Fr. Brian Harrison's recent letter

[RSiscoe]

Did everyone have a chance to read Fr. Brian Harrison’s recent letter? If not, I will provide the link at the end of this post.

For those of you who do not know, Fr. Harrison is a conservative (NOT Traditional) Catholic Priest, who strives very hard to reconcile certain “difficulties” of Vatican II with the Catholic faith. He is to be commended for his efforts to interpret Vatican II “in light of Tradition”. Certainly his writings do much good for the Church.

Recent events have made Fr. Harrison very hopeful that we just might be seeing a turn of events in the Church. I think we should take the advice Fr. Harrison gives at the end of his letter.

In another thread, the subject of Annibali Bugnini was discussed. I thought I would post a portion of Fr. Harrison’s letter here for all to read, before providing the link to the entire letter. Fr. Harrison also discusses Annibali Bugnini, who was the chief architect of the Novus Ordo mass, and his devoted disciple Msgr. Marini, the architect of John Paul II’s Papal masses. Let us read what Fr. Harrison has to say about them.

“Now, many of you reading this letter will be aware (in most cases ruefully) that Msgr. Marini was a devoted disciple of none other than the Great Architect of the universal liturgical reform, the late Archbishop Annibale Bugnini. This prelate was finally exiled in disgrace by Paul VI after documentary evidence, checked out and verified by detectives of the Italian carabinieri, persuaded the Pope Bugnini was a Freemason. During at least one papal visit to the U.S., Marini refused to allow any Latin in the celebration of Mass, even when the American hosts specifically asked for it, in view of the large number of different nationalities expected to be in attendance. **It was Marini who, in recent years, ‘multiculturalized’ papal Masses **by adding such decorative touches as altar girls, dancing girls, pagan purification rites replacing the Confiteor, nuns in secular dress on the sanctuary together with mitred bishops, processions of hip-swaying, hand-waving Congolese ladies, offertories adorned by smoking-brazier-swirling, flower-strewing Indian ladies, innovative dialogical versions of the Credo, and hordes of extraordinary lay ministers, at some distance from the outdoor sanctuary, holding up ciboria filled with altar-breads during the words of consecration in a kind of ‘virtual concelebration’. It was all very . . . extraordinary.”

That almost sounds like the rantings of a “rad-trad”, yet it was written by Fr. Harrison. The following is the link to the entire letter (be sure to scroll down when the link opens).

seattlecatholic.com/m050414.html

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

RSiscoe:

Did everyone have a chance to read Fr. Brian Harrison’s recent letter? If not, I will provide the link at the end of this post.

For those of you who do not know, Fr. Harrison is a conservative (NOT Traditional) Catholic Priest, who strives very hard to reconcile certain “difficulties” of Vatican II with the Catholic faith. He is to be commended for his efforts to interpret Vatican II “in light of Tradition”. Certainly his writings do much good for the Church.

The bolded portion of your post is where the alarm bells started ringing and I really stopped reading as I knew what was coming next. An attack on the Church and the Mass.

There are no “difficulties” just dissent and disobedience.

 

[tuopaolo]

Great letter. I don’t think I’ll pray that Ratzinger becomes pope but I can pray the prayer Fr Harrison included in the letter:

"We beseech Thee, O Lord, in humble supplication, to bestow in Thy great mercy upon the Holy Roman Church a Pontiff whose piety and zeal for our welfare will be pleasing to Thee, and who will merit constant veneration, to the glory of Thy name, by his sound governance of Thy people.

“We ask this through Thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with Thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever. Amen.”

“Holy Roman Church” btw refers to the Diocese of Rome, not to the universal Church as such. “Pontiff” means bishop. So we are asking specifically for God to give a good Bishop of Rome, of the Roman Church, which has primacy among all the Churches.

Fr Harrison might be pleased to know of Italian news reports that Ratzinger has attracted up to 50 supporters among the cardinal electors.

 

[tuopaolo]

ByzCath:

The bolded portion of your post is where the alarm bells started ringing and I really stopped reading as I knew what was coming next. An attack on the Church and the Mass.

There are no “difficulties” just dissent and disobedience.

