POPE'S ASTONISHING POWER HAS CHANGED THE WORLD

Spirit Daily ^ | July 27, 2002 | Michael Brown

[Salvation]

Or that has grown to well over 1000 families from about 250 in 1980.

Qudrupled in 20 years! Wow! Praise to our Savior, Jesus Christ, Our Father in heaven, and the Holy Spirit who is busy in your parish, to say the least! Alleluia!

My parish had 460 families as of two years ago, and the estimates (they are purging the files at this time) are that now we have over 1000 families. The Pastoral Council is strongly considering building a new church in five years and possibly a new school within ten.

[Salvation]

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.

Beautiful. Yes, I will pray for your priests and for all priests today at Mass.

[Salvation]

Thanks for that link. It answered the question I asked earlier about who made the decisions.

[patent]

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.

The Church always followed the Pope, the SSPX does not. Therefore, the SSPX is not simply what the Church has always been. Uniquely, the SSPX has retained the bells and whistles of the Church, without retaining its symbol of unity.

If it's not wrong, why are these good men being persecuted?

How are they persecuted? Has one been boiled in oil recently?

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.

This is false. I gave you the Canon law definition of schism on our last discussion, but here you are yet again giving the same false definition of schism you gave last time.

Again, from Canon law, we see the real definition:

---

To: ultima ratio

Schism is defined as a morally evil act requiring an intention to deny the primacy of the papacy itself.

No, it isn’t. Denying the primacy of the papacy is heresy, per Vatican I’s definition.

Canon law defines schism as “the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” When the Pope excommunicates you, you are not in communion. Furthermore, most the SSPX will not act in communion with the members of the Church subject to the Pope. They won’t obey bishops, they won’t attend the Novus Ordo, etc. They won’t even attend an indult. They are not in communion.

But Lefebvre never denied the Pope's role as Supreme Pontiff.

That only means he is not a heretic.

Most Vatican theologians dismiss the schism charge.

Reading minds again? Please prove this.

In fact, it would be ridiculous on the face of it to think that people who are so thoroughly in line with Catholicism on every front were schismatic. Disobedient, yes. But that is another matter.

Yes, after all when the Pope issues a decree of excommunication, and calls it a schism, it is ridiculous to think he is right, and that he has the authority to do these things. How dare he excommunicate our hero!

You deny a papal judgment, in contravention of Vatican I’s strictest statements, and you say I’m being ridiculous on the face of it? You have chutzpah, but your theology is wrong. I’ll stick with the Pope on this, not you.

True, they dropped when the word first got out that the old Mass would be superceded. They dropped from around 80% to 74%. Then when the Novus Ordo hit the parishes, the bottom fell out. It's been downhill ever since. It's now around 17%.

LOL, nice save attempt. The Mass attendance rates began dropping before the Novus Ordo. You can’t deny it. Nor can you prove it’s the Novus Ordo’s fault, and not some other aspect of society, or of our Church, such as bad priests and bishops, factors you by your very bent believe are out there.

patent  +AMDG

319 posted on 7/26/02 12:58 PM Central by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

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.

This is just plain dishonest of you. In our last discussion you agreed the Pope did trump Canon law. Now you deny it again. Is it any wonder we don’t trust your quotes, when you can’t provide any sources for them, and you can’t stick to the same story on things like this? From the previous discussion, you started by bringing up the exact same Canons and the state of necessity:

---

To: patent

You miss the point of the State of Necessity. It is not what the Pope thinks. Canon laws 1321 and 1323 explcitly state that if the individual, right or wrong, believes in all honesty there is a state of necessity, no excommunication applies.
Lefebvre believed the traditional Church was deliberately being destroyed. He saw this as an unparalleled crisis in the life of the Church. By the way, he died in all serenity--even joking with the nurse that since he could take no nourishment, he shouldn't be paying the same rate as someone who had a good appetite. The man was serene in what he did. He has been demonized by his opposition in the Church (we conservatives know how that works) but he was really a great man. He worked in the African missions all his life among the poorest of the poor.

