Bishop Fellay's (SSPX) response to reunification

[JReducation]

I’m quite sure Mary’s essential in that role and all it entails. Not by her own nature, but by God’s will a grace. Our Lady truly is essential to the Most Holy Trinity. Your friend here is not wrong. But he should have clarified that this is so because God so wills it to be so.

You are right. Where the wording creates a problem is when you say “part of”. Mary is not part of the Trinity. Her relationship with the Trinity is essential.

No good Catholic theologian would deny Mary’s relationship with the Trinity and its importance in Salvation History. In good Marian Theology we would say that Mary’s relationship with the Trinity is essential to Salvation History. This is defensible. To say that she is an essential part of the Trinity is not defensible. The Catholic Church has never believed this.

In speaking of what Popes are trying to do in the dialogue with Protestants, it is precisely to clarify these misconceptions that they have about Catholicism and allow them to clarify the misconceptions that Catholics have about them. Once you clarify those, then you’re left with what you have in common and what is truly different. You reaffirm those things in which you are in communion and you discuss the differences, not with the purpose of changing dogma, but with the purpose of explaining it so that it can be understood by the Protestant Christian.

Ecumenism actually has a very logical system that is rarely used correctly. We live in a microwave society. We want to fix things instantly, rather than use systems. I was discussing this with one of our brothers who is a former high school teacher. He was telling me how they no longer teach systems in high school, for example: students don’t do history, they discuss history. But they no longer learn to use the historical method. The same with such things as research. They write essays to pass state tests, but they rarely get a chance to do research, so they don’t learn the system.

This is carrying over into important areas of life such as our relationship and dialogue with people of other beliefs. Instead of using the system, people often go for the quick fix. That’s when you fall into relativism, because it’s fast and easy or you fall on the other side into antagonism, which is also fast and easy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

Ah. I didn’t see the “part of”. I can see why that would cause confusion. It’s why I my self used the phrasing that she is essential “to” the Trinity (following in the vein of Saint Louis, Saint Alphonsus, etc.).

I don’t have anything against dialogue with Protestants. It is necessary. I couldn’t do it my self. I grew up in a culture and environment that encouraged anti-Protestantism in the face of overwhelming anti-Catholicism. It’s a good point that Joe Smith at your local Presbyterian chapel is not the same as John Calvin pontificating in Geneva. I have no problem with the bishops and those appointed, doing their job (proper ecumenism, not the false ecumenism).

Not for me though. I’m far too contemptuous of them. They’d as soon as hit me as speak with me .

 

[pnewton]

And on that we will remain in utter disagreement! A Rite of Mass which has seen the erosion of Faith in the Real Presence of Our Lord diminish over 40 years, in my opinion, noone has the moral authority to promulgate. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

The problem with this argument is that it is based on an opinion, and one not grounded in canon law. The Pope does in fact have the authority to promulgate the Mass. It is he, not Bishop Fellay, or Archbishop Lefebvre that has the authority. If in the papal election the Holy Spirit guides the Cardinals to elect these people, then all of us, the above mentioned included, should be willing to accept that authority.

Now to your opinion that the Mass today has “seen” as you put it, the erosion of Faith in the Real Presence, I have to mention, that as an opinion it is fine, but can not be a fact without using post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy, and ignoring other factors in society and the declines already in place before the Mass changed, like decline in attendance.

 

[JReducation]

Ah. I didn’t see the “part of”. I can see why that would cause confusion. It’s why I my self used the phrasing that she is essential “to” the Trinity (following in the vein of Saint Louis, Saint Alphonsus, etc.).

I don’t have anything against dialogue with Protestants. It is necessary. I couldn’t do it my self. I grew up in a culture and environment that encouraged anti-Protestantism in the face of overwhelming anti-Catholicism. It’s a good point that Joe Smith at your local Presbyterian chapel is not the same as John Calvin pontificating in Geneva. I have no problem with the bishops and those appointed, doing their job (proper ecumenism, not the false ecumenism).

Not for me though. I’m far too contemptuous of them. They’d as soon as hit me as speak with me .

I grew up Jewish, so we never had much to say about Protestants. We never really understood what the division among Christians was about. In Judaism, the divisions are for very different reasons. They’re really divisions caused by secularism on one end and fanaticism on the other end. In other words, they’re not about heresies.

