POPE'S ASTONISHING POWER HAS CHANGED THE WORLD

Spirit Daily ^ | July 27, 2002 | Michael Brown

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

Knowing your history with quotes, you'll forgive me if I take this post with a grain of salt or two.

"What Jesuit or Dominican religious, however heretical, has been publicly humiliated by the Vatican the way Fr. Bisig was when he was forced to step down as the duly elected superior of the FSSP?"

By the way, did you know that the Holy Father took control of the Society of Jesus for some number of years, in order to try to straighten it out? It was quite humiliating for the senior folks in the order. I guess our Holy Father tries to correct the self-proclaimed "progressives" as well as the self-proclaimed "traditionalists".

I also note that a number of prominent "progressive" theologians have been disciplined during the reign of our beloved Holy Father, including Hans Kung, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, Leonardo Boff. Was Edward Schillebeeckx disciplined by the current pope or Pope Paul VI? I don't remember anymore.

So, I guess that blows that theory, huh?

Also, could you tell me the role of Pope John Paul II in the "false Novus Ordo church", which is not the Catholic Church, according to your friends at www.traditio.com?

sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"A cardinal marries in a Moonie ceremony and the Pope treats it as a minor aberration."

It was an archbishop, by the way. If you're going to misrepresent the facts, at least misrepresent the right facts.

Archbishop was brought to the point of excommunication. Yes, that's how the Holy Father treats "minor aberrations". If that were true, he'd have burned Archbishop Lefebvre at the stake. But our Holy Father is a merciful and compassionate Vicar of Christ, and though Archbishop Milingo was threatened with excommunication, when he entirely recanted his error, he was forgiven, and sent off to a monastery somewhere to live a life of repentance. I'm sure that had Archbishop Lefebvre been equally repentant for his far more serious crimes against the unity of the Catholic Church, our Holy Father would have been equally as merciful.

sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"By the way, did you know that the Holy Father took control of the Society of Jesus for some number of years, in order to try to straighten it out?"

In fact, a moment's research shows that Pope John Paul actually removed the Jesuit-elected Superior General of the Society of Jesus, and appointed his own Superior General, against the tradition of the order.

Some folks think it didn't help much, but you can't blame the pope for not trying.

sitetest

[ultima ratio]

Right, he was an archbishop. A slip on my part. You seem desperate to trip me up, but I am fallible--like the Pope when he deals with traditionalists.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

" I am fallible--like the Pope when he deals with traditionalists."

Yes, I remember that line from some encyclical or another: "The Roman Pontiff is fallible when dealing with people who deny his authority to do what Peter has always done, and who call themselves 'traditionalists'." ;-)

So you're criticizing me for being accurate? Okay.

In any event, ultima, you haven't responded to any of the facts that show that your posts are in error. And you haven't answered the question which most interests me:

What is the role of Pope John Paul II in the "false Novus Ordo church"?

sitetest

[St.Chuck]

There are profound issues at stake.

Yes there are and neither you nor I have a full understanding of the factors that go into the decisions made by our ( I mean my) superiors. Archbishop Chaput is the legitimate authority, and it is not my place to disagree with his decisions. Perhaps if I had gone to seminary I would be more qualified. I often recite the Universal Prayer of Clement XI. "Let me always remember to be submissive to my superiors..."

[ultima ratio]

A totally different situation. In 1981 when the Jesuit Superior General was immobilized by a stroke. The Pope assigned a temporary caretaker, bypassing the usual rules in such a case. Shortly afterwards, however, an election was held and Peter-Hans Kalvenbach elected. What happened to the FSSP was completely unique and humiliating, and many believe it was designed to destroy the Fraternity which had been growing exponentially. No one can remember superiors of an order being punished merely because of the complaints of a few disgruntled seminarians and not for any official wrong-doing or lack of orthodoxy, an organization, in fact, that was reaping more vocations than it could handle and was BUILDING new seminaries instead of closing them down. Those same superiors should have been hailed as models for the rest of the Church for their success on its behalf. But such is the animus against traditionalists that the smallest pretext was used to clobber and silence their leadership. A lot of people, myself included, believe it was a set-up and that the seminarians were Novus Ordo plants, deliberately introduced to bring the Fraternity down.

[ultima ratio]

I don't dislike Archbishop Chaput. I was happy when he was appointed. But like a lot of conservatives he is part of the problem. He will not oppose the modernists in the CHurch. Where was he at the Dallas meeting? Did he speak up against homosexuality? I watched--only Bruskewitz made any attempt to challenge the pretense that it was pedophilia and not homosexuality that was the real problem, or that the bishops' multiple derelictions were a bigger problem than the erring priests. How can you justify someone like Cardinal Law KNOWING one of his priests had raped a six year old, yet writing a letter of praise to another diocese on his behalf? Shouldn't we wonder what's going on with these so-called spiritual shepherds? Nevertheless, I think Chaput is a good man, though he buys into the "schismatic" charge without doing his homework.

