Dramatic footage of a trendy bishop being booed by Mass-goers

[FAB]

With all due respect, this entire post is riddled with wrongness. The first paragraph is simply not true. Dominique has it right on the constancy of the Church. Second paragraph is built on a false assumption. The TLM was never actually abrogated or “banned”; therefore neither pope was in “error.” And infallibility doesn’t have anything to do with the indult for the TLM. As far as I know, that was a matter of discipline, not a matter of faith.

I never said banned I said restricted. It could only be used with permission, now it is not, that is a reversal of dicplinary policy from the pope. There are those who seem to want to think that everything the pope does is considered infallible, and that is not the case.
As I indicated in a previous thread, my objection is the disrepect shown to the bishops particular the one in this case.

Peace,
FAB

 

[ac_claire]

I never said banned I said restricted. It could only be used with permission, now it is not, that is a reversal of dicplinary policy from the pope. There are those who seem to want to think that everything the pope does is considered infallible, and that is not the case.
As I indicated in a previous thread, my objection is the disrepect shown to the bishops particular the one in this case.

Ok, noted. I can understand having a problem with the way the bishop was treated in the video. I think though that the pope’s decrees on the TLM and whether or not they’re infallible isn’t really relevant to this situation. How do you think it’s relevant?

 

[CradleCath]

If you’d read what other people have been writing on these threads rather than focus on what I am writing only, you’d see that what you’re saying is heresy. I’m done responding to you because you only find fault in every little thing I say the Church says when there is not fault one there, but thanks for trying my Faith.

Secondly, if you give me facts as to where it says the Church is fallible, I’d be glad to agree with you. The Church is FOUNDED on it’s moral, values, doctrine, dogma, and Canon law. If you disagree with ANY of these, you have no right to call yourself Catholic. I’m sorry if that offends you but it’s the truth. The people in the Church, apart from the Pope on matters of dogma and doctrine, are fallible. The Church is NOT fallible. Sorry, you’re wrong, again.

If you think I am being too harsh, then please feel free to criticize where I speak wrongly. I have proven what the Church teaches over and over again and you still refuse to believe. That is your choice. God bless you and I will pray for you as I hope you will for me.

Thank you, Dominique…I, too, am about fed up with this insistence that individual Bishops are infallible, that the one who is moving priests because he will not allow the Latin Mass is…by himself…infallible. I’ve posted quotes from Church Documents several times to no avail.

Maybe if I say it this way, Fab will understand:

The ONLY time a Bishop is infallible…or the college of Bishops is infallible… is **when they are in agreement with the Pope **on the issue being discussed.

True infallibility on issues of faith & morals, as I think Fab sees it, belongs only to the Church & to the Vicar of Christ.

Fab, if you still want to argue about this, you can do it with someone else. I’m tired & it sounds as if Dominique is done too.

BTW., Pope Benedict would be within his rights if he demoted this Bishop or otherwise penalized him for disobeying Summorum Pontificum.

 

[FAB]

Ok, noted. I can understand having a problem with the way the bishop was treated in the video. I think though that the pope’s decrees on the TLM and whether or not they’re infallible isn’t really relevant to this situation. How do you think it’s relevant?

The question of the popes infallibilty came up in relation to his allowing the use of the EF of the mass without special permission. A post indicated that since he allowed it that it had to be done as though this was part of an infallible statement, which it doesn’t.
He lifted the restriction on using that form of the mass and he is encouraging the use. He has not said that it must be used on any regularity.
I my diocese, my ordinary has indicated that along with the pope it can can be used, but since he is short on priests and staffing his parishes is an on going issue, there would be no specific effort on his part to promote it. If members of the diocese wanted to raise the monies need to train priest in the rite and build the church’s need to celebrate it he wouldn’t object to thier efforts. Remember that the EF is just not in Latin there are specific rubics that are to be followed and very few priest know them.
I would suspect that this bishop in France is facing much of the same problem and even worse. A shortage of priest. Part of the move went beyond just the celebration of the EF form, it went to the need to consolidate parishes and reassign the priest were needed.
Peace,
FAB

 

[FAB]

Thank you, Dominique…I, too, am about fed up with this insistence that individual Bishops are infallible, that the one who is moving priests because he will not allow the Latin Mass is…by himself…infallible. I’ve posted quotes from Church Documents several times to no avail.