We found the Evangelical Protestants to be annoying, because some pastors encourage anti-Semitic behaviors. They often came off like sandpaper. In my hometown, the only Catholic church and school was run by Capuchin Franciscans. Franciscans have had a very good on-going relationship with Jews since they established the Custody of the Holy Land in the 14th century. The Jews gravitated toward the friars and the friars were very protective of the Jews. When I was a kid, I attended the local public school for a year. It was a horrible experience. Most of the community was Evangelical Protestants. I grew up in the South. We went to the friars for help. They took us into their school and treated us with great kindness. That’s how I eventually became a Hebrew Catholic and later a Franciscan myself. They were also very good at ecumenism. They preached through their presence and when asked, they would answer our questions with patience, charity, clarity and respect.

In later years I would meet Fr. Benedict Groeschel. He was the most respectful and kind person toward non-Catholics that I have ever met. Yet, his faith and his fidelity always arouses curiosity and admiration.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

I am not sure I understand.

Also, what would be the need for the Apostles to even evangelize? Wouldn’t it have been better to allow Jews to remain Jews because they do hold the ‘true faith’ too?

I do not think it correct to interchange the relationship with Jews for that of other Christians. It is a whole different animal. In doing this, we make the same mistake that the argument that the Church treats Protestants better than the SSPX, or for that matter, the argument that Johnny’s Mom lets him stay out until 10:00. Each relationship is its own situation.

As to why we should evangelize, I would think the command of Christ should be sufficient. We do not need to know everything, in fact, will never know everything. We just do what we are told. We accept this authoritative order from God because it carries his authority. What I do not understand then is why Catholics who believe in the authority of Jesus for ruling the Church, even knowing that the Holy Spirit is steering the ship, are capable of the actions that have been taken by the SSPX.

 

[JReducation]

The problem with this argument is that it is based on an opinion, and one not grounded in canon law. The Pope does in fact have the authority to promulgate the Mass. It is he, not Bishop Fellay, or Archbishop Lefebvre that has the authority. If in the papal election the Holy Spirit guides the Cardinals to elect these people, then all of us, the above mentioned included, should be willing to accept that authority.

Now to your opinion that the Mass today has “seen” as you put it, the erosion of Faith in the Real Presence, I have to mention, that as an opinion it is fine, but can not be a fact without using post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy, and ignoring other factors in society and the declines already in place before the Mass changed, like decline in attendance.

I agree with you. I believe that the problem that many Traditionalists have is that they don’t see that Catholics are not the only ones who have lost members. The Orthodox and Eastern Catholics are struggling to keep their census up. They never touched their liturgy.

The Anglicans have lost quite a few, no matter what they do to keep their people. They’ve gone the other way. They have compromised in order to keep people.

Judaism is in a state of panic, because the younger generation identifies itself as culturally Jewish, but many claim to be agnostics at best and atheists at worse. We now have free programs that take Western Jewish kids to Israel for a year to immerse them in Jewry in the hope of awakening their faith. It’s having some results, but it’s an expensive project and does not reach the world’s five million Jewish kids.

Even Islam, as much as it is growing, it is also losing. Look at governments such as Iraq’s former government. Islamic laws applied to the people, but not to the aristocracy.

None of these folks changed their liturgy or had a Vatican II.

After WW II, we saw an explosion of materialism and narcissism that had not been seen for centuries. If there was something good that came with the two world wars was that people of all faiths were very grounded in their spiritual life.

There are too many other forces at work here that have nothing to do with changes in the liturgy or Vatican II. Pope Paul’s hope was to keep the masses that he saw exoding from the Church. The exodus began in the late 50s. Pope Paul had seen it with his own eyes when he was Archbishop of Milan. As they made great economic progress, they also became cooler in their faith. He looked at the USA and other European nations and saw the same thing. Economic and political progress was on the rise and the practice of the faith was falling, but not just among Catholics.

As pope it is his moral right to try to find an response. If he feels that a liturgical reform is a response, then it’s a moral thing to do.

**Pope Boniface VIII in De Constit, VI decreed

The sovereign pontiff is the most fruitful source of canon law; he can abrogate the laws made by his predecessors or by Ecumenical councils; he can legislate for the whole church or for a part thereof, a country or a given body of individuals; if he is morally bound to take advice and to follow the dictates of prudence, he is not legally obliged to obtain the consent of any other person or persons, or to observe any particular form; his power is limited only by Divine law, natural and positive, dogmatic and moral. Furthermore, he is, so to say, the living law, for he is considered as having all law in the treasury of his heart (“in scrinio pectoris”.**

This decree has never been challenged. To say that Pope Paul VI had no moral right to change the mass, one would have to prove that what he did was contrary to moral law, which means that what he did is immoral. I would not make such a claim, because I hate standing in slippery slopes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

The authority of the Bishop of Rome over the liturgy cannot be questioned by any Catholic. But having that authority doesn’t mean it’s always going to be exercised perfectly. We know that the Church cannot give us something intrinsically evil. She is our mother and she cannot feed us poison. But that isn’t to say we’re always going to get the best nutrients. We’ll survive. She will always make sure of that. And we will always flourish. But we will do so to a greater extent depending on the circumstances.

I think the liturgy has to be reviewed and criticised and commented on. But it’s not our job to do so. It’s for those appointed by proper authority. It’s for those who have been selected due to their knowledge and experience in these matters.

Liberal and modernist Catholics are not the only people who have risen above themselves. They are not the only ones blurring the lines between cleric and layman. It’s happening with all Catholics regardless of their stripes.

Though I confess some amusement that the biggest “loud-mouths” who speak against the clergy of all order, tend to be those who harken back to the days when such would earn you a slap on the mouth for sheer cheek.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I’m not going to pretend to know exactly how a prelature works. From what I have observed in Opus Dei, the prelate has to be approved by the pope. The prelate is really the vicar of the pope, not like a Diocesan Ordinary or a Religious Superior.

Actually, the difference is that people in a Diocese don’t vote for a Bishop from amongst their priests and then the Pope gives approval. Which is how it happens in Opus Dei. The Pope appoints the Bishops.

Theoretically, a pope can reign in a prelate. I don’t think it has ever be done.

I don’t know how, as there is no provision in Canon Law for this. Of course, the Pope can write anything he wants anytime he wants in Canon Law.

I’ve seen the Opus Dei always coordinate with the bishop before moving into a diocese.

Well, not exactly. JPII made it part of the norms that a center of the Prelature has to have the permission of the local Ordinary. They get around that by defining “personal” or “autonomous” Centers, that are not “canonically erected.” These exist without needing permission, according to their Statutes, even though they are under the same requirements as the “Canonically erected” ones.

Like the religious, the priests of the prelature get their faculties from the local bishop.

No, not exactly. Priests of Opus Dei are always taken from the laity of Opus Dei and are Numeraries and are Ordained by their own Ordinary or by some Bishop he gets to do the job, but not necessarily ever by the local geographic Bishop of whatever Diocese they happen to be in. They belong by definition to the PSHC, of course, along with Diocesan Priests who may wish to be part of Opus Dei. But those priests, the Diocesan ones, are never Numeraries or made part of “the faithful of Opus Dei.” A Priest of Opus Dei doesn’t serve anyone but the faithful of Opus Dei, unless by specific permission of the Prelate and then, if there’s a contract with the Diocesan Bishop, yes, that Priests serves by contract but is not incardinated into the Diocese, as I understand it. I don’t know of any case where that’s happened, but then, the prelate isn’t exactly shooting me emails of all his actions.

I don’t know if the Prelate has the same authority as a superior.

That would be yes. He is both a “superior” (claims of secularity not withstanding) and Bishop of his own “diocese.” To understand Opus Dei you have to make a study of the Statutes and Constitutions which can be found here. The 1950 Statutes are fully in force, the 1982 Statutes do not supplant them. They are in Latin and English. I don’t know who did the translation.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

I don’t know how, as there is no provision in Canon Law for this. Of course, the Pope can write anything he wants anytime he wants in Canon Law.

He wouldn’t even have to write anything into Canon Law. He’s the living law. His word is the law.

 

[pnewton]

The authority of the Bishop of Rome over the liturgy cannot be questioned by any Catholic. But having that authority doesn’t mean it’s always going to be exercised perfectly…

I like your post. Perhaps it is easier for those of us that have had to follow authority for authority sake, like the Franciscan and I have done (for different vocations) to understand this. We can suck it up, as it were, when we do not agree with something and follow our authority as if it were our own idea. I used to think that disobedience was a matter of pride, but perhaps it is something else all together different. I guess such disobedience can stem from not appreciating the separation of our action to authority from our reaction to authority. This is never a problem except when we are at odds with this authority on issues of substance.

On this issue, I think St. Francis nailed it.

 

[maurin]

The problem with this argument is that it is based on an opinion, and one not grounded in canon law. The Pope does in fact have the authority to promulgate the Mass. It is he, not Bishop Fellay, or Archbishop Lefebvre that has the authority. If in the papal election the Holy Spirit guides the Cardinals to elect these people, then all of us, the above mentioned included, should be willing to accept that authority.

I never argued the Pope did not have the legal authority to change the Mass. Please do not misrepresent me. It is unjust. However, Holy Archbishop Lefebvre certainly did have the authority to refuse the NO Mass, as evidenced by Pope Benedict stating the fact the Mass of a thousand five hundred years was never abrogated. I for one am certain it was the Holy Spirit guiding Holy Marcel Lefebvre to do so.

Now to your opinion that the Mass today has “seen” as you put it, the erosion of Faith in the Real Presence, I have to mention, that as an opinion it is fine, but can not be a fact without using post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy, and ignoring other factors in society and the declines already in place before the Mass changed, like decline in attendance.

the post hoc propter hoc fallacy people cause me some amusement. New Coke was introduced. Coke sales fell. People must’ve just started liking Pepsi adds better. Or Mountain Dew ads. Or maybe the Root Beer ads. It couldn’t hBave been New Coke, could it? I think that’s a pretty good analogy for all the Catholics who left the Church for the various prot denoms or secularism.

 

[jam070406]

The authority of the Bishop of Rome over the liturgy cannot be questioned by any Catholic. But having that authority doesn’t mean it’s always going to be exercised perfectly. We know that the Church cannot give us something intrinsically evil. She is our mother and she cannot feed us poison. But that isn’t to say we’re always going to get the best nutrients. We’ll survive. She will always make sure of that. And we will always flourish. But we will do so to a greater extent depending on the circumstances.

I think the liturgy has to be reviewed and criticised and commented on. But it’s not our job to do so. It’s for those appointed by proper authority. It’s for those who have been selected due to their knowledge and experience in these matters.

Liberal and modernist Catholics are not the only people who have risen above themselves. They are not the only ones blurring the lines between cleric and layman. It’s happening with all Catholics regardless of their stripes.

Though I confess some amusement that the biggest “loud-mouths” who speak against the clergy of all order, tend to be those who harken back to the days when such would earn you a slap on the mouth for sheer cheek.

"After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . . The greatness of the liturgy depends -we shall have to repeat this frequently -on its unspontaneity.”

Pope Benedict XVI

 

[pnewton]

I never argued the Pope did not have the legal authority to change the Mass. Please do not misrepresent me.

I never said you did.

the post hoc propter hoc fallacy people cause me some amusement. New Coke was introduced. Coke sales fell. People must’ve just started liking Pepsi adds better. Or Mountain Dew ads

Other data does not bear you out, amusement not withstanding. If Catholicism is coke, then the sales of Coke would have already been falling off before New Coke, as was the consumption of Pepsi, Dr. Pepper and soft drinks in general. Now a marketer might ignore the other data and focus only on that one correlation, but that would be an opinion. It is no light thing to dismiss this fallacy. Catholicism already had declining attendance. Religion as a whole was being replaced by secularism. Focusing on the changes in the Mass is an easy answer to a complex situation, but I do not think it accurate.

 

[casual_visitor]

I’m not redifining anything. What the popes are saying is several things.

1. Mystici Corpus Christi is describing a very different situation from that which we have today.

Mystici Corpus Christi was released on June 29, 1943. Are you saying that within 50 years, the situation has changed?

1. Secondly, the popes are not bound by it. It was a statement made by the Ordinary Magisterium. This leaves future popes free to look at it from a different perspective. That’s what they’re doing. They are not bound to to be as rigid as we would like them to be.

So they can contradict what is said there?

1. They are saying that while Mystici Corpus Christi speaks about a great truth, as doctrine develops that truth become clearer to us.

But surely, doctrine cannot contradict it-self in its development. Doctrine X cannot evolve to become ‘NOT X’. Here Mystici Copus Christi clearly says that you have to be part of the visible church to be part of the mystical body of Christ. To say that Protestants are part of the church requires that either the mystical body of Christ is invisible or to postulate that there is no unity right now. Both of which are contradictory positions what is written in mystici corpus christi.

In this case, it is clear to us that we do have some degree of communion with Protestants.

a. Common root

b. Common Christology

c. Common scriptures

d. Common profession of faith

e. One baptism

f. Common life of prayer

g. Common Trinitarian theology

h. Common belief in the one true God

i. Many common moral laws

The popes are saying is that if we were to deny these things, then we would be denying part of what makes us Catholics.

But these common roots exists with every group that proclaimed heresy as well. So why should these common grounds in anyway require us to think that ones who proclaim these common roots are in anyway part of the mystical body of Christ?

This was not addressed by Mystici Corpus. They don’t feel that they are saying anything different, but that they are seeing something that the pope and bishops of the time did not see or did not apply, because of the conflicts between heretics and the Church.

Mystici Corpus Christi clearly states what the mystical body of Christ is. It follows logically that others like those with only a common ground on certain doctrine are not in the mystical body of christ. What more do you want mystici corpus christi to address?

1. All of these things that are in number 3 and more, are part of the Catholic faith. Therefore, those who believe it and do the best they can with what they have are living according to their faith, even though they do not possess the fullness of the faith, they are not totally devoid of it either. They have much of it. The have the most important part of all, the belief in the Trinity, Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection and Redemption. The ideal would be that they come to the fullness of truth.

I am not concerned with what they have. I am merely asking about what is written in Mystici Corpus Christi versus saying that they are part of the mystical body of christ. What they have, just like the Jewish faith it-self might be truly admirable, but they aren’t part of the mystical body of christ according to mystici corpus christi.

Why ride a bike when you can ride Cadillac? This does not mean that the bike is totally useless. The Protestant faith cannot be totally useless as long as it contains so many Catholic truths. It is lacking, but not empty. That’s what they are saying.

But what if the Bike owners claim that the Cadillac is just another bike and is inferior one at that?

1. Therefore, Pope Benedict has stated that we Catholics have to take another look at Protestantism in a different light, because Protestantism of today is not the same Protestantism of Mystici Corpus Christi. To use his own words, “It’s a new phenomenon that the Church never expected.”

I am not sure are from the time pre-Vatican II. Let me ask the following. As someone who received the mystici copus christi during their life-time, and gave full assent to what it said and defended it zealously against ideas similar to what you express now, what do you propose an individual do when the church suddenly decides to teach otherwise? What is the certitude that such a person can have about his faith when its something today and another thing tomorrow?

For all I know, tomorrow the church will hold a council and state that we should look at same sex couples in a different light. They share many of the common features of a family like adopted children, love for each other, sexual expression (thought it might be flawed), monogamy etc. So marriage can be extended to even those groups. What certainty can I have as I believe in the church teaching of marriage today that tomorrow this may not be different?

 

[casual_visitor]

I do not think it correct to interchange the relationship with Jews for that of other Christians. It is a whole different animal. In doing this, we make the same mistake that the argument that the Church treats Protestants better than the SSPX, or for that matter, the argument that Johnny’s Mom lets him stay out until 10:00. Each relationship is its own situation.

Analogies are always crude. I think the main point was still applicable in that analogy.

As to why we should evangelize, I would think the command of Christ should be sufficient. We do not need to know everything, in fact, will never know everything. We just do what we are told. We accept this authoritative order from God because it carries his authority.

But what I am pointing out here is that the command of Christ seems meaningless if everyone is part of the mystical body of Christ through common grounds. So in a sense, the position current seems to even contradict the direct command of Christ by saying there is no need for it.

What I do not understand then is why Catholics who believe in the authority of Jesus for ruling the Church, even knowing that the Holy Spirit is steering the ship, are capable of the actions that have been taken by the SSPX.

I hear you very well on this. In fact, I have many sleepless nights over this.