[St.Chuck]

Do you not think he does his homework because he doesn't have the same answers as you? Were you raised as a trad. or were you brought up N.O? I'm curious how you got to where you are. Was it only the seminary experience or did you have other influences?

[ultima ratio]

Protestants do so with less grounds than I when they quote St. Paul's letter to the Galatians. They lean only on Sacred Scripture and have no other basis for their faith. The Catholic Church has always insisted that its own Tradition was co-equal with Scripture in determing the truths that make up the deposit of faith. Protestants do not have the whole of what was received from the Apostles, but Catholics do, in a straight line from the first Apostles right on through the early Fathers, right up to Vatican II. So when traditionalists quote that text it has got to have more weight than any Protestant can give it. Traditionalists are holding onto what they have received and not following after novelties. What I think about the Mass and Eucharist is exactly what anyone will find in the Church Fathers. This is why I do not believe revolution is possible in the Catholic Church. Its very NATURE is to conserve the past and what it has been given and must pass on. It is the deposit of faith that is important, not what has been invented recently under the influence of modernist thought. If it were otherwise, then there would be no such thing as truth. What is promoted today may be undone by another pope tomorrow. There would be no certitude ever, anywhere.

[patent]

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.

Is this, coupled with your naming the six protestants above, your entire proof that Protestants wrote the Novus Ordo? LOL, did you have a private revelation or something? You just KNOW they did? And that is the basis for contradicting the Vatican’s response? You sound just like a Protestant who reads the Bible and just knows what it means, after all he is the only infallible guide on this issue.

You haven’t even tried to prove your claim.

[patent]

The argument from the State of Necessity is not "silly" as you state. It goes to the heart of the matter. It is difficult to argue with you since you bring up fifty matters at once and expect an answer to each point.

I have only responded to the fifty matters you bring up. Each time you make a wild claim, I respond asking for sources or proof. You fail to provide any. You instead make a new wild claim, so I ask for the same sources or proof, and you again fail to provide any. By the end of the thread, you have made 50 wild claims, you complain that I expect you to provide sources for them, and now you are trying to blame me asking about subjects you brought up in the first place?

it to say that Vatican I cited 40 popes they deemed heretical.

LOL. I’ve read Vatican I. I don’t recall a citation to a single heretical Pope. So once again, Cite and Quote please. You are spreading falsehood again.

three "popes" at once each demanding recognition,

What on earth do anti-Popes have to do with the validity of what a real Pope says? We currently have over 10 people claiming to be the Pope, so what? How does that affect reality? In the same fashion as the 100 people who think they are Elvis?

3. Withdrawing submission from the pope IS the refusal to recognize his authority.

You disagree with Canon Law then. I will stick with Canon Law.

It is NOT mere disobedience in an isolated act, it is a habit of mind.

Lefebvre and the Vatican had decades of negotiations before the schism, and have had decades after. If that isn’t enough for it to be a habit, I don’t know what is. Regardless, this matters little.

In fact there are canons making this distinction which you can look up. If disobedience alone were schism, many cardinals and bishops would be in open schism around the globe. That has not yet happened. Since they recognize his authority, they are not schismatic.

Well, there is also that little detail about their not having consecrated Bishops yet, directly disobeying the Pontiff’s orders, and that little detail about their not having been excommunicated.

4. The Pope was obviously wrong when he stated Lefebvre was in schism.

You confirm your heresy. Vatican I stated you have no right to judge the Holy Father’s decrees, but you just did:

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

patent  +AMDG

[ultima ratio]

Let me make another point about Archbishop Chaput. Recently--I think it was in May, but it may have been earlier--Catholic World Report ran a piece by a priest about the gay subculture and corruption in the American Church. His point was essentially this: all institutions are threatened with corruption. They are usually comprised of some peope who do evil, many people who don't want to rock the boat and make trouble, and a very few people who will not tolerate wrongdoing and will risk speaking out. What corrupts an institution totally is the absence of a few good people willing to speak up and keep the evil doers in line. What has happened in the American Church and elsewhere is that these few good people have disappeared. No one is willing to stand up and speak the truth, from the Pope on down. What we get is platitudes, but there is a tremendous need to clean house. But neither Chaput nor anyone else is willing to stick his neck out and buck the system. So the corruption continues.

[ultima ratio]

I leave it to you to do the research. By the way, Siobhan has kindly been looking into it. See post 181, it makes the case for me.

[ultima ratio]

You've read Vatican I? Read it again.

