would be thrown to the side and burned.You could have heard a pin drop.

Even the choir sang wonderfully well.One of the songs ended with this verse,a male singer sang the verse alone acompanied by very soft and sparse piano chords.Purity,purity,is what I long for,purity is what I need.Purity,purity is what you want from me.It was powerful.There was a lot of time between for silent prayer,it was a truly beautiful experience. The priest is very young,please pray for him.

It's late in the day and I've been at it a long time, so I'll be brief. SSPX is simply what the Church has always been. If it's wrong now, then the Church was always wrong. If it's not wrong, why are these good men being persecuted?

You would say it's because they follow a man who disobeyed the Pope. But that would not be schism by definition, though it is popularly believed. To be a schismatic implies a denial of papal authority. Lefebvre never did this. What he did was simply disobey in order for the apostolic faith to survive. At least that was how he, and the men he made bishops against the will of the Pope, saw it. It was a matter of choosing the Faith over obedience.

Examine this. To disobey is not the same thing as denying authority. A child says no to its mother. That does not mean he denies she is his mother. The two intentions are not the same. And in fact the SSPX prays for the pope at every Mass and gives every indication of traditional Catholic reverence for the Pope.

In any case the excommunication of Lefebvre and his bishops followed. But even here, the situation is obscure. Because excommunication can be falsely incurred. Canon Law (1321, 1323) provides for something called a State of Necessity. If an individual thought there was an emergency situation and disobeyed as a result, then the excommunication is invalid. It doesn't matter whether the individual is right or wrong objectively about this. So long as he believes he acted from a state of necessity, the excommunication is not incurred.

There are those who say the Pope trumps Canon Law. He decides who is a schismatic. No he doesn't. A serious sin such as disobedience implies an evil intention. Not even a pope can make something good--survival of the traditional faith--evil. And even if Lefebvre was wrong, he believed in his conscience he was right. He placed Christ's Church before obedience to the Pope.

Great doctors of the Church have affirmed this principle. St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, for instance. No one is obliged to obey an order which might harm the Church. So Lefebvre never lost sleep over his decision and died in true serenity, having seen his order flourish.

What is interesting is the Vatican response to all this, especially in recent years. Cardinal Ratzinger not too long ago overturned the decision by the Ordinary of Honolulu who excommunicates some Catholics for attended an SSPX Mass. His argument was that they were not schismatic as the bishop had supposed. And many of the finest canonists in Rome have agreed. In fact, when it was proposed last year that relations with SSPX be placed under the aegis of the Congregation dealing with ecumenical affairs--i.e., treated along with other, real schismatics--Protestants and Orthodox--the Vatican Prelate at Ecclesia Dei refused. He said, "The SSPX is an internal affair of the Church."

And so it is. St. Athanasius suffered a similar persecution when most of the bishops in his day were Arian while he almost alone defended the faith, even opposing the pope. But he became a saint and the pope who excommunicated him was the first in ancient times not to be canonized.

We live in a perilous time of crisis. All we have to hold on to is our faith. I am a traditionalist because I put the Faith before a Pope who I believe acted in error by seeking to replace the faith with something else that is a variant of Protestantism. I realize many, like you, will say, "Where Peter is, there is the Church." That used to be true, in the days when the business of the pope was to protect, not scuttle, the deposit of faith. But the pope has no authority except over that which lies within the bounds of his papal office, and the primary purpose of that office is to pass on what has been received, not to create novelties such as we have seen in abundance for the past thirty-five years.

You prove my point. These devout Christians wished to reverence a saint. The archbishop, typically, claimed they were schismatic. If they were Jews or Protestants, he would have fallen all over himself to suck up to them. He is not interested in the traditional faith. He is interested in abolishing traditional Catholicism.

Oh, Hoyos poured on the charm all right. But he refused to discuss principles. He wouldn't get into theology--nor could he without scandalizing the faithful. Then he would have to admit that Catholicism is slowly becoming something else.