370 posted on 7/26/02 2:14 PM Central by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

I responded, indicating that Canon law can’t trump the Pope, and asking you to explain how it could:

---

To: ultima ratio

You miss the point of the State of Necessity. It is not what the Pope thinks. Canon laws 1321 and 1323 explcitly state that if the individual, right or wrong, believes in all honesty there is a state of necessity, no excommunication applies.

The Pope issued the excommunication under his own authority. Please explain how Canon law trumps the Pope’s authority.

You can’t, because it doesn’t. As silly as the necessity argument is, it isn’t even relevant.

patent  +AMDG

377 posted on 7/26/02 2:24 PM Central by patent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

You responded to that by stating “I happen to agree with you:”

---

To: patent

I happen to agree with you. I merely bring up the canons to illustrate the unfairness of Rome's treatment of Lefebvre. The fix was in. The same thing happened in China recently and Rome shrugged and said it was disappointed. Rome tolerated all kinds of heretical nonsense from corrupt bishops and seminaries for three and a half decades, but at the slightest whisper of criticism from the indult priests of the FSSP and the Vatican fired their general and replaced two orthodox priest-professors in their seminary. The order had been growing by leaps and bounds with more vocations than they could handle. Rome sought to break its spirit--and did. Meanwhile the other seminaries teach gay rights and deny the Real Presence and the divinity of Christ . You tell me what's going on. It sure ain't the Catholic faith.

397 posted on 7/26/02 2:45 PM Central by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

(emphasis added) You stated that you agreed that Canon Law cannot trump the Pope. Now, you once again bring up the same Canons and the same state of necessity, and then explicitly claim “If an individual thought there was an emergency situation and disobeyed as a result, then the excommunication is invalid.” This is an explicit claim that the Canon law trumps the Pope. You go on, this time, to state: “There are those who say the Pope trumps Canon Law. He decides who is a schismatic. No he doesn't.”

Do you really think people here are that foolish, that we can’t see through these games you play? This is dishonest. You get challenged on the point in a previous discussion, and you can’t prove it, so you admit the argument is false.

But a couple days later, you are back again advancing the very same argument you just admitted was false.

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.

This argument was also rebutted in the last discussion, and is false.

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.

Please prove he was excommunicated. He wasn’t.

patent  +AMDG

[ThomasMore]

a mere pastoral council?

You belittle an ecumenical council? You don't accept the validity of the Council? You obviously have a problem with the Council. Or is it, you have a problem with the implementation of the Council directives?

[ThomasMore]

My contention is that those, like yourself, who side with the Pope in a willingness to protestantize the Catholic faith, seem not to understand the stakes.

I've been around FR long enough to know most of the Catholics who post here regularly. Salvation has in NO WAY attempted, through active or passive means, to protestantize the Church. Neither is his faithfulness to the Pope, blind faithfulness. And he knows exactly what's at stake.

Your statement calumiates anyone who follows the current Pope. It's wrong and it's quite rude.

[ThomasMore]

The following is from

The ‘Counter-Syllabus’ Canard:

Written by I. Shawn McElhinney

....

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or CDF) referred to the Vatican II Constitution Gaudium et Spes (GS) as a "counter-syllabus". This reference is unfortunate, not for the truth of the statement properly understood but for the images it conjures. In the minds of those who assert the positions of the post-modernists, it confirms their presumptions, which would (if true) put the entire status of the deposit of Catholic doctrine in peril. Likewise, many well-meaning people who are at a loss to explain the crisis of the Church today in a logical manner assert that the teachings of the Council or the Popes since the Council is somehow responsible for the problems we see on all levels. To them these comments by Cardinal Ratzinger about a "counter-syllabus" are often taken to mean that the Syllabus has been controverted in its teachings. Rather, the intended meaning of the Cardinal Prefect was that the condemnation of errors in the Syllabus could logically be seen as being countered by positive teaching in GS that encapsulates the elements of truth contained in the aforementioned errors. Seen in this light, the negative element of the summary condemnations complimented by the later positive and elaborated teaching encapsulating what elements of truth the previously condemned errors contained results in the climate moving from negative and reactive to positive and pro-active. GS outlined a positive agenda while the Syllabus of Errors (and Quanta Cura) merely condemned errors and outlined no actual agenda.

