An Open Letter to the Church Renouncing My Service on I.C.E.L.

Communicantes (Newsletter of the Society of St. Pius X in Canada) ^ | October 2002 | Rev. Fr. Stephen Somerville

[sitetest]

Dear Zviadist,

"Looks like you are making excuses for the result. It looks pretty simple to me, and I am not even a professional pollster: 'Do you believe in the real Presence of Christ at Mass?' People answer yes or no."

If asked that simple question, large majorities of Catholics answer "yes". At least in the poll that we're all talking about.

But that wasn't what they were asked. They were asked to assent to the descriptions of various doctrines of the Real Presence, and various doctrines denying any Real Presence. The majority assented to descriptions which acknowledge the Real Presence. But while one-third assented to a description of the doctrine of transubstantiation, many assented to other doctrines of the Real Presence, which are not orthodox Catholic teaching.

What this shows is that Catholics, by and large, believe in the Real Presence, but often don't understand what it is that they believe.

I'm not sure it was any better in the past. Pope St. Pius X remarked on the problem, in his own day. When I talk to my own parents, raised and fully-educated prior to the Second Vatican Council, I find that they believe in the Real Presence, but can't accurately distinguish between the doctrine of transubstantiation, and similar doctrines. Ten minutes conversation reveals how woeful was their (pre-Vatican II) catechesis.

Kind of a good news / bad news sort of thing.


sitetest

[Maximilian]

Your photo was very funny. Hopefully some Catholics here still have a sense of humor.

And I find your posts very insightful. It's clear that you're facing the same situation in your (schismatic, heretical) denomination that Catholics are facing in our (one, true, apostolic) Church ; ) Maybe we can learn from one another.

BTW, do you ever read "First Things"? I find it to be the best-written religious journal available, and it takes an ecumenical approach as represented by its statement, "Catholics and Evangelicals Together." Since I am a traditionalist, it doesn't represent my particular viewpoint. But there are always intelligent, informative articles. They are especially good on intelligent design versus Darwinism, church-state relations, and modern philosophy versus the Aristotelian-Thomistic teleological realist tradition.

[Zviadist]

In formal terms, innocent until proven guilty, but schismatics nonetheless.

Do you realize the arrogance and disobedience in this statement? You alone, even above the Vatican, are fit to judge these? Incredible! Pride goes before the fall.

[Zviadist]

Formalizing the schism to the point of treating the SSPX like a long-departed group such as the Orthodox or the Lutherans, would harden the schism, possibly beyond the point of healing. Recognizing that the SSPX, though not-quite Catholic, is almost-Catholic, and made up of clergy who not so long ago were Catholic, the Church treats this as an internal manner.

Must be nice knowing the inner-most thoughts of the Vatican leadership -- especially when their very pronouncements argue against your conclusions. I didn't think the Church looked that favorably on the practice of the black arts such as mind-reading...

[Catholicguy]

he said, "All I have written is straw?" I am not familiar with the quote. I presume the inference is that a philosophical explanation is inferior to an apprehension by faith

<> True. In addition, I think he meant the reality of the Eucharist far surpasses what mere words can describe - and Aquinas' understanding and explanation of transubstantiation are far superior to anything most men have ever accomplished.

[Zviadist]

to tell yourselves that you can embrace schism and yet be Catholic.

There you go again. There is no schism. Rome agrees.

[patent]

You know, when you post pictures like that with a caption suggesting hula masses, something that picture is not of, so far as I can tell, one starts to wonder if Catholicguy is correct about your partiality, and your selective trust in ultima.

Do you deny the reality of hula "Masses"? Or does drstevej's mentioning it just embarass you and your positions? I have seen videos of these "Masses"; I know they exist. drstevej's posted pic was not much different from the video I saw.

BS. Do a video capture then and post it. I’ve heard of the Masses, but until you provide some evidence otherwise, I strongly doubt they are anything like the picture posted.

how well do you think pollsters can gauge belief in the Real Presence, when they can't even figure out who people will vote for?

Looks like you are making excuses for the result. It looks pretty simple to me, and I am not even a professional pollster: "Do you believe in the real Presence of Christ at Mass?" People answer yes or no.