Thanks very much for this text, I appreciate it. I think one final thing should be said. The whole point of the Novus Ordo was to bring Catholics and Protestants together. Paul VI said this expressly. Therefore their presence at these sessions was a little more than a peripheral matter. Their response had to be a key factor in the final outcome.

Dear Bud,

It takes over 10 minutes to distribute Holy Communion with one priest, one deacon, and two Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist. I suppose that we could knock off the Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist. Of course, due to the layout of our church (which is a very beautiful, very Catholic church, by the way), that means that all the folks from the sides would have to wind their way around the sides, creating difficulty for those who are returning to the main sections of pews in the middle. Our previous pastor designed a beautiful church for us, but unless we were to get smaller pews, the aisles are a little narrow. Of course, smaller pews would exacerbate our problems with crowding.

I imagine it would add another 15 minutes, easy, as well creating somewhat more disturbance, shuffling, getting out of the way of others, bumping, accidentally stepping on people's feet, etc. We do have a very beautiful church, but during the school year, most Masses are standing room only. I'm afraid that your suggestion would not elevate the level of reverence at Mass.

And if we were to eliminate the deacon from the process, I suppose that we would be adding about 25 minutes or so.

This wouldn't be too much of a burden for the laity, but both of our priests are older men with health difficulties. Between them, it is some work to say five Masses per weekend. Stretching out the period taken for the distribution of Holy Communion would be a hardship on them. This is especially so, as we have a large number of young children in our parish (a significant number of large families).

As to why don't our other "priests" help during Mass, we only have two priests, and both are elderly gentlemen. Our pastor is a very good man. However, in the six years he has been with us, he has suffered from cancer, near-debilitation from a recurring back injury he received while he was fighting in the Korean War, and several other serious health problems. We would like to keep him around a little longer, and we try to do what we can to reduce his burden. I pray for our priests, and especially our deacons, each day. Our one deacon really, really reduces the administrative burden on our pastor, with all his good work. Our other deacon (he was only recently ordained) is introducing new programs into the parish that will build up faith. Our other priest is over 70, and he is more or less semi-retired. That we have him is a great gift. For several years, our pastor did not have a second priest. Many weekends, Fr. said all five Masses. He was very sick during most of this period. Our cardinal, in kindness, sent a second priest.

And then, there is the timing of the Masses. We have a beautiful church, but we have only one of them. As it is, the first Sunday Mass is at 7:30 am, and the last is at 12 noon, ending around 1 pm. Our priests celebrate reverent Masses, and care is taken with the homily each Sunday. As a result, Mass is seldom over in under an hour.

We aren't a parish where people come for Mass and high-tail it out of the church the minute the last note sounds. Hundreds of folks hang out outside the church, or over at the parish hall, eating donuts and drinking coffee, and actually talking with their fellow Catholics. Most folks try to be considerate, and try to clear out prior to eveyone arriving for the next Mass, but if the priest's or deacon's homily goes an extra five minutes, we begin to have chaos in the parking lot. What a way to vitiate all that sacramental grace!

Of course, we could just shoo everyone out immediately after Mass, and make everyone go home immediately. But that doesn't really encourage the kind of community that we have, where, when a man died and left a widow and four young daughters, $7000 was raised to help the family in a matter of days, and the church was packed on a weekday for the memorial Mass. Or that paid for its brand new church (the old one burned down) in 10 years. Or that has grown to well over 1000 families from about 250 in 1980. Or that has a large number of converts from Protestantism (sometimes I think I'm nearly the only cradle Catholic in our Knights of Columbus Council), and a large number of Catholic reverts. Or that sends buses down to the annual March for Life in Washington, DC. Or that has Perpetual Adoration 24/7. Adding 30 minutes to each Mass would mean that our last Mass would begin at 1:30 pm. Send us a couple of young, healthy priests, and we'll see what we can do!

In the meanwhile, our current Mass schedule is a physical hardship for our priests. The use of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist substantially assists our priests with that physical burden.

Thanks for asking!

sitetest

Dear Bud,

I wish more than 2500 folks showed up on Sundays (I just don't know where we would put them all). That represents perhaps 40% - 45% of our total population.