Maybe if I say it this way, Fab will understand:

The ONLY time a Bishop is infallible…or the college of Bishops is infallible… is **when they are in agreement with the Pope **on the issue being discussed.

True infallibility on issues of faith & morals, as I think Fab sees it, belongs only to the Church & to the Vicar of Christ.

Fab, if you still want to argue about this, you can do it with someone else. I’m tired & it sounds as if Dominique is done too.

BTW., Pope Benedict would be within his rights if he demoted this Bishop or otherwise penalized him for disobeying Summorum Pontificum.

Never said the Bishops were infallible except when speaking as one from a council with the pope. For that matter niether are the statements of the Pope. The use of the EF is a displinary level of action, and the pope could just as easily resstrict it’s use again.
By the way, he could reassign the bishop, but not demote him.
Peace,
FAB

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

Never said the Bishops were infallible except when speaking as one from a council with the pope. For that matter niether are the statements of the Pope. The use of the EF is a displinary level of action, and the pope could just as easily resstrict it’s use again.
By the way, he could reassign the bishop, but not demote him.
Peace,
FAB

That’s not true he could actually laicise the Bishop and completely strip him of all authority, he could also excommunicate him putting him outside the communion of the Chruch altogether.

 

[cathguy]

God bless those parishioners.

Those poor people in need of a shepherd.

He came in there, dressed like that, saying what he said, only to marginalize.

“Fr. Micel is no longer a parish priest.”

For WHAT!?

For having the gall to follow the lead of our Holy Father?

He came in, dressed in his rainbow “vestment” to talk down to that group of faithful, to let them know that their time had “passed.”

Well… it hasn’t. And Rome has reversed that Bishop and Fr. Michel is back at his post.

Praise God!

 

[ProVobis]

The use of the EF is a displinary level of action, and the pope could just as easily resstrict it’s use again.

There are a lot of things the pope COULD do. But what would be the pastoral value of doing so?

 

[CradleCath]

There are a lot of things the pope COULD do. But what would be the pastoral value of doing so?

I’d say that he’s pretty much leaning the other way. He considers the TLM. to have much pastoral value. He COULD restrict the Novus Ordo if the hierarchy continues in their disobedience.

(WOW!!Watch out for the flak that will be coming this way now.

 

[cathguy]

Never said the Bishops were infallible except when speaking as one from a council with the pope. For that matter niether are the statements of the Pope. The use of the EF is a displinary level of action, and the pope could just as easily resstrict it’s use again.
By the way, he could reassign the bishop, but not demote him.
Peace,
FAB

No, he couldn’t…

Not and not be a scandal I mean.

Look, the Pope is the supreme law giver of the Church, but he is not above Truth.

In 1982 a group of Cardinals studied the canonical situation vis. a vis. the old Mass. They concluded that under Canon law the old Mass had NEVER been abrogated, and therefore any priest had the right to say it, without indult or special permission.

The report, which was not put together for any ideological reason, but was simply an examination of the canonical status of the old Mass, was kept under wraps and was shelved. Pope John Paul II kept it secret.

Now, the TRUTH is that the old Mass had never been abrogated. Its suppression was unlawful.

That truth is now out. Furthermore, the Pope has made clear under Summorum Pontificum that the situation is now resolved.

If the old Mass were to again be abrogated by the Pope, it would be an amazing occurrence. It would be a reversal of a law given by the Pope, it would be capricious, and it would be theologically and historically untenable.

The Church doesn’t operate this way. Even Popes are servants of the Truth, not the other way around.

 

[ProVobis]

The report, which was not put together for any ideological reason, but was simply an examination of the canonical status of the old Mass, was kept under wraps and was shelved. Pope John Paul II kept it secret.

olfatima.com/stickler1.htm

The report declared that in 1986, the Holy Father appointed a commission of nine Cardinals to examine the legal status of the traditional rite of Mass, commonly known as the "Tridentine Mass". The commission of Cardinals included Cardinals Ratzinger, Mayer, Oddi, Stickler, Casaroli, Gantin, Innocenti, Palazzini, and Tomko was instructed to examine two questions:

1) Did Pope Paul VI authorize the bishops to forbid the celebration of the traditional Mass?