That, of course, was not one of the poll questions. You are proving my point. They don’t just ask the simple question, they make it complex and try to get deeper into the theology.

patent  +AMDG

[Catholicguy]

Must be nice knowing the inner-most thoughts of the Vatican leadership

<> Believe me, it is. Sitetest, Polycarp, Black Rlk, Patent, myself,etc, are all on an automated Fax list. Each day we receive something from Rome.

I don't have the heart to tell you what we all recieved today. It involved "good news," and I know how unsettled that makes you:)<>

[patent]

to tell yourselves that you can embrace schism and yet be Catholic.

There you go again. There is no schism. Rome agrees.

You contend Rome agrees there is no schism? Then please explain what the Pope meant when he said:

c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.[8]

Or, in your view, is John Paull II not the key authority in Rome? Does someone else trump his judgment?

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG

[Zviadist]

In Campos, the schismatics submitted to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, the Supreme Pontiff lifted the excommunications, welcomed back the stray sheep into the fold, and all is well.

Wrong. We see in the Campos case that Vatican admits that traditional Catholics and traditional Catholic priests are not "schismatic." How do we know this? When the traditional priests and faithful of Campos, Brazil, were received into "full communion" in January, 2002, the Vatican did not make any move to absolve them from any censure for "schism," which would have been necessary had the Vatican legally held them "schismatic." The Vatican, in its handling of the priests and parishoners of Campos has admitted that there was no schism.

[sitetest]

Dear Zviadist,

"'In formal terms, innocent until proven guilty, but schismatics nonetheless.'

"Do you realize the arrogance and disobedience in this statement? You alone, even above the Vatican, are fit to judge these? Incredible! Pride goes before the fall."

To observe and describe is neither arrogant nor disobedient.

If one observes a man robbing a bank, one may describe him as a bank robber. This is a reasonable action, even prior to his conviction in court for the crime of bank robbery.

If one observes a man walking, talking, and otherwise acting schismatically, then one may describe him as a schismatic. This is a reasonable action, even prior to his adjudication as such by appropriate and legitimate Church authority.

Of course, BlackElk is neither a police officer nor a Church hierarch. Thus, he may observe the bank robber, and rightfully call the bank robber a bank robber. But he may not try the robber in a court of his own making, and impose his own sentence. He may not imprison him to serve a sentence as punishment (though he may rightfully detain the robber until the police officers arrive). Similiarly, he may observe that someone is a schismatic, but he may not try to impose ecclesiastical sanction (though he may rightfully try to alert appropriate and legitimate Church authorities to the situation, and ask that they enforce a punishment against such a person).

So, it isn't a binding ecclesiastical judgement that BlackElk and others make, it is an observation and a description of what was observed.

That you have difficulty making this distinction goes to the heart of the schism. We Catholics believe that we may not invent our own interpretations of Tradition, we may not invent our own interpretations of obedience, we may not create our own hierarchical structures, we may not make it up as we go along. We must submit in obedience to the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church, which is authentically interpreted, in the final analysis, by the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church.

You believe that you may offer your own interpretation of Tradition opposed to the pope's. You believe that you may disobey at will, and create your own episcopal structure. The SSPX believes that it can establish a tribunal to judge the validity of marriages.

So, you confuse BlackElk's observation with your own disobedience.


sitetest

[patent]

he said, "All I have written is straw?" I am not familiar with the quote. I presume the inference is that a philosophical explanation is inferior to an apprehension by faith

<> True. In addition, I think he meant the reality of the Eucharist far surpasses what mere words can describe - and Aquinas' understanding and explanation of transubstantiation are far superior to anything most men have ever accomplished.

Language (and thus each written word) is a human construct, it can never fully describe the divine and the infinite. If the Eucharist is what we say it is, words cannot do it justice.

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

"'In formal terms, innocent until proven guilty, but schismatics nonetheless.'

"Do you realize the arrogance and disobedience in this statement? You alone, even above the Vatican, are fit to judge these? Incredible! Pride goes before the fall."