Full Text Here

[sitetest]

Dear ThomasMore,

Thanks. Great post.

sitetest

[Polycarp]

I would appreciate your input on this matter.

I hope I addressed some of this in the new thread I posted?

[sitetest]

Dear Polycarp,

Yes, you did. Thanks.

sitetest

[saradippity]

Hi Becky,long time no see!!I don't think that I explained well enough although there is probably some truth in what you say. Nonetheless,the priest's sermon was quite all encompassing and was directed to society in general. I think our society is definitely emotion driven and much emotion is the direct result of how some person,action,statement and/or idea makes us "feel".Nonetheless there are objective standards of good and evil and whether we feel good about them or not we need to be obedient.

The teachings of Christ need to be heeded whether we like them or not. They were imparted to us so that we might do our part to accomplish the will of our Father. He integrated the Gospel reading of Sunday with Catholic teaching and applied it to life.

After that portion of the Mass we had the Eucharistic prayer and went to communion.I believe it was during communion that the song,was sung.The song was intellectually and spiritually compelling at that time and should have rightly moved the heart to Jesus.The chorus of the song,which everyone sings is:Take my heart and form it,Take my mind transform it.Take my will,conform it.To yours,to yours,Oh Lord.Ordinarily the song would end with the chorus but instead it ended with a plaintive cry for purity and some silence to think or pray.

I hope that explains it but if not you can ask me to try again,at your own peril.(o_-)That's a serious wink.

[ThomasMore]

I agree with you, sitetest. That site is SSPX, or at least very much in sympathy with the schismatics. It is a site that promotes disunity, hardly a virtue!

[Catholicguy]

Throughout the history of the Church, the definition of dogmas have stimulated the apostolic and theological energies of some of her best minds, especially when a definition became the occasion of controversy. More recently, many Protestants, including the late Max Thurian of Taize, France, objected strenuously after hearing rumors that Pope Pius XII was about to define the dogma of Mary’s Assumption. Where is that in the Bible? (Incidentally, Max Thurian died a Catholic Priest on the feast of the Assumption, 1996).

I wonder why Max Thurian converted to Catholicism after he had conspired successfully to change the Catholic Mass into a protestant worship service?

[Catholicguy]

GMTA, ThomasMore. I was just about to post that piece. Instead, I will post the Matt1618 website that carries other papers by McElhinney. This is a good time for apologetics in America

http://home.netcom.com/~matt1618/

[Catholicguy]

I forgot to add. When you are on that Matt1618 site and click on a link, you'll get a pop-up page. Just click it and dont wait for the ad to load

[Catholicguy]

Pauline Mass compared with so-called Traditional Mass




http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/part2.html

[ultima ratio]

Encyclicals may compel consent as I pointed out in my previous post to you, but they are not infallible. To consent to them would be a matter of obedience, not faith. In fact, encyclicals vary in importance and certitude. You have been misinformed.

[ultima ratio]

You say you know Protestants didn't write the Novus Ordo because the Church says so. You mean VATICAN BUREAUCRATS have said so--which is something else. I am not so credulous. I look at the finished product, which has Protestant written all over it.

[ultima ratio]

Sentimentality is not faith.

[sitetest]

Dear Catholicguy,

That is quite a link you've got there.

To me the most fascinating part is to learn that the Mass of Pope Paul VI didn't spring fully-formed from the heads of bishops and others during the 1960s, but had been anticipated for over a century by the deliberate actions of the popes.

Also of interest is to see that much of what folks hold onto in the old Mass was actually innovation at the time. The author of the article makes the excellent point that many of the complaints against the Mass of Pope Paul VI are based in sentimentality, not in theology.

It is a very long article, but very much worth the effort.

Thanks for the link.

sitetest