Posted on 10/14/2002 9:07:17 AM PDT by Maximilian
Who are you trying to kid? Lefevre was indeed permitted to consecrate a bishop. One bishop. He chose instead to consecrate Four. In absolute disobedience to the Roman Pontiff. After being told explicitly of the consequences of such acts! Yes, JPII had the right to allow Lefevre to consecrate ONE bishop. Only one, if JPII thought that prudent. Your plea to emotionalism and necessity does not change this.
And the Indult was granted prior to this, so no claims such as yours here apply.
Would you admit that there are limits to what even a pope may command legitimately in such a dire situation?
No. Rome has spoken. Rome decided it was not dire. Closed case.
Would you admit the past few decades sheds fresh light on what Lefebvre saw
Yes
clearly as an attack on the faith itself which he properly and in good conscience rejected?
No, when he disobeyed the Pope he acted not out of good faith or good conscience but out of foolish pride, thinking he, a bishop, knew better what was right for the Church than the Pope elected by the Holy Spirit.
Yes, I am in the Diocese of Albany. You ask a good question. A quick Google search turned up the tributes given at Hubbard's 25th anniversary celebration. I believe the following will more than answer that question.
It gives me great pleasure to be among those invited to salute Howard Hubbard on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of his ordination as Bishop of Albany.
I have known this great man for more than 40 years. I have cherished his friendship as fellow seminarian, brother priest, my bishop and brother bishop.
In all of those phases of our lives together, Howard's personal qualities have impressed me in many ways. Among those qualities are a wonderful mind, a generous spirit, and a reverent and compassionate disposition toward all.
In quiet and effective ways, he has made all of his wide gifts available to the Church and civic communities. His concern for and commitment to the poor have shown through all the years. His preaching, speaking and writings have been gifts not only to the Diocese of Albany but also to dioceses in every region of our nation. I most certainly include the Diocese of Rochester in that number.
Mostly, I salute with fine admiration the commitment Bishop Hubbard has made to the renewal of the Church to which Vatican Council II called all of us. His Episcopal motto, "Rejoice, We are God's People," is one that he has lived heart and soul during his 25 years of episcopal ministry in and for the Church.
With you, I thank God for the gift Howard is to all of us. With you, I pray that we will enjoy his friendship and leadership for many more years.
Most. Rev. Matthew Clark
Bishop Clark's motto is: "Gods Love Endures Forever."
Not much of a clue. Hubbard became bishop in 1977; Clark in 1979. Bishop of Rochester
THe ambiguities were exploited by Mgr. Bugnini (and you can read HIS book for verification) to produce, NOT a liturgy which was an organic growth, but a liturgy which was a break with tradition, which was manufactured and fabricated, and which has been further perverted by, (surprise) perverts-in-charge at the Liturgy Wonk meetings.
Knowing history can be quite valuable--and reading more than Jungmann's foo foo dust can also be helpful.
I'm talking about the leaders of the respective camps in general, not you. Stop being so self absorbed.
I have personally been victimized by these folks, and their politics of personal destruction.
In my case I was personally attacked by Steve Hand at TCRNews.com simply for having a close friend on Hand's personal enemies list.
(Amazingly enough, Hand apparently took that down from his website recently, I just looked for it to give you the link, but its been removed.)
However, those on both sides of this divide are notoriuos for their vitriol and bile, including both the Remnant/CFN types as well as the TCR types.
Again, I'm not talking about you personally.
A traditionalist is someone who tries to preserve the nature of the church as it has come down to us over the last 2000 years.
A conservative is someone who is not as liberal as the liberals.
A traditionalist relies on objective measures: e.g. "Here is the definitive statement of Pope Pius XI. Does the current statement agree, or does it say something different?"
A conservative relies on subjective measures: "Cardinals Weakland and Mahoney are way out in left field, but my church isn't that bad (yet)."
A traditionalist is dedicated to the defense of doctrines: e.g. "Extra ecclesiam, nulla sallus."