To observe and describe is neither arrogant nor disobedient.

If one observes a man robbing a bank, one may describe him as a bank robber. This is a reasonable action, even prior to his conviction in court for the crime of bank robbery.

It is funny. They do not object to calling the Pope an apostate pig, an apostate, an idolater, etc. But they claim we cannot judge them schismatic.

patent  +AMDG

[Zviadist]

And, no, they are not acceptable. Here, we agree. In this group, across the board.

THen why was what's-his-name getting all bent out of shape by the previous poster's reference to them?

[Zviadist]

To the extent this is leverage to take a poke at the otherside, I'd prefer not to be your sharp stick. Hope you understand.

I completely understand and would not dream of asking you to defend my points or to be used against the others. It would be improper for me to ask and improper for you to do so. My comments were just to say that it is nice having an objective observer to chime in with some interesting insights, delivered without malice. You may despise me and my views. That is fine. It still does not change that I have admired your posts on this thread.

[sitetest]

Dear Zviadist,

I have news for you.

If you are "received into full communion", then prior to your reception, you were not in "full communion". This is a matter of understanding English.

We "receive into full communion" non-Catholic Christians, whom we recognize as validly-baptized "separated brothers". Once they are so received, they become Catholics.

Our own parish "receives into full communion" some number of validly-baptized Christians each year. Prior to their reception, they are Baptists, or Methodists, or whatever. But they are not Catholics.

That you use this language is to acknowledge that the Catholics at Campos "received into full communion" in January 2002 were not Catholics prior to January 2002.

Which is the state of the SSPX.

Outside the Catholic Church.

Your own words say it.

Thanks for making my argument for me.


sitetest

[Zviadist]

I also find it strange when I see a Protestant pastor on TV preaching to his church covered in mud and standing in a make-shift pig sty constructed on the stage in order to convey the story of the Prodigal.

Indeed. That's why people like Rev. Kennedy are so refreshing. Protestants are going through what Catholics are and then some: modernists within the protestant sects are running rampant and are making headway in destroying the faith of their attendees. In some ways the destruction is even worse. There is a parallel fight going on, which is why I said earlier that I often find common ground with my protestant friends on these issues.

[Maximilian]

BS. Do a video capture then and post it. I’ve heard of the Masses, but until you provide some evidence otherwise, I strongly doubt they are anything like the picture posted.

I haven't seen pictures of a hula Mass, but here is a photo of the "clown Mass." Looks just as bad to me. But I will give you this much: they didn't use a bed of nails.

(Sorry it's so big. Is there some way to control the size, since you're just linking to a picture posted elsewhere?)

[ultima ratio]

It is immaterial what Rome gives. What it cannot give is the true faith. The irony here is that it is Rome who is actually seeking legitimacy. It knows it has renounced its own past--and SSPX is the living testimonial to this.

[Zviadist]

Can the SSPX offer "constructive criticism" of the new Mass? This is to acknowledge not only the validity, but the intrinsic worthiness of the new Mass.

Never. The New "Mass" is illegitimate.

Can the SSPX recognize the validity and worthiness of the new Mass, and help to take this good thing and make it better (possibly to the detriment of the desire of many to assist at the old Mass

If they were to do so, I would cease assisting at their Masses and find an independent priest who would refuse this evil compromise.

Don't you get it? The new Mass is illegitimate. It is NOT a dogma of the Church. The traditional Mass was never abandoned -- indeed could never be abandoned, even by this pope. What the modernists have done, however, is to attempt to stamp out through sneaky and nefarious means what they could not outright ban.

If you look around at the New Church that the New Mass has spawned and say "hey, this looks pretty good," then there is no way you will ever understand the argument of traditionalists. But I will caution: any objective observer will look at the current state of the Catholic Church and see an institution in a profound crisis -- and spiraling downward. Of course the Church was not perfect before Vatican II -- there is no perfection among the fallen. But any intelligent comparison between the state of the Church before Vatican II and the Catholic Church now will come to some very revealing conclusions. By their fruit you will know them. Vatican II's fruits have been spiritual death and destruction. A scorched spiritual earth.