2) Does the priest have the right to celebrate the traditional Mass in public and in private without restriction, even against the will of his bishop?

The Commission, the account stated, unanimously determined that Pope Paul VI never gave the bishops the authority to forbid priests from celebrating the traditional rite of Mass.

    Regarding the second question: The Commission stated that priests cannot be obligated to celebrate the new rite of Mass; the bishops cannot forbid or place restrictions on the celebration of the traditional rite of Mass whether in public or in private.

    The Commission also recommended that the Pope issue a Papal decree based on the Commission's findings and it was the Pope's intention to issue this decree in November of 1988, but the decree was never issued, due to pressure placed on the Pope from opposing Cardinals.

    Report Contested

    Not long after this, another reputable Catholic journal published a letter from Monsignor Perl from the Ecclesia Dei Commission in Rome. The letter was worded in such a way that it cast doubt on the legitimacy of the report regarding the Nine Cardinal commission. In response, the Winter 1989, issue of The Fatima Crusader published a competent rebuttle to Msgr. Perl's letter. Despite this, for some, a lingering uncertainty remained.

    Cardinal Stickler Clarifies
    the Controversy

    On May 20, 1995 at the Christi Fidelis conference in Fort Lee, New Jersey, Alfons Cardinal Stickler gave an address entitled "The Theological Attractiveness of the Tridentine Mass".[2] During the question and answer session after his speech, His Eminence was asked about the Nine Cardinal Commission of 1986 regarding the Tridentine Mass.

    It is worth noting that the questions and answers were written down. The Cardinal was free to choose the questions he wanted to answer and he chose to reply to this one.

    His Eminence began his remarks by recounting an incident where Eric de Saventhem (former head of Una Voce in Europe) asked explicitly if the Tridentine Mass had ever been forbidden. Cardinal Benelli never answered ... not yes, not no. Cardinal Stickler explained that Benelli "... couldn't say 'yes he (the Pope) forbade it'. He can't forbid a Mass that has been used not only for centuries, but has been the Mass of thousands and thousands of Saints and Faithful." The Cardinal continued, "the difficulty was that he (the Pope) could not forbid it, but at the same time, he wanted that the new Mass be said ... be accepted. And so, he could only say 'I want that the new Mass be said'."

    "I was one of the Cardinals"

    Cardinal Stickler then addressed the issue of the Commission. He related, "Pope John Paul II asked a commission of nine Cardinals in 1986 two questions:

    First, "Did Pope Paul VI or any other competent authority legally forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine Mass in the present day?"

    The Cardinal explained, "I can answer because I was one of the Cardinals."

    He continued, "the answers given by the nine Cardinals in 1986 was 'No, the Mass of Saint Pius V (Tridentine Mass) has never been suppressed'."

    The Cardinal also confirmed the incident regarding the Papal decree.

    He related that of this commission of nine Cardinals, eight Cardinals were in favor, and one was against, a general permission to be drawn up making it clear that everyone could choose the old Mass as well as the new.

The Cardinal explained that the Pope seemed willing to promulgate this sort of announcement, but a few National Episcopal conferences who found out about
the “danger” of this permission, came to the Pope and said “this should not be absolutely allowed because it would be the occasion or the cause of controversy in the people of God – in the faithful themselves … one against the other, and so on.” Cardinal Stickler explained that in the face of this argument, the Pope abstained from signing this decree.

    In answer to the second question, "Can any bishop forbid any priest in good standing from celebrating the Tridentine Mass?", Cardinal Stickler replied, "the nine Cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass."" (44)

Conclusion ? The Tridentine Mass is as valid and as licit a Mass as it has always been since Pope St Pius V promulgated the Missal back in 1570.

 

[cathguy]

olfatima.com/stickler1.htm

Had the year wrong… was writing from memory…

Thanks for the source.