A conservative is dedicated to personalities: e.g. the chant at World Youth Day: "JP 2, we love you."
72 posted on 10/14/02 7:50 PM Pacific by Maximilian
How very trite! Of course, Max, you should reveal that you are a Lefebvrerite Trad, not a Papal Trad. You support the schismatics, such as the SSPX.
As a Papal Trad, I give more than lip service to our Holy Father and fully support the Indult and those who have come back into full communion with Rome, such as the founders of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.
I see my attachment to the 'Tridentine' Mass as a licit choice. I could have also chosen the 'Novus Ordo', but I didn't. I accept both as valid and licit, when my Diocesean Bishop grants faculties to individual priests to celebrate either or both in his diocese.
FWIW, I still attend the occasional 'Novus Ordo" Mass' whether it is offered privately by a retired priest, or by a priest at, for example, a Knights of Columbus function. Again, while I prefer the 'Tridentine' form, I reject neither the validity, nor, in Christian charity, the licitness of most 'Novus Ordo' Masses. (I think that we all can agree that there are some NO Masses which are "over the top".
You make special note of "Extra ecclesiam, nulla sallus."
Don't tell me that you are a Feeneyite too?
Sursum Corda
You read more into my posts than I intend. I apologize for making you think I was referring to you personally. My references were to the leaders of these two camps in general. I mentioned specifically that I try to avoid these debates here, specifically with you two.
Again, I was not intending to make it personal, and I apologize if you took it that way..
Sorry for being trite. I know that not all my posts are sparkling examples of wit and wisdom. As far as exciting revelations, alas, I am not going to be able to be of service there either.
Your personal testimony is moving. I don't see how it contradicts anything in my conservative/traditionalist comparison. Nor do I see any implied criticism of you in my comparison.
Let's look at the doctrine you mention: "Extra ecclessiam, nulla salus." This is a defined de fide doctrine of the Church. Feeney got in trouble over his interpretation of the doctrine, but every Catholic is required to believe "There is no salvation outside the Church."
This is a good example of differing approaches: a traditionalist realizes that this is an essential dogma. A Catholic should be willing to sacrifice his life rather than deny it. A conservative looks at the personalities of the case and says, "Oh those are the Feeneyites. They're fanatics. I wouldn't want to be associated with them."
Here's the website of St. Benedict's Abbey in Still River, MA. They offer a beautiful INDULT Latin Mass for the public every Sunday. They are fully reconciled to the Church. And they still continue to teach "Extra ecclesiam, nulla sallus."
They're traditionalists because they continue to proclaim the essential doctrines of the faith, whether they are popular or unpopular.
Well, this post at least locates you on the spectrum.
Personally, I detest the phrases "conservative" and "integrist" and "schismatic.
I prefer "orthodox" and "heterodox." There is room in the orthodox camp for traditionalists as well as those who accept the Novus Ordo as valid and licit if said according to rubrics.
Your denigration of so-called "conservatives" reveals more about you than them.
Cut through the hyperbole and just use the integrist term "neoconservative," OK? That is obviously the term you intend with these remarks.
I would have used the term "neo-Catholic" if that's what I intended. But I didn't intend my remarks to be "denigration." There's nothing wrong with being to the right of Mahoney and Weakland. There's nothing wrong with chanting "JP 2, we love you." These are not denigrations. I think if you read it again, you'll see that it's more of a "pick your preference," and there's nothing inherently denigrating about my references to "conservatives."
How can you be on FreeRepublic and "detest the phrase conservative"? These are useful labels and there's nothing perjorative about them. Go ahead and call me an "integrist" if you want. I don't find it insulting. As far as "schismatic," however, that would be factually incorrect.
One example would be Cardinal Ratzinger. At Vatican II he was considered a liberal. Now he's considered a conservative. His views haven't changed, but his relative position has changed. This demonstrates that "conservative" is a relative term. It doesn't make the word an insult, just demonstrates the nature of the term.
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.