No you should really read the whole letter. Fr Brian Harrison is a very respected priest and contributes to material published by Catholic Answers. You can find articles of his published in This Rock on this website.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Rcisco is trying to start a dog fight you guys:nope: http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage04/18.gif

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tuopaolo:

No you should really read the whole letter. Fr Brian Harrison is a very respected priest and contributes to material published by Catholic Answers. You can find articles of his published in This Rock on this website.

Then Catholic Answers needs to really look into who they publish.

This priest is guilty of gossip and makes unfounded accusations when he said “This prelate was finally exiled in disgrace by Paul VI after documentary evidence, checked out and verified by detectives of the Italian carabinieri, persuaded the Pope Bugnini was a Freemason.” as there is no proof that the Archbishop was a freemason, no proof that he was “exiled in disgrace” and no one knows what Pope Paul VI thought.

This is also calumny against Pope Paul VI as if this is true then he did not remove and expose the Archbishop as he should have and he also allowed the Mass to be promulgated.

Again, this is nothing but an attack on the Church and the Mass. He may not be a “rad-Trad” but he sure seems to have issues with the Church and the Mass.

Just more dissent and disobedience. But this is par for the course from these people.

 

[tuopaolo]

ByzCath:

Just more dissent and disobedience. But this is par for the course from these people.

It is not right to calumnize a very good and very respected priest like that, especially without not even having read the whole letter which he wrote. And before you lump the priest together with “these people” whatever that means, you should know that Fr Brian Harrison has written an article in This Rock defending the notion that Muslims worship the “one true God”:

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0301fea4.asp

Thank God that the Church’s courts do not operate in the way that you do, indicting and convicting people of “just more dissent and disobedience … par for the course from these people” without even reading in its entirety the letter an excerpt from which prompted your barrage of accusations.

This priest is guilty of gossip and makes unfounded accusations

It seems that the irony of your statement is lost on you since it is you who are making “unfounded accusations” here.

 

[RSiscoe]

ByzCath:

Then Catholic Answers needs to really look into who they publish.

This priest is guilty of gossip and makes unfounded accusations when he said “This prelate was finally exiled in disgrace by Paul VI after documentary evidence, checked out and verified by detectives of the Italian carabinieri, persuaded the Pope Bugnini was a Freemason.” as there is no proof that the Archbishop was a freemason, no proof that he was “exiled in disgrace” and no one knows what Pope Paul VI thought.

This is also calumny against Pope Paul VI as if this is true then he did not remove and expose the Archbishop as he should have and he also allowed the Mass to be promulgated.

Again, this is nothing but an attack on the Church and the Mass. He may not be a “rad-Trad” but he sure seems to have issues with the Church and the Mass.

Did it ever occur to you that the arguments against the New Mass could be valid? And that what has been prophecied by so many may have come to pass?

*Martin Luther: I believe and confess that the popish Mass is an invention and ordinance of man, a sacrifice of Antichrist… and that it is a stinking and infected sepulchre, which hideth and covereth the merit of the blood of Christ; **and therefore ought the *Mass to be abolished”. … “When we have overthrown the Mass” said Luther,” we shall have overthrown the whole Papacy with it. For it is upon the Mass, as upon a rock, that the Papacy rests - with its bishoprics, its colleges, its altars, its ministers, and its doctrines. All these cannot fail to fall once their sacrilegious and abominable Mass crumbles to the dust” (Martin Luther, Against Henry King of England, Werke, Vol 10, pg 220).

L’Osservatore Romano (the Vatican Newspaper): “Liturgical reform has taken a notable step forward on the path of ecumenism. It has come closer to the liturgical reforms of the Lutheran Church”. (October 13, 1967)

Pope Pius XII: “I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s message to Lucia of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a Divine Warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in its liturgy**, its theology and its soul**”

Pope Leo XIII: “They [the reformers] knew only too well the intimate bond which unites faith with worship, ‘the law of belief with the law of prayer’(lex orandi, lex credendi), and so, under the pretext of restoring it to its primitive form, they corrupted the order of the liturgy in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators (reformers)” (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae).