[patent]

Here is my authority. St. Paul to the Galatians: "If even an angel came down from heaven and preached a gospel other than what you have received, let him be anathema."

To rely on that passage you would have to prove that the entire Tridentine Rite is “a gospel.” Unfortunately, you would then be faced with the fact that such a large number of our Popes have made changes to it, and thus would have changed the gospel. Of course, the Rite of the Mass isn’t found in the Gospel, only the barest outline of the Sacrifice. Something that is found in every Catholic Rite.

Patent is clever and good at looking scholarly--but he is still just another gullible follower of the present course

more ad hominems. I thought you disapproved of those?

patent  +AMDG

[ultima ratio]

I am in heresy? Why should it matter, since you buy into the Novus Ordo claptrap that it doesn't, that we're all one big happy family, Lutherans, Jews, Orthodox, Muslims, whatever? This Pope has done more than any pope in history to erase lines of distinction among believers of one kind or another. He will tolerate almost any affront to faith. Why do traditionalists alone get his dander up?

[patent]

I appreciate your very careful answer (are you a Canon lawyer?)

I have spent some time with Canon Law, but am not a canon lawyer. Simply a regular lawyer. I may go that direction at some point in the future though, still casting about for my vocation (at that level).

however; let me rephrase my question. What if the priest NEVER HAD THE FAITH?

I’m going to duck this one, but I would suggest that you need to define “never had the faith” a bit. Did he believe in Christ and in the Church as the one true Church, but never believe in Transubstantiation? I would say its valid. Was he a Satanist who never believed in Christ at all? This may sound crazy, but I’m not certain that makes it invalid, depending very specifically on a couple facts The following is more from Aquinas on the subject. What he said really bothered me the first couple times I read it, so be forewarned. It is also very complex, dealing with the intent, intent to be a mockery, and wicked intent:

Whether the validity of a sacrament requires a good intention in the minister?

Objection 1. It seems that the validity of a sacrament requires a good intention in the minister. For the minister's intention should be in conformity with the Church's intention, as explained above (8, ad 1). But the intention of the Church is always good. Therefore the validity of a sacrament requires of necessity a good intention in the minister.

Objection 2. Further, a perverse intention seems worse than a playful one. But a playful intention destroys a sacrament: for instance, if someone were to baptize anybody not seriously but in fun. Much more, therefore, does a perverse intention destroy a sacrament: for instance, if somebody were to baptize a man in order to kill him afterwards.

Objection 3. Further, a perverse intention vitiates the whole work, according to Lk. 11:34: "If thy eye be evil, thy" whole "body will be darksome." But the sacraments of Christ cannot be contaminated by evil men; as Augustine says against Petilian (Cont. Litt. Petil ii). Therefore it seems that, if the minister's intention is perverse, the sacrament is invalid.

On the contrary, A perverse intention belongs to the wickedness of the minister. But the wickedness of the minister does not annul the sacrament: neither, therefore, does his perverse intention.

I answer that, The minister's intention may be perverted in two ways. First in regard to the sacrament: for instance, when a man does not intend to confer a sacrament, but to make a mockery of it. Such a perverse intention takes away the truth of the sacrament, especially if it be manifested outwardly.

Secondly, the minister's intention may be perverted as to something that follows the sacrament: for instance, a priest may intend to baptize a woman so as to be able to abuse her; or to consecrate the Body of Christ, so as to use it for sorcery. And because that which comes first does not depend on that which follows, consequently such a perverse intention does not annul the sacrament; but the minister himself sins grievously in having such an intention.

Reply to Objection 1. The Church has a good intention both as to the validity of the sacrament and as to the use thereof: but it is the former intention that perfects the sacrament, while the latter conduces to the meritorious effect. Consequently, the minister who conforms his intention to the Church as to the former rectitude, but not as to the latter, perfects the sacrament indeed, but gains no merit for himself.

Reply to Objection 2. The intention of mimicry or fun excludes the first kind of right intention, necessary for the validity of a sacrament. Consequently, there is no comparison.

Reply to Objection 3. A perverse intention perverts the action of the one who has such an intention, not the action of another. Consequently, the perverse intention of the minister perverts the sacrament in so far as it is his action: not in so far as it is the action of Christ, Whose minister he is. It is just as if the servant [minister] of some man were to carry alms to the poor with a wicked intention, whereas his master had commanded him with a good intention to do so.

What if he were a committed, hard core communist intent on the DESTRUCTION of the Church?

See above. In this case I find it likely he would not actually intend to consecrate the real Eucharist, but rather would be only going through the motions as part of the charade, and thus this would fall more in the mockery category, and be invalid. It would depend on the Communist’s intent though.

I think these are ugly answers, my mind rebels against them. As a result, I’ve tried my best to simply give you Aquinas’ view, as I understand it.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG