A rant in defense of the Novus Ordo

[DustinsDad]

The word Pontiff does not mean exclusively the Pope. It means any high ranking ecclestical member and a bishop would qualify. Incidentally just in case any one doesn’t know the Pope is a Bishop, the Bishop of Rome.

The SSPX was not declaring the presiding bishop to be the Pope.

The use of the term “pontiff” in the article was because what was celebrated was a Pontifical blessing of a church building. It’s a terminology connected with what was done liturgically. Folks not familiar with the Extraordinary Form aren’t going to get it.

Local example - I have been blessed to assist at several *Pontifical *Solemn High Masses in St. Louis with ArchBishop Raymond Burke offering the mass. I was confused on the terminology at first as well thinking Pontifical must mean the Holy Father. Not so.

So no…neither the paper nor the SSPX were declaring Bishop Williamson to be the pope.

Good grief folks.

DustinsDad

 

[Auntie_M]

to Dustins Dad

Since this is a “EO” form of blessing, maybe you could fill us all in on the “rubics” or the "where, when and how’s"of this rite.

Since most of us here are under the impression that the POPE is the “Pontiff”. Although, the 3 or 4 times that I did visit an EF, the priest there said “let’s pray for our Pope… (short silence)
Pius”

No one caught that either I guess, but me. Since I was only visiting and had already sensed that “something” was wrong here.
(Believe it or not, the Holy Spirit lets me know when I’m where I’m not supposed to be or when I do anything not pleasing.) Although, sometimes, I feel that’s a bummer, but then I AM GLAD HE is there with/for me. Thanks be to God…

 

[catharina]

Hi Catharina, Sorry, but I honestly don’t know what you are talking about here? I went back and checked my 2 links & could not find anything to do with what you posted above?

I do remember being taught that the term “Pontiff” has been used in the Catholic Church to apply to any Bishop preforming certain Rites. I will see what I can find, in the mean time please accept my apology, I had no intention of offending or misleading anyone!

Rich, no problem. My only point is that the Church and the world define things quite differently, hence my attempt at humor. As Catholics, we might discuss the Pope’s nose (as in, for example, if he had a sinus infection) but throughout the United States and in Britain, the term “pope’s nose” means something else entirely: the tail end of a chicken.

It’s a term used as a very disrespectful piece of slang -
and yes, it’s in the dictionary.

 

[consumedconvert]

I’m far from any kind of expert. But I would tend to think that the official term “Supreme Pontiff” implies the possibility of a lesser pontiff. And also, the Pontifical in a Bishop’s Pontifical High Mss (which, by the by, also exists in the OF–it’s playing in Peoria) implies that a Bishop may be, or may have been, legitimately referred to as Pontiff. Also, the dictionary definition in the posts above would seem to support this view, and no one so far has quoted anything from the catechism to imply that the title “Pontiff” is reserved to the Pope alone.

 

[Saint_Gemma]

I have no more problem with the Tridentine form of the mass or EF as it is now called, than I do with any of the Byzantine forms or the Orthodox forms. I have a serious problem when people post such things on a Catholic forum as the following:

1. **“ I hope that John Paul II is never canonized. That would be another thing that he messed up.” How dare anyone desire that a person never be united to the community of the Saints or that if so, God keep it a secret from the Church.
   **
2. Passing judgement on prelates of the Church because they allowed non Catholics to pray for them. Since when did prayer become a sin?
3. Claiming that Jewish babies are damned for not availing themselves of the salvation that Christ offers.
4. “The Pope is the highest office in the Catholic Church is a popular fallacy.” How can one say this and still be Catholic? This is one of the points that caused the separation between the West and the East.
5. “Infallible statements made by popes have to be ratified by bishops.” Since when?
6. “Pope Paul VI was a heretic for creating the Novus Ordo.” When did the laity become the deciding voice on what a pope can and cannot do?
7. “Pope John Paul II abused his power when he excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre.”

When those who claim to be Traditionalists make such claims it only hurts other faithful people who have lived with the desire to see the EF return, including Pope Benedict. True Traditionalists are yearning to see their beloved form of the EF, but are not antagonistic toward the Church and its hierarchy.

They do not use their love for the EF as a platform to judge, condemn and much less disobey. These people truly want to be holy. The EF provides a means for them to pray and worship that lifts up their souls to God. The greatest attribute of a true saint is that he or she is only interested in seeing people rise to union with God through the Eucharist, other sacraments, prayer, penance and conversion of manners. True saints never set out to offend. True saints are humble. They do not assume authority that is not theirs to assume.

Certainly, the creation and the protection of the OF is not the role of the laity. It is the role of the Holy See and the Bishops. It is up to them to decide whether or not the OF is an efficacious means of sanctity and they have decided that it is. So why people can’t just settle down and accept that decision is stunning beyond belief. Sanctity consists in fidelity to everything that is holy.

JR

Since when are Catholics required to hope that a certain person be canonized, even if that person was a pope? It isn’t as though only canonized people are allowed into Heaven, or every person who goes to Heaven should be canonized.

I think that canonizing someone who kissed the Koran, in public, without publicly repenting of it, is a bad idea. In your opinion, does this make me a pagan, a heretic, or someone who adheres to schism?

 

[LilyM]

Since when are Catholics required to hope that a certain person be canonized, even if that person was a pope? It isn’t as though only canonized people are allowed into Heaven, or every person who goes to Heaven should be canonized.

I think that canonizing someone who kissed the Koran, in public, without publicly repenting of it, is a bad idea. In your opinion, does this make me a pagan, a heretic, or someone who adheres to schism?

It makes you none of those things - but surely we must, if we are sincere, desire that ALL show the level of heroic virtue and sanctity that leads to canonisation, and we shouldn’t want our brothers and sisters in Christ to be anything less than perfect as He bid them to be?

 

[Auntie_M]

Since when are Catholics required to hope that a certain person be canonized, even if that person was a pope? It isn’t as though only canonized people are allowed into Heaven, or every person who goes to Heaven should be canonized.

I think that canonizing someone who kissed the Koran, in public, without publicly repenting of it, is a bad idea. In your opinion, does this make me a pagan, a heretic, or someone who adheres to schism?

With reference to the bold above…

Did YOU see this personally or are you referencing a picture and taking someone’s word that that is what is happening.
And If, it is true, what was he really doing. You don’t know the Pope’s thinking on this, you cannot pass judgement.

I looked at the “Photos” of some of the “things” referred by the SSPX. This should have been put into the National Inquirer.
You know the paper that prints stuff like “The President of US is seen shaking hands with the Cuban President” they must be planning a big takeover of the US?

Pictures can say a thousand words in a thousand different ways.
You really HAVE to know all the facts…

 

[Saint_Gemma]

It makes you none of those things - but surely we must, if we are sincere, desire that ALL show the level of heroic virtue and sanctity that leads to canonisation, and we shouldn’t want our brothers and sisters in Christ to be anything less than perfect as He bid them to be?

Wanting everyone to be perfect and wanting the Church to declare that His Holiness Pope John Paul II was perfect are two very different things.

 

[Saint_Gemma]

Auntie_M:
With reference to the bold above…

Did YOU see this personally or are you referencing a picture and taking someone’s word that that is what is happening.
And If, it is true, what was he really doing. You don’t know the Pope’s thinking on this, you cannot pass judgement.

I looked at the “Photos” of some of the “things” referred by the SSPX. This should have been put into the National Inquirer.
You know the paper that prints stuff like “The President of US is seen shaking hands with the Cuban President” they must be planning a big takeover of the US?

Pictures can say a thousand words in a thousand different ways.
You really HAVE to know all the facts…

jimmyakin.org/2006/04/jp2_and_the_qur.html

I suppose that His Holiness Pope John Paul II might not have known that the book that he was kissing was a Koran, but there are many other incidents that make canonizing him imprudent.

 

[AJV]

to Dustins Dad

Since this is a “EO” form of blessing, maybe you could fill us all in on the “rubics” or the "where, when and how’s"of this rite.

Since most of us here are under the impression that the POPE is the “Pontiff”. Although, the 3 or 4 times that I did visit an EF, the priest there said “let’s pray for our Pope… (short silence)
Pius”

Was it SSPX, independant, FSSP, ICRSS…? When did the priest say this?

Technically, in the EF there is only one intercession for the Pope - in the Canon. The orations for the Pope in certain seasons were abolished in 1955 and so places using the 1962 missal don’t say them.

 

[AJV]

to Dustins Dad

Since this is a “EO” form of blessing, maybe you could fill us all in on the “rubics” or the "where, when and how’s"of this rite.

The Pope is more accurately called the Supreme Pontiff (Summus Pontifex) - take the opening words of the Motu Proprio 'Summorum Pontificum" for example. Another term that distinguishes the Pope is the Roman Pontiff.

In the Pontificale Romanum, if you look at the rites, the bishop presiding is called ‘Pontifex’ -Pontiff. Click here to see an electronic version of the Pontificale - it is an old version, but a lot of the rites are the same as in the 1961 Pontificale, and that revision did not alter the term of address, in any case.

As for the SSPX, I believe their site says that they “profess filial devotion and loyalty to Pope Benedict XVI”. Depending on one’s point of view, they may take issue with the ‘filial devotion’ bit, or something similar, but certainly it seems clear the society recognizes Benedict XVI as Pope. That why they are SSPX and not sedevacantists or conclavists.

 

[Auntie_M]

Was it SSPX, independant, FSSP, ICRSS…? When did the priest say this?

Technically, in the EF there is only one intercession for the Pope - in the Canon. The orations for the Pope in certain seasons were abolished in 1955 and so places using the 1962 missal don’t say them.

I am, as God is my witness, telling you that the priest said exactly this, this was the same priest (SSPX) that bragged about “having the Vatican on the run”. (before the moto propio)

See, a member of MY family got involvedwith this group about 4 years ago. I know they have to take an oath to always uphold Pius X traditions,to limit themselves from ANYONE that is NOT SSPX and has caused a split in my family. He has told her what boyfriend she could see or not see as the case is now.
What NOT to wear and to wear. I went there with her for about 4 times. Only listen to “classical” music.

I have Actually seen, AS GOD IS MY WITNESS, a computer taken out through the sanctuary and smashed on the front lawn,
“Father doesn’t like computers” was the reason I was told this happened.

He has brought a “tradition” of the “burning of the alelulia man” around Easter. A bonfire where a “figure of a man” is burnt at the stake. I am sorry but this is NOT our run of the mill Roman Catholic…

 

[JReducation]

jimmyakin.org/2006/04/jp2_and_the_qur.html

I suppose that His Holiness Pope John Paul II might not have known that the book that he was kissing was a Koran, but there are many other incidents that make canonizing him imprudent.

No one can get inside another person’s head and I’m not going to try to get inside Pope John Paul’s head whe he kissed the Quran.

Let’s look at what we do know.

1. John Paul and Benedict have a great affection for Islam and desire nothing more to bring Islam into a closer dialogue with the Christian community, not just the Catholic Church.
2. This desire is based on their desire for peace between the Muslim world and the rest of the world.
3. A kiss is not only a sign of respect, it is also a sing of gratitude for a gift given. It does not have to imply an endorsement of faith.
4. Given the tension between the Muslim world and the rest of the world, to have the Pontiff kiss a gift that the Muslims consider sacred, sends a message to them of his respect for them and his love. It actually sends a message of great charity and brotherhood.
5. Although there are major differences between Islam, Judaism and Christianity, there are parts of Islam that have their roots in Judeo-Christian beliefs. I would imagine that it’s based on those parts that the Holy Fathers (John Paul and Benedict) would like to focus on in their dialogue with Muslims. It makes sense to begin a dialogue with a spirit of gratitude, respect and recognition of what you have in common.

Just some thoughts. I could be completely wrong.

JR

 

[Auntie_M]

Well put, JR.

JR, I hope I always have enough sense to stay out of an argument with you!

Ditto and double Ditto (he knows his stuff)

 

[patrick457]

I am, as God is my witness, telling you that the priest said exactly this, this was the same priest (SSPX) that bragged about “having the Vatican on the run”. (before the moto propio)

See, a member of MY family got involvedwith this group about 4 years ago. I know they have to take an oath to always uphold Pius X traditions,to limit themselves from ANYONE that is NOT SSPX and has caused a split in my family. He has told her what boyfriend she could see or not see as the case is now.
What NOT to wear and to wear. I went there with her for about 4 times. Only listen to “classical” music.

I have Actually seen, AS GOD IS MY WITNESS, a computer taken out through the sanctuary and smashed on the front lawn,
“Father doesn’t like computers” was the reason I was told this happened.

He has brought a “tradition” of the “burning of the alelulia man” around Easter. A bonfire where a “figure of a man” is burnt at the stake. I am sorry but this is NOT our run of the mill Roman Catholic…

So sad to hear that.

The ‘Burning of the Alleluia Man’, as discussed, is actually a custom dating from the Middle Ages and prevalent in places like France, as formerly discussed in this thread (search for it in the former posts). To quote a part from my former post about it:

The “burning of the Alleluia Man” is a variant in a symbolic custom of ‘burying’ the Alleluia on the Saturday before Septuagesima Sunday (the third from the last Sunday before Lent. This, and the following two Sundays before Lent, known as Sexagesima and Quinquagesima were dropped from the calendar after the liturgical reforms, and thus, the use of violet vestments and omission of “Alleluia” in the liturgy do not start until Ash Wednesday in the present calendar). The joyful “Alleluia” is thus laid to rest for seventy days until it ‘rises again’ in the Easter Vigil.

The depositio (discontinuance) of the Alleluia on the eve of Septuagesima assumed in medieval times a solemn and emotional note of saying farewell to the beloved song. Despite the fact that Pope Alexander II had ordered a very simple and somber way of “deposing” the Alleluia, a variety of farewell customs prevailed in many countries up to the sixteenth century. They were inspired by the sentiment that Bishop William Duranti (1296) voiced in his commentaries on the Divine Office: “We part from the Alleluia as from a beloved friend, whom we embrace many times and kiss on the mouth, head and hand, before we leave him.”

Though if what you say is correct (that this particular priest does this custom around Easter), I wonder why would someone symbolically ‘get rid’ of the Alleluia at the time it can (and supposed to) be said? Or is this just bad timing or ignorance of the custom’s meaning on the priest’s part?

 

[patrick457]

1. A kiss is not only a sign of respect, it is also a sing of gratitude for a gift given. It does not have to imply an endorsement of faith.

I don’t know if my memory serves me right here, but I think that when some prominent Non-Catholics (like politicians or foreign dignitaries for example) when meeting the Pope or some other Cleric would kiss his hand or his ring. That does not imply an endorsement for Catholicism or that the kisser agrees with Catholic teachings so why should we expect this to be different?

Sure John Paul II may have done or said some things in his life that would be either outright wrong can be easily misconstrued as wrong, but he’s just a human. Saints are humans too. You don’t expect them to be some kind of elite and fair folk who spoke in flowery speech, had always carried their rosaries and read their Bibles or said and did the right things all the time.

I wouldn’t give my opinion on whether JPII should be canonized or not (personally I believe that despite his flaws he was, or is, a great and holy man), but I would say one thing: being a Pope is a hard task. You get criticized and misconstrued for every little thing, every little word you say and do. Perhaps even going out in the Vatican Gardens for a jog would get you in the headlines, spark public debates in forums on whether you should get canonized or not after you die and start up sites claiming that you are not the actual Pope and how this is another evidence that the present Church is tainted with Satan’s influence, ad nauseum.

Which is why I have a great respect for him who now sits in the Chair of Peter and the man who sat there before him. They are the guys that have great power and at the same time, great responsibility.

End Rant.

 

[Auntie_M]

Let’s look at NOT canonizating JP11 and the kissing of the Quran in this light.

If we list all the bad JP11 did among all the good that he did, which would be the longer list…

We canonized, St. Peter, and even look to him as the Head of the Apostles, the vicar of Christ, yet he denied Christ 3 times…

Jesus “upset” the Jews by “socializing” with “tax collectors”,etc.

Jesus even “forgave” the adulterous woman her sins and asked,
“who has no sin , let them cast the first stone”

We may none truly understand JP11"s intentions, but we must have faith that he “knew” what he was doing, He didn’t get to that position by “forgetting that kissing the Koran is a bad thing!”

In Mark 12:27, Jesus’s authority was also questioned.

JP11 has passed into the next life, Are we to condenm him forever.

I vote He deserves to be canonized.

 

[Saint_Gemma]

Let’s look at NOT canonizating JP11 and the kissing of the Quran in this light.

If we list all the bad JP11 did among all the good that he did, which would be the longer list…

**We canonized, St. Peter, and even look to him as the Head of the Apostles, the vicar of Christ, yet he denied Christ 3 times…
**
Jesus “upset” the Jews by “socializing” with “tax collectors”,etc.

Jesus even “forgave” the adulterous woman her sins and asked,
“who has no sin , let them cast the first stone”

We may none truly understand JP11"s intentions, but we must have faith that he “knew” what he was doing, He didn’t get to that position by “forgetting that kissing the Koran is a bad thing!”

In Mark 12:27, Jesus’s authority was also questioned.

JP11 has passed into the next life, Are we to condenm him forever.

I vote He deserves to be canonized.

Peter repented of his sin publicly. His Holiness Pope John Paul II did not.

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

Now that sounds like someone I’d like to read, although the language could be an issue…

The language difficulties notwithstanding, you should read some of Cardinal Luciani’s writings. He was a very holy man, and it is too bad that his pontificate lasted only a month; he would have been a very good Pope. Of course, his successor was not exactly one to be sneezed at, either!!!

 

[Jeanette_L]

Peter repented of his sin publicly. His Holiness Pope John Paul II did not.

Now there you go judging. You do not know the heart or intentions of his actions. According to our own Church’s teaching, these things are of utmost importance in regard to an action being accounted as sin. Only GOD can judge these things. I’m not seeing him posting His judgements here for us.

To be Judge is dangerous territory to be treading on it seems.