**
L’Osservatore Romano: “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything that could constitute the slightest stumbling block or displeasure for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants” (L’Osservatore Romano, March 16, 1965).
**
**
continue…
**

 

[RSiscoe]

*“I saw again the new and odd-looking Church which they were trying to build. There was nothing holy about it… nor did they receive the body of Our Lord, but only bread. Those who were in error, through no fault of their own, and who piously and ardently longed for the Body of Jesus were spiritually consoled, but not by their communion. Then my guide (Jesus) said: ‘THIS IS BABEL.’ [The *Mass in many languages]” (Ann-Catherine Emmerich, circa 1820).

Cardinal Manning (AD1861): “The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of antichrist, and of the prophecies of Daniel, without exception, as far as I know – and they are the Fathers of both the East and of the West, the Greek and Latin Church – all of them unanimously say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of antichrist, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar will cease. In the work on the end of the world, ascribed to St. Hippolytus, after a long description of the afflictions of the last days, we read as follows:

"‘The Church shall lament with a great lamentation, for there shall be offered no more oblation nor worship acceptable to God. The sacred buildings of the churches shall be as hovels [stripped]; and the precious Body and Blood of Christ shall not be manifest in those days; the True Liturgy shall become extinct… Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early centuries.’”

*“The devil has always attempted, by means of heretics, to deprive the world of the *Mass, making them precursors of the antichrist, who before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel, ‘And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice (Dan 8:12)’.” (St. Alphonsus, The Dignities and Duties of The Priest, London: Benzinger Bros., p. 212)

**“ and strength was given him against the continual sacrifice, because of sins: and the truth shall be cast on the ground… they shall defile the sanctuary… and shall take away the continual sacrifice, and shall place there the abomination of desolation.” (Daniel 8:12, 11: 33). **

Words of our Lord to Marie-Julie Jahenny, 19th century mystic and stigmatist:

"I give you a warning. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are now working hard to remake according to their ideas, and under the influence of the enemy of souls, a Mass that contains words which are odious in My Sight. When the fatal hour arrives where the faith of my priest is put to the test, it will be these texts that will be celebrated, in this second period.
“The first period is the one of My Priesthood, existing since Me. The second is the one of the persecution, when the enemies of the Faith and of Holy Religion will impose their formulas in the book of the second celebration. Many of My holy Priests will refuse this book, sealed with the words of the abyss. Unfortunately, amongst them are those who will accept it.”

“They will not stop on this hateful and sacrilegious road. They will go further to compromise all at once, and in one blow, the Holy Church, the clergy, and the Faith of my children.”

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

Cardinal Ottaviani, to Pope Paul VI:

“In October 1967, the Synod of Bishops which met in Rome was asked to pass judgment on an experimental celebration of what was then called a “standard” or “normative” Mass. This Mass, composed by the Committee for Implementing the Constitutions on the Sacred Liturgy (Consilium), aroused very serious misgivings among the bishops present… The international press spoke of the Synod’s “rejection” of the proposed Mass, while the progressive wing of the religious press passed over the event in silence. A well-known periodical, aimed at bishops and expressing their teaching, summed up the new rite in these terms: "They wanted to make a clean slate of the whole theology of the Mass. It ended up in substance quite close to the Protestant theology which destroyed the sacrifice of the Mass."

“Unfortunately, we now find that the same “standard Mass**,” identical in substance**, has reappeared as the New Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) recently promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969). …
“… New Order of Mass was already rejected in substance at the Synod, since it was never submitted to the collegial judgment of the national bishop’s conferences, and since the faithful (least of all in mission lands) never asked for any reform of the Mass whatsoever**, it is impossible to understand the reasons for the new legislation - legislation which overthrows a tradition unchanged in the Church since the 4th and 5th centuries**. Since there are no reasons, therefore, for undertaking this reform, it appears devoid of any rational grounds to justify it and make it acceptable to the Catholic people.

“…A point-by-point examination of the Novus Ordo reveals changes so great that they confirm the judgment already made on the “standard Mass” - **for on many points it has much to gladden the heart of even the most modernist Protestant.” … **

“To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries stood as a sign and pledge of unity in worship, and to replace it with another liturgy which, due to the countless liberties it implicitly authorizes, cannot but be a sign of division – a liturgy which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith – is, we feel bound in conscience to proclaim, an incalculable error” (The Ottaviani Intervention).”

Pope Pius XII: “I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s message to Lucia of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a Divine Warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in its liturgy, its theology and its soul”**

---

---

---

---

****Martin Luther: "I believe and confess that the popish ****Mass is an invention and ordinance of man, a sacrifice of Antichrist… and that it is a stinking and infected sepulchre, which hideth and covereth the merit of the blood of Christ; **and therefore ought the **Mass to be abolished”. … “When we have overthrown the Mass” said Luther,” we shall have overthrown the whole Papacy with it. For it is upon the Mass, as upon a rock, that the Papacy rests - with its bishoprics, its colleges, its altars, its ministers, and its doctrines. All these cannot fail to fall once their sacrilegious and abominable Mass crumbles to the dust” (Martin Luther, Against Henry King of England, Werke, Vol 10, pg 220).

Vatican Newspaper: “Liturgical reform has taken a notable step forward on the path of ecumenism. It has come closer to the liturgical reforms of the Lutheran Church”. (L’ Osservatore Romano October 13, 1967)

---

 

[Sean_O_L]

What IS true is that Fr. Harrison is respected by members of "The REMNANT’ stable - and RSisco!

TIME FOR FR. BRIAN HARRISON TO “RESIST” THE SO-CALLED “REMNANT” WRITERS AND EDITORS "TO THE FACE!"
Fr. Brian Harrison’s Integrist Friends and Specious Reasoning
by Steven Hand

Several years back Fr. Brian Harrison traveled to Arizona to meet with a group of Integrists (i.e., extreme traditionalists who confuse the accidents and substance of the Faith) to decide whether he might publicly answer a 5 part Wanderer series I did entitled Traditionalists, Tradition and Private Judgement . That series was a response to a book this group published attacking the Holy Father, charging him, among other things, with having made a rupture with tradition.

That, it goes without saying, is a very serious charge since it means the Pope is, in effect, in schism, teaching schismatic errors. But Fr. Harrison was clearly not sympathetic to our defense of the Holy Father and the Council.

Now, why would Fr. Harrison theologically defend this gang of five (Michael Matt, John Vennari, Atila Sinke Guimaraes, Christopher Ferrara and Marian Horvat)? Why would he still be writing for such a publication at all? Well, behind the scenes it is well known to some of us that Harrison is in no small part sympathetic to this group, especially against the clear orthodoxy of The Wanderer, even if he must be diplomatic vis a vis some of his other colleagues in order to maintain his reputation; thus he will always state that he does not agree with “everything” the five have written. But he agrees with enough of it.

In the 1980’s Fr. Harrison did some nice theological work. He defended the Church’s teachings on religious liberty, unlike most of his “Remant” friends, and we have reproduced his defense at TCR. But over time his sympathies seem to have evolved in certain respects and now the good man does not blush, after The Wanderer has, yet again, critiqued another of their wildly irresponsible books, to appear in the pages of the so-called Remnant (July 15, 2003) in defense of the group that wrote:

“In our view a possible future declaration of a sede vacante (‘the period of time when the Apostolic See is empty, as a consequence of the heresy of the Pope,’ John Vennari CFN, 7/2000 ) would take place automatically when the Church would become aware of the gravity of the present day errors and who is responsible for them.” — We Resist The Pope To His Face, V.3 reprinted in Catholic Family News 7 / 2000) emphasis ours) John Vennari, by the way, was a signer of the manifesto.

That is a paragraph which should be parsed very carefully, as we have done elsewhere. In sum, the five on whose behalf Fr. Harrison takes time out to defend (again) in their own tabloid this time, is a group which thinks that our Pope, John Paul II, will be declared a heretic and deposed one day. We would have expected Fr. Harrison to pray for such people and seek to correct them, but not seek to absolve them of the grave implications which attend such rash views and errors. Instead he aids and abets them in their mischief.

In view of such serious charges (“heresy of the Pope”) Fr. Harrison’s friends, in the same publication, advocated the call to publicly “suspend obedience” to the Popes of Vatican II and the living, teaching, Magisterium.

As one canon law study concluded, the canonical consequence is grave, even if it must remain only material until the Church makes it official:

"…canon 752 defines schism as “the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” What one must note here is that the canon does not distinguish between degrees of withdrawal of submission to the Roman Pontiff. In other words, one need not completely withdraw one’s obedience to the Roman Pontiff in order to enter into a state of schism. For partial withdrawal of obedience in certain matters, even if one’s intention in so doing is only temporary, remains an act through which one withdraws one’s submission to the Roman Pontiff… "

 

[Sean_O_L]

James Likoudis, president emeritus of Catholics United for the Faith (CUF) said in a review of their latest book, The Great Facade:

“Those who distrust the Magisterium and refuse to be guided by its interpretation of what constitutes “Tradition” and what liturgical and ecclesiastical practices are in conformity with “Tradition”, are invariably led to acts of disobedience, and later, open schism.”

Note: “are invariably led …” says Mr. Likoudis. Schism, then, generally begins at first as something material before it becomes formal schism by fiat of the Church. This usually happens only to theologians or persons of large influence who endanger very many souls and only after many official consultations and much dialog in Rome. The group we are talking about here, being a very small bunch who hold these views, is likely to be left alone since their rash views tend to refute themselves. At any rate, even among heavier and more influential weights, the schismatic generally only inches toward the abyss of schism. The Church is longsuffering with all such —especially with theologically untrained laypersons of comparatively little influence as we are dealing with here, in the hopes that they might repent of such views in time.

One can see, however, that such views (and this is to name only a couple of their many theological errors and non sequiturs) are hardly a matter of simple dissent which pertains to the private, inner sphere. Theirs is a public agitation against the Pope (accusations that the Pope espouses heresies ) and against Catholic dogmatic certainties, together with a public call to withold obedience from and submission to the Roman Pontiff and the living magisterium of the Catholic Church. So it is clear that we are dealing with material schism in this case by definition, whatever Fr. Harrison might think.

One may assert one’s communion with Rome until one is blue in the face, but if you call the Pope a heretic and call for everyone to suspend obedience to him, and urge everyone over into your own chapel of private judgement…well, that way lies schism.

Walter Matt, editor of The Wanderer, writes: "A brochure promoting the statement declares:

" We Resist You to the Face analyzes the consequences of the adaptation of the Church to the modern world, and the consequences of ecumenism, as applied since the Council – including by the present Pontiff. The authors declare themselves in a state of resistance ‘relative to the teachings of Vatican Council II, Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, and to your teachings [of John Paul II] that are objectively opposed to the prior ordinary and extraordinary Papal Magisterium’."

“One can conclude after a careful reading of *We Resist You . . ./] that its authors and supporters are on a schismatic trajectory that can only have tragic consequences”. *
Theologian Colin Donovan of EWTN writes of these views:

“Catholics who follow [the]
lead of material disobedience to the Pope could find themselves in formal schism from the Church and excommunicated. This is because in the human will it is not very far from whining and complaining about what you don’t like about the Church and this pontificate to formally (that is, with full moral culpability) breaking communion with Peter, especially when you have taken the first step of material resistance to papal authority.” (emphasis mine)

“To be blunt,” the News Editor of The Wanderer has written, {Thomas} “Woods’ “analysis” is, from top to bottom, a heap of dung, starting with the epithet “neo-Catholic.” Their “neo-Catholic” is just a “Catholic” who believes that God is still in charge of His Church, and any “Catholic” who doesn’t accept that is a non-Catholic.”

 

[Sean_O_L]

This is very serious. The Pope is “neo-Catholic” to this group of “true” Catholics in their invisible church. The Essenes would be proud. Father Harrison told me personally several years ago that he was considering responding to my Wanderer series, though I merely elucidated indubitable Catholic principles and teachings in response to such serious errors. It was clear from our correspondence that Fr. Harrison was very angry with The Wanderer and with me. Very sarcastic. And yet he all but glossed over the most grave errors of the fanatical group he was defending, first in private, now in public. “I don’t agree with everything they say…” just doesn’t cut it. One could say the same for the rabid anti-Catholic Matthew Fox, or any other anti-Catholic. But why would any Catholic defend their views in their own forum? For what kind of applause?

The people Fr. Harrison defends reject the documents of Vatican II as interpreted by the living magisterium, blame the Pope for the failure of dissidents to obey what the Pope teaches, they question the dogmatic formulations of the Council in the areas of ecumenism and religious liberty and they “suspended obedience” to the Popes and teachings of Vatican II in favor of a “tradition” interpreted according to the criterion of their private judgement, as schismatics have done from the earliest days of the Church. All schismatics think the Pope is a schismatic, has broken with their tradition. All the ancient schisms pit church father against church father and liturgy against liturgy. This is nothing new. This is very old stuff.

Fr. Harrison should hear the words and urge his friends to heed the warnings of Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, of Lincoln, Nebraska, whose teachings we prefer to Fr. Harrison’s opinions.

"It has been an axiom for many years in historical theology that what oftentimes begins or is declared to be a “return to tradition,” in other words, a reaction, ends as being an innovation, that is, a schism or a heresy…
Ironically, these groups are most often unknowing and indeliberate allies of the bitterest enemies of Christ and His Church, in effect, denying the abiding Presence of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church and the promises that Christ bestowed on His Mystical Body from its inception…
The Venerable Servant of God, Abbot Joseph Columba Marmion, who is scheduled to be beatified on September 3, 2000, once reminded his readers that “God resists the proud,” and he added: “Is it not terrible to be alienated from God? But how much more terrible it must be to be ‘resisted’ by God Himself.” —Preface to Traditionalists, Tradition and Private Judgement

Instead of urging holiness and obedience to the teachings of the Holy Father (against the perfidy of the “progressive” dissidents) as a remedy to abuses, the group Fr. Harrison defends prefers to be very simplistic. (Surely one of the high points of tragi-comedy in our time must have been when Christopher Ferrara went to Rome hoping to instruct Cardinal Ratzinger in the errors of the CDF teaching, Dominus Iesus. Unfortunately the Cardinal was not able to entertain Mr. Ferrara). They simply blame all dissidence on Vatican II and the Popes of Vatican II. They blame the Pope (whom, again, they expect to be deposed one day) for those who refuse to obey the Pope! The rebellious, nihilistic times we happen to have been living through has nothing to do with the attempted hijacking of the Council by dissidents, they believe. No, being similar in spirit to the liberal rebels themselves, they blame it all on the Pope, the Mass, the Council. They assume no personal responsibility.

As James Likoudis has said, “The message of The Great Façade is really quite simple. Vatican II was evil and the popes attempting to implement its teachings are to be blamed for the present corruption in the Church. It will only confirm those already “theologically confused” in their alienation from the Catholic Church.”

We think the time has finally come for Fr. Harrison, Michael Davies and other once prominent traditional Catholics to resist the so-called “Remnant” writers to the face! and return to sensible, dogmatically sound, traditional Catholicism. They should publicly and powerfully defend the Holy Father against the calumnies of the “Remnant” publications as well as the falsehoods of dissident liberalism, together. To defend persons who trash John Paul II so ignorantly and so irresponsibly is a scandal.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Surely it is time to come to the crux of the matter by asking:

Who alone has the authority to decide what is rupture and what is legitimate development of Catholic doctrine if not a Council of the Roman Catholic Church, approved by a majority of the bishops of the world, and ratified by all succeeding Popes and the living magisterium?

Fr. Harrsion should join us in publicly condemning all private judgement, which, we contend with the Council of Trent and all of the Church’s Councils through history, is an abyss of errors into which all schismatics, material or formal, fall. It is a proud and dark heart which resorts to its own private judgement against the Church of Jesus Christ. To associate in any way with such a Pope-slandering tabloid is a scandal and very curious.

Is Fr. Harrison an orthodox catholic? We have no reason to believe otherwise. But he is irresponsibly associating with one of the most kooky and manipulative cliques in the Church. That is inexcusable. (1)

(1) Updated End Note: Regarding Fr. Harrison's expressed quasi-anti-sedevacantism, or, if you prefer, his friend's quasi-sedevacantism. I decided after reading again one of Fr Harrison's debates with a prominent sedevacantist in the pages of  -------
of all places!--- *The "Remnant"* (!) that I should drop the too involved sedevecantist footnote as it only detracts from the following main points: 

Regarding Fr. Harrison's curious preoccupation of late with the question of sedevacantism, Harrison adopts the SSPX-*Remnant* position *against* St. Robert Bellarmine and a majority of theologians who (and this is the historical context of such conjectures) all *speculated* about what it would mean if a Lutheran, around the time of the Reformation, sneaked into the papacy. 