As for confessions, I couldn't tell you. I prefer to go to the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, in the city. I know that many of my friends have similar arrangements near where they work in the city. Living in the Washington, DC area, we are fortunate to have more resources than most dioceses.

sitetest

Dear Bud,

"It's a shame that there are only two priests to serve nearly 2,500 parishoners."

This is really is a shame. It's like this in many parishes in our archdiocese. The other large church on the other side of the small city in which our church is located is similarly-situated. I believe the smaller church between us has but one priest.

But, we have nearly 150 parishes in the Archdiocese of Washington, and fewer than 300 diocesan priests, and many of these are nearing retirement. Our own pastor and associate pastor could retire at any time with 30 days notice. But they are dedicated men.

Fortunately, there are many other priests "resident" in Washington, teaching at the Catholic University of America, or Georgetown Univ, or involved in various headquarters of national Catholic organizations. We also have a lot of religious. So, at least our priests are able to find other priests who can help out when our priests go on vacation.

We pray for vocations at every Mass. Also, our Knights of Columbus Council prays for vocations at every meeting.

And perhaps we've turned the corner. We are on schedule to ordain about 8 or 9 men per year over the next few years, and the "freshman" class at the seminary this year was 15!

At that rate, we could expect the number of priests in our archdiocese to grow substantially over the next decade. God does answer prayers.

sitetest

I have a comment about this post, and please understand I am not trying to be disparaging, really:) But the last paragraph seems to negate the beginning. Which brings a question to my mind.

If the message of the service that faith, worship, etc. should not be based on feelings (I think that is what you were saying at the start) was given in a monotone, did not have the beautiful song at the end, do you think it would have been received so well? Don't get me wrong I believe the message was right. But it sounds as if it was given in a way that appealed to feelings, the flesh. Do you think the teens would be as attentive if not given in such a way? Is it right to give a message like that while appealing to the very feelings the message is warning about?

Becky

Clearly you've been misinformed regarding encyclicals. There have been only two dogmas pronounced ex cathedra in modern times: the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Vatican I stated specifically that to be infallible--i.e., protected from error by the Holy Spirit--a pronouncement must be made from the Chair of Peter, on matters of faith and morals. As Cardinal Newman pointed out, what was striking was not that papal infallibility was affirmed--that had been expected--, but how much it constrained the papacy.

Encyclicals may compel our assent. But their degree of certitude varies. To speak of their being infallible is incorrect.

As for whether this magisterium has contradicted past magisteria--see my reply #88.

This is not the time nor the place for collecting pages and pages of written material and expect it to be digested. It would take days to deal with that--and that would no longer be fun, it would be work.

Yes, it would be work. It is, however, reasonable to expect you to support your claims.

You make all these wild statements about this and that. Then, when you get challenged, you move on to something entirely different. I’m not the one who makes wild statmenent after wild statement, and then fails to back up a single one of them. If you think its too much work to back up each and every one of your claims, than stop making hundreds of them, and running away every time your challenged.

Make one statement, and support it. It’s really not so hard to do. I’ve stated several statements of mine over the last couple discussions we’ve had. Its time for you to try doing that, just once.

It is entirely disingenuous for you to whine about the burden when you haven’t supported a single thing you’ve said. Not one. Support your claim that Protestants wrote the Novus Ordo. That is just one thing.

I've met guys like you before. It becomes a ploy. You are not interested in an open and free exchange, you want to tie people down with busy work.

Whatever. You won’t even support one statement you’ve made. That isn’t busy work. That is one statement.

You even said you were trying to find the information, above, in post 133. It appears you can’t find it. So now, instead of withdrawing your false claim, you continue the lie by claiming its too much work.

Please support your claim that Protestants wrote the Novus Ordo.

Do the research yourself, you seem to be good at it.

So let me get this straight, you will make wild unsupported statements, and then my job is to do your research to support your claims? That’s a novel idea, but no thanks. You want to make claims, you support them.