But just as an example, what would you do if tomorrow, the church said that Jesus Christ was not the son of God and was only a Prophet and then was raised to God hood? Do you still give full assent to it …?

 

[piouswoman]

I think the liturgy has to be reviewed and criticised and commented on. But it’s not our job to do so. It’s for those appointed by proper authority. It’s for those who have been selected due to their knowledge and experience in these matters.

The trouble is…there is no one appointed by proper authority who is going to criticize to any extent to make any difference. Furthermore, Catholics by and large think the church is just dandy the way it is…they love women all over the altar, they love altar girls, they love the sing-a-longs, the funny priests who make fun of tradition, they like the fact that they don’t have to go to confession because nothing is a sin anymore, they love the glass carafes to hold the wine and the baskets to hold the bread…they like the kiss of peace, and they have gotten used to the lack of reverence…they like taking communion in the hand and popping it in their mouths as they walk back to their places in the pews and remain standing, they like the fact that they can roll out of bed on a Sunday morning, and throw on any old pair of tattered jeans or sloppy jogging pants to wear to the mass that is no longer a sacrifice, but a meal…let’s face it…the church teaches a new religion, and they have been doing it for nearly fifty years.

Don’t anyone try to tell me otherwise…I’ve been witnessing it every Sunday for the last few months at my local NO.

 

[maurin]

I never said you did.

you absolutely did when you said, and I quote: “The problem with that argument is that is based on an opinion, and one no grounded in canon Law. THE POPE DOES IN FACT HAVE THE AUHORITY TO PROMULGATE THE MASS. IT IS HE, NOT BISHOP FELLAY, OR ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE…”

Now we can possibly be misunderstanding each other, as I know you to be quite honorable in discussion. But let’s nip the misunderstandings in the bud. I am used to our conversations being quite stimulating, even though we agree on less than that on which we agree!

Other data does not bear you out, amusement not withstanding. If Catholicism is coke, then the sales of Coke would have already been falling off before New Coke, as was the consumption of Pepsi, Dr. Pepper and soft drinks in general. Now a marketer might ignore the other data and focus only on that one correlation, but that would be an opinion. It is no light thing to dismiss this fallacy. Catholicism already had declining attendance. Religion as a whole was being replaced by secularism. Focusing on the changes in the Mass is an easy answer to a complex situation, but I do not think it accurate.

. As casual visitor points out above, all analogies are crude. I believe what you are neglecting is the fact there is nothing new under the sun. Abortion and the acceptance of homosexuality, to name two societal ills were also present in the societies St Paul was evangelizing, so there is nothing new there. What is new, novel, however you wan o put it, is the Church’s ineffectiveness in catechizing Her own members, and the evangelization od all nations. This is enshrined in the new theology of practical ecumenism and practical religious liberty. By practical, I mean the way it is played out, especially at the grass roots level. The law of prayer and the law of belief have spiraled not up, but down in these last 40 years.

So, and you may disagree, my analogy, though crude, is pretty accurate, I think.

 

[pnewton]

But what I am pointing out here is that the command of Christ seems meaningless if everyone is part of the mystical body of Christ through common grounds. So in a sense, the position current seems to even contradict the direct command of Christ by saying there is no need for it.

No one in the Church has ever made this claim. In any case, we obey Christ because He commands, not because we understand.

But just as an example, what would you do if tomorrow, the church said that Jesus Christ was not the son of God and was only a Prophet and then was raised to God hood? Do you still give full assent to it …?

As a matter of Faith, I do not believe that to be possible.

 

[pnewton]

…the church teaches a new religion, and they have been doing it for nearly fifty years.

Don’t anyone try to tell me otherwise…I’ve been witnessing it every Sunday for the last few months at my local NO.

The Church is not teaching a new religion.

 

[pnewton]

you absolutely did when you said, and I quote: “The problem with that argument is that is based on an opinion, and one no grounded in canon Law. THE POPE DOES IN FACT HAVE THE AUHORITY TO PROMULGATE THE MASS. IT IS HE, NOT BISHOP FELLAY, OR ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE…” .

Let me just clarify this and let the rest go. It was a back and forth thing and I have nothing to add. However, please understand that I did not mean by the above statement that you though otherwise. I was stating something that is a fact, as a starting poing, one that I believe most agree with, so that we can then recognize where the facts end and opinions take up.