The SSPX, *The Remnant* and Fr. Harrison teach, unlike Bellarmine, that a heretical Pope would still be Pope until the Pope was deposed by a council or by designated bishops (which the *We resist You .....* crowd, in their manifesto, said they expect to happen, and also that he may be disobeyed, resisted in those doctrinal (!) areas even now, by virtue of *their* fiat, in those places where he and the Council are judged by them to be "heretical".) 

Bellarmine and a majority of theologians said that if a Pope were a heretic he would, ipso facto, cease immediately to be pope. 

Fr. Harrison seems oddly involved and conflicted in all these matters.
 
To go beyond these points into the sedevacantist maze --- *which speculations the Church never approved or decided*, as it did not also with the debates over the precise nature of grace and predestination, to name but one analogy----would only make for more confusion, since Fr. Harrison apparently does not see how very odd it is for him to argue against sedevacantists like Fr. Cekeda in the pages of the *"Remnant,"* of all places, when both Cekeda (a former SSPX priest) and The *"Remnant"* substantially and preposterously agree and consider the Pope *guilty of heresies and thus without authority to bind Catholics to the teachings of the living magisterium! *

Both sedevacantists and the SSPX (and their parrots, Michael Matt, Christopher Ferrara, Thomas Woods, John Vennari, Atila Guimaraes, Marian Horvat, et al) alledge that the Pope and living magisterium propagates heresies and so they *suspend obedience* to him, publicly. The differences, therefore, between the latter and the consistent Sedevacantists are merely semantical. 

updates 8.23.03

 

[Sean_O_L]

RSiscoe wrote “rhubarb”!

Every single pope in history possessed/possesses the fullness of the Power of the Keys; what part of “whatsoever” do you not understand?

Any currently reigning pope possesses the power to change the form of a Sacrament - so long as the essence remains.

Any currently reigning pope possesses a power which trumps the opinion of any layman AND any theologian (even 1000 theologians!)

Under the Power of the Keys, Pope Paul VI DID lawfully promulgate the 1969 Missale Romanum.

Using the same Power of the Keys, Pope Paul VI DID authorize the vernacular translations.

Was prudence exercized by Pope Paul VI? Well, THAT is debatable, to say the least. Prudence is NOT one of the attributes granted to a pope - only infallibility in matters of faith and morals - and, the Sacraments are matters of faith and morals.

Anyone who has children will probably attest to the fact that their children have “minds of their own” and often act contrary to the “best practices” expected by their parents. So too with clerics; more so with badly formed clerics! Abuses have abounded.

Man, being sons of Adam, have always abused throughout the history of the Church on this Earth.

There is no good reason for schism.

Let us pray for liturgical best practice in the Liturgy of The Mass - the normative Mass, the Mass of Paul VI in it’s forthcoming translation.

In the meantime, faithful Catholics who have a genuine preference (as opposed to a spirit of disobedience!) are welcome to celebrate Mass in Latin as permitted by the pope and the local ordinary - should he be so charitable.

In addition, it ought be noted that to be Catholic, one must maintain the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority and, sadly, many soi disant “trads” have severed two (at a minimum) of these bonds. (Thanks to CatholicGuy ).

Roniel Aledo pointed out the following:

“All of those points were followed by the Second Vatican Council. Pope Paul gave a masterful and simple explanation of the DOGMA of the Church indefectibility that was never answered by Lefebvre or anyone in your group:

“’With the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, the Popes and the Ecumenical Councils have acted in this common way. And it is precisely this that the Second Vatican Council did.