If the burden on you is too great, try supporting a single statement first, perhaps you can grow into supporting two someday. But you have to start somewhere, please prove that Protestants wrote the Novus Ordo.

They were there as advisors, as they were at Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II. They were not there to WRITE it.
Sources, please. Back up your statement. How do you know this? How do ou know they did not write it? How do we know they were at Trent and Vatican I, Vatican II? Who were these people. Names, please. Dates. Publishers.

LOL. You won’t support a single statement, and now you call on me to support one of mine when I have already provided so many citations? Fine. This is a fundamental difference between us. I don’t whine about the burden, I just do it.

As to whether Protestants were at the Councils, you would only need to look at the documents themselves, which grant safe passage to the Council for Protestatns, and then also grant safe passage back, afterwards. Trent practially begged them to come, and not just to come, but to propose ideas:

Being the fifth under thc Sovereign Pontiff, Julius III., celebrated on the twenty-fifth day of January, MDLII.
DECREE FOR PROROGUING THE SESSION
Whereas, in pursuance of the decrees made in the last Sessions, this holy and universal Synod has, during these days, most accurately and diligently treated of the things which relate to the most holy sacrifice of the mass, and to the sacrament of order, with the view that, in the Session held on this day, It might publish, as the Holy Ghost should have suggested, decrees on these subjects, and on the four articles concerning the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, which had been finally deferred to this Session ; and whereas it was thought that, in the interim, there would have presented themselves at this sacred and holy Council those who call themselves Protestants, for whose sake It had deferred the publication of the said articles, and to whom It had given the public faith, or a safe-conduct, that they might come freely and without any hesitation ; nevertheless, seeing that they have not as yet come, and the holy Synod has been petitioned in their name, that the publication which was to have been made on this day, be deferred to the following Session, an assured hope being held out that they will certainly be present long before that Session, upon receiving in the meanwhile a safe-conduct in a more ample form :-The same holy Synod, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legate and Nuncios presiding, desiring nothing more ardently than to remove, from amongst the noble nation of Germany, all dissensions and schisms touchingreligion,and to provide for its tranquillity, peace and repose; being ready, should they come, both to receive them kindly, and to listen to them favourably, and trusting that they will come, not with the design of obstinately opposing the Catholic Faith, but of learning the truth, and that they will at last, as becomes those zealous for evangelical truth, acquiesce in the decrees and discipline of holy Mother Church; (this Synod) has deferred the next Session,--therein to publish and promulgate the matters aforesaid,--till the festival of St. Joseph, which will be on the nineteenth day of the month of March; in order that they may have sufficient time and leisure, not only to come, but also to propose, before that day arrives, whatsoever they may wish. And,- that It may take from them all cause for further delay, It freely gives and grants them the public faith,-or a safe-conduct, of the tenour and form hereafter set down. But it ordains and decrees, that, in the meantime, It will treat of the sacrament of matrimony,- and will give its decisions thereon, in addition to the publication of the above-named decrees, in the same Session, and will prosecute the subject of Reformation.

Trent later stated, though vaguely, that some had already been there:

The sacred and holy, ocecumenical and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,--certifies to all men, that, by the tenour of these presents, It grants and wholly concedes the public faith, and the fullest and most true security, which they entitle a safe-conduct, to all and singular the priests, electors, princes, dukes, marquisses, counts, barons, nobles, soldiers, commonalty, and to all other persons whatsoever, of what state, condition, or quality soever they may be, of the province and nation of Germany, and to the cities and other places thereof, and to all the ecclesiastical and secular persons, especially those of the Confession of Augsburg, who shall come, or shall be sent with them to this General Council of Trent, and to those that shall set forth, or have already repaired hither, by whatsoever name they are entitled, or may be designated,--to Come freely to this city of Trent, and there to remain, abide, sojourn, and to propose, speak, and treat of, examine and discuss any matters whatsoever together with the said Synod, and freely to present and set forth all whatsoever they may think fit, and any articles whatever, either in writing or by word of mouth, and to explain, establish, and prove them by the sacred Scriptures, and by the words, passages, and reasons of the blessed Fathers, and to answer even, if it be needful, to the objections of the General Council, and to dispute, or to confer in charity, without any hindrance with those who have been selected by the Council, all opprobrious, railing, and contumelious language being utterly discarded; and, in particular, that the controverted matters shall be treated of, in the aforesaid Council of Trent, according to sacred Scripture, and the traditions of the apostles, approved Councils, the consent of the Catholic Church, and the authorities of the holy Fathers; with this further addition, that they shall not be punished under pretence of religion, or of offences already committed, or that may be committed, in regard thereof; as also, that the divine offices shall not, on account of their presence, be in any way interrupted, either upon the road, or in any place during their progress, their stay, or their return, or in the city of Trent itself ; and that, upon these matters being concluded, or before they are concluded, if they, or any of them, shall wish, and whensover such is their or his pleasure, or the command and leave of their superiors, to return to their own homes, they shall forthwith be able at their good pleasure, to return freely and securely, without any let, obstacle, or delay, without injury done to their property, or to the honour also and persons of their attendants respectively,--notifying, however, this their purpose of withdrawing, to those who shall be deputed hereunto by the said Synod, that so, without deceit or fraud, proper measures may be taken for their safety.

The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Trent confirms this:

The presidents laid before the general congregation of 15 October drafts of definitions of the Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction for discussion. These subjects occupied the congregations of theologians, among whom Gropper, Nausea, Tapper, and Hessels were especially prominent, and also the general congregations during the months of October and November. At the fourteenth session, held on 25 November, the dogmatic decree promulgated contained nine chapters on the dogma of the Church respecting the Sacrament of Penance and three chapters on extreme unction. To the chapters on penance were added fifteen canons condemning heretical teachings on this point, and four canons condemning heresies to the chapters on unction. The decree on reform treated the discipline of the clergy and various matters respecting ecclesiastical benefices. In the meantime, ambassadors from several Protestant princes and cities reached Trent. They made various demands, as: that the earlier decisions which were contrary to the Augsburg Confession should be recalled; that debates on questions in dispute between Catholics and Protestants should be deferred; that the subordination of the pope to an ecumenical council should be defined; and other propositions which the council could not accept. Since the close of the last session both the theologians and the general congregations had been occupied in numerous assemblies with the dogma of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and of the ordination of priests, as well as with plans for new reformatory decrees. At the fifteenth session (25 January, 1552), in order to make some advances to the ambassadors of the Protestants, the decisions in regard to the subjects under consideration were postponed and a new safe-conduct, such as they had desired, was drawn up for them. Besides the three papal legates and Cardinal Madruzzo, there were present at Trent ten archbishops and fifty-four bishops, most of them from the countries ruled by the emperor. On account of the treacherous attack made by Maurice of Saxony on Charles V, the city of Trent and the members of the council were placed in danger; consequently, at the sixteenth session (23 April, 1552) a decree suspending the council for two years was promulgated. However, a considerably longer period of time elapsed before it could resume its sessions.
. . . .
At the eighteenth session (25 Feb., 1562) the only matters decided were the publication of a decree concerning the drawing up of a list of forbidden books and an agreement as to a safe-conduct for Protestants.

Nevertheless Protestant observers have officially attended the last two councils. The ecumenical movement among Protestants is not to be confused with an ecumenical council, although they share a similar aim.

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001, entry on “council, ecumenical.” The last two councils, of course, were Vatican I and Vatican II.

As to how I know they didn’t write it, I know that with regard to Trent because the Church says so. I know that with regard to the Novus Ordo because the Church says so. In fact, I cited where the Church said so regarding the Novus Ordo above.

Your personal experience differs? It must be very limited.

Getting nasty again? Do the insults help your case somehow? Give that you still can’t support your claim about Protestants writing the Novus Ordo, this somehow shouldn’t surprise me, its all you have left.

is your faith so weak?

Mine isn't.

So predictable.

The only thing predictable here is your anti-catholicism.