Another good source is Dr. Tom Woods book on the TLM “Sacred Then Sacred Now.” It outlines what occurred wonderfully.

Dr. Woods possesses a PhD in history from Columbia, and is the author of “How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization.” He hosted a show based on the book on ETWN.

I recommend Sacred Then Sacred Now to everyone interested in learning about the TLM.

Thanks for posting this source as well.

Peace!

 

[ProVobis]

Had the year wrong… was writing from memory…

Thanks for the source.

You’re welcome.

He’s the Pope, I know, but suppressing the study of the nine Cardinals had to have angered Archbishop Lefebrve and had to have been one of the factors for the unfortunate events of 1988. At least it all seems to fit now.

And thumbs up on Dr. Woods’ books.

 

[FAB]

olfatima.com/stickler1.htm

I do appriciate the background an d the information. It is difficult to keep abreast of all the documents. So I will yield that the Pope would restrict the use of the EF on his own.

The suppression of the study I found interested in that

National Episcopal conferences who found out about
the “danger” of this permission, came to the Pope and said “this should not be absolutely allowed because it would be the occasion or the cause of controversy in the people of God – in the faithful themselves … one against the other, and so on.” Cardinal Stickler explained that in the face of this argument, the Pope abstained from signing this decree

I see, that at leaset with many on this site, that is exactly what is happening. It has cause great conroversy, even to the point of this bishop being verbally attacked in one of his churchs. Thus in the long run is not good for the stability of the Church. I love the OF of the mass, but I can understaqnd the love for the EF. As Catholic we need to recongize that both forms are valid, as is shown in the documnent and niether side should be in any way promoting an agenda to push on above the other. The church has enough detractors from the secular world, to stand as a becon of truth in the world, we must first stand united as one body in Christ.

Peace,
FAB

 

[cathguy]

I do appriciate the background an d the information. It is difficult to keep abreast of all the documents. So I will yield that the Pope would restrict the use of the EF on his own.

The suppression of the study I found interested in that

I see, that at leaset with many on this site, that is exactly what is happening. It has cause great conroversy, even to the point of this bishop being verbally attacked in one of his churchs. Thus in the long run is not good for the stability of the Church. I love the OF of the mass, but I can understaqnd the love for the EF. As Catholic we need to recongize that both forms are valid, as is shown in the documnent and niether side should be in any way promoting an agenda to push on above the other. The church has enough detractors from the secular world, to stand as a becon of truth in the world, we must first stand united as one body in Christ.

Peace,
FAB

Thomas Underhill and the Catholics in England were bad Catholics when they refused to follow the lead of their protestantizing Bishops and died to defend traditional Catholic liturgy and belief?

Are you a defending a Bishop who was disobeying the Holy Father, and was persecuting his flock?

Have you read the history of the English Reformation?

I suggest: Cranmer’s Godly Order by Michael Davies (a man praised by Pope Benedict)

I would also suggest “The STripping of the Altars” by Dr. Eamon Duffy of Oxford University.

 

[FAB]

Thomas Underhill and the Catholics in England were bad Catholics when they refused to follow the lead of their protestantizing Bishops and died to defend traditional Catholic liturgy and belief?

Are you a defending a Bishop who was disobeying the Holy Father, and was persecuting his flock?

Different time and circumstances. You need to throw into the mix the role of the king of England. A lot of secular politics and power involved.

I have posted before that we don;t know the full story of what had been happening before this incident. We only ave the observations from a couple of blogs who have not given a balanced account of the events leading up to this day. Without that information there is no way to know if the bishop was in any disobedience. So yes I am giving the bishop the benefit of the doubt and am defending him over an unruly mob.
Peace,
FAB

 

[cathguy]

Different time and circumstances. You need to throw into the mix the role of the king of England. A lot of secular politics and power involved.

I have posted before that we don;t know the full story of what had been happening before this incident. We only ave the observations from a couple of blogs who have not given a balanced account of the events leading up to this day. Without that information there is no way to know if the bishop was in any disobedience. So yes I am giving the bishop the benefit of the doubt and am defending him over an unruly mob.
Peace,
FAB

I really am not convinced that the time and circumstances are at all different.

I would seriously recommend Cranmer’s Godly Order. The parallels are amazing.

The Bishops and the King demanded the altars be turned around, that communion be received in the hand, that the Mass be offered in the vernacular, that prayers for the souls in purgatory cease being emphasized, that the Churches be largely stripped of statuary and Catholic “trappings.”

Good Catholics died saying “NO!”

Did you see how the Bishop dressed? Have you looked into the liturgical praxis he promotes in his Diocese? The parallels are absolutely palpable, and relevant.

I also would not agree that they acted like a Mob. That is uncharitable I think. They booed. They didn’t physically molest him or anything!

 

[FAB]

I really am not convinced that the time and circumstances are at all different.

I would seriously recommend Cranmer’s Godly Order. The parallels are amazing.

The Bishops and the King demanded the altars be turned around, that communion be received in the hand, that the Mass be offered in the vernacular, that prayers for the souls in purgatory cease being emphasized, that the Churches be largely stripped of statuary and Catholic “trappings.”

Good Catholics died saying “NO!”

Did you see how the Bishop dressed? Have you looked into the liturgical praxis he promotes in his Diocese? The parallels are absolutely palpable, and relevant.

I also would not agree that they acted like a Mob. That is uncharitable I think. They booed. They didn’t physically molest him or anything!

Seem to be just looking for trouble.
A visit to the Churches in Rome, one can see a progression of worship. Each change in the style of how mass was celebrated changed over the centurys. The Spirit lead the church to meet the needs of the times. Our changes meet the needs of a modern world. They are just as valid as previous form, perhaps even more since the bishops went back to the early church and early church fathers for guidance. Read a description of the liturgy from the 2nd or 3rd century and it reflects the liturgy of today.the OF

The bishop’s chasible was one use from another celebration in France and was approved by Rome, another post pointed this out.

Unchaitable or not, a bunch of unruly people, refusing to listen to thier ordinary, yes a mob.
Peace,
FAB

 

[cathguy]

Seem to be just looking for trouble.
A visit to the Churches in Rome, one can see a progression of worship. Each change in the style of how mass was celebrated changed over the centurys. The Spirit lead the church to meet the needs of the times. Our changes meet the needs of a modern world. They are just as valid as previous form, perhaps even more since the bishops went back to the early church and early church fathers for guidance. Read a description of the liturgy from the 2nd or 3rd century and it reflects the liturgy of today.the OF

The bishop’s chasible was one use from another celebration in France and was approved by Rome, another post pointed this out.

Unchaitable or not, a bunch of unruly people, refusing to listen to thier ordinary, yes a mob.
Peace,
FAB

This is absolutely incorrect and a distortion of the authentically Catholic view of obedience.

Have you heard of Dietrich Von Hildebrand?

He has some very good things to say on this topic, specifically in his “Trojan Horse in the City of God.”

You are here in danger of professing and extreme and unthinking view of obedience which is actually contrary to a truly Catholic understanding of this virtue.

The local ordinary is NOT infallible.

And, when the local ordinary professes heresy, or acts in a manner that is scandalous or against the faith, by virtue of their baptism the laity have a duty to speak out.

Peace!

 

[FAB]

This is absolutely incorrect and a distortion of the authentically Catholic view of obedience.

Have you heard of Dietrich Von Hildebrand?

He has some very good things to say on this topic, specifically in his “Trojan Horse in the City of God.”

You are here in danger of professing and extreme and unthinking view of obedience which is actually contrary to a truly Catholic understanding of this virtue.

The local ordinary is NOT infallible.

And, when the local ordinary professes heresy, or acts in a manner that is scandalous or against the faith, by virtue of their baptism the laity have a duty to speak out.

Peace!

I’m not talking about infalibity of the local ordinary or even obediance, I an talking about respect. Respect for the office, respect for the man, and respect for the house of God. There is a way to address a grievance with a bishop, shouting him down in the sanctuary and then posting a video on you tube is not the way.
Civil people can disagree, civil people also listen to the others point of view and civil people can find compromises to satify each side. Civil people do not celebrate with glee the attack on and embassament of one of thier leaders in the faith.

Peace,
FAB