Dear AlexV, et. al.
"…The excommunications of 1988 apply BY NAME only to Lefebvre, his co-consecrator, and the four bishops they consecrated.
The Church has never defined what “formal adherence to the schism” means,…"
There were no bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre and therefore, excluding the late Archbishop Lefebvre, the excommunication not exclusive, but inclusive of laity in support of SSPX are in fact excommunicated–it is very clear in Ecclesia Dei; additionally, the definition of formal adherence to schism is clearly delineated by the procedures that were followed, which clearly allowed the late Pope John Paul II, RIP, to point to the fact that excommunication had been incurred not only by Marcel Lefebvre, but also by all in support of SSPX.
Fellay, and those whom the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated remain priests to this day both schismatic, and excommunicated priests–they have no authority that I can discern within the Roman Rite.
SSPX is an internal problem within the Roman Rite, just as the schism committed by Martin