“’Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that We enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the two-thousand-year-old Tradition of the Church considers as fundamental and immutable. We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate Successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32). The universal episcopate is guarantor with Us of this.’ (UNanswered Letter of Pope Paul VI to Lefebvre, 1976)”

Now, the Indefectability of the Church is just ONE of the Dogmas of the Catholic Church which MUST be believed by anyone wishing to be known as a Catholic. Here are some more:

Christ founded the Church in order to continue His work of redemption for all time.

Christ gave His Church an hierarchal constitution.

The powers bestowed on the Apostles have descended to the bishops.

Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to be the first of all the Apostles and to be the **visible head ** of the whole Church, by appointing him immediately and personally to the primacy of jurisdiction.

According to Christ’s ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Church and for all time.

The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the bishops of Rome.

The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, **not merely ** in matters of **faith and morals but also in ** Church **discipline ** and in the **government ** of the Church.

The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.

By virtue of **Divine Right the bishops possess ** an ordinary power of government over their dioceses.

In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals the Church is infallible.

The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth, propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful.

Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation.

The next two statements are “Sent. certa.” (denoting that the teaching is infallibly rendered but not defined.)

 

[Sean_O_L]

The members of the Church are those who have validly received the Sacrament of Baptism and **who are not separated ** from the unity of the confession of the Faith, and from the unity of the lawful communion of the Church.

The Church is indefectible, that is, she remains and will remain the Institution of Salvation, founded by Christ, until the end of the world.

Denial of any one of the above is heresy!

Regarding demeaning matters leveled against the normative Mass which fall under the anathemas of Canons I, VI and VII On the Sacrifice of the Mass of The Council of Trent - [and which covers all Rites from the Last Supper to 2005!!!

Canon I: If anyone saith that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God… let him be anathema.

Canon III: If anyone saith that the sacrifice of the Mass is … not a propitiatory sacrifice:…let him be anathema.

Canon VI: If anyone saith that the canon of the Mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

Canon VII: If anyone saith that the ceremonies and outward signs which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of Masses are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.
I think that, in resorting to attempt to demean the normative liturgy of the Roman Rite – the so-called Novus Ordo by quoting Martin Luther, of all persons, together with the other material that you have posted, there is enough prima facie evidence to suspect you of - well, NOT being a Catholic in full Communion with Rome – at the very least!

I hope that the Grace and Mercy of God touches your heart quickly.

 

[RSiscoe]

Sean O L:

Any currently reigning pope possesses the power to change the form of a Sacrament - so long as the essence remains.

Not sure what you mean by “as long as the essence remains”, but you are certainly wrong when you say that “a reigning pope possesses the power to change the form of a sacrament”.

*“The Church has no right whatsoever to touch the institution and form of the Sacraments”. (Pope St. Pius X) *
**
*There are three thing necessary for a sacrament to be valid: form, matter, and intent (and sometimes a validly ordained priest). If any of these are lacking the sacraments are not valid. *The Pope does not possess the power to change the form of the sacraments which were given to the Church by God. If a Pope attempted that, he would be oversteping his authority, and, rather than guarding the integrity of the sacraments, which it is his duty to do, he would be destroying the sacraments.
**

Pope Eugene IV, "All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected." (Council of Florence, Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, “Exultate Deo”).

The job of the Pope is to rule the Church and guard and protect the faith that has been handed down. He is not allowed to deviate from the faith or teach anything contrary to what has been defined; neither is the Pope allowed to tamper with the form of the sacraments, which have been handed down from the apostles and defined de fide.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Jesus celebrated the first Mass in Latin??? Wow! I never knew.

 

[RSiscoe]

Dr. Bombay:

Jesus celebrated the first Mass in Latin??? Wow! I never knew.

The language is not the “form” of the sacrament. The words used are the form of the sacrament.

For example, when consecrating the host the form is “this is my body”.

The language can be changed and it does not affect the validity of the sacraments.

Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1:
“The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament.”

 

[Dr.Bombay]

RSiscoe:

The language is not the “form” of the sacrament. The words used are the form of the sacrament.

For example, when consecrating the host the form is “this is my body”.

The language can be changed and it does not affect the validity of the sacraments.

Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1:
“The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament.”

And, those words are the exact words of consecration in Latin of the Mass of Paul VI, the only difference being that “Mysterium Fidei” is said by the priest and responded to by the people. So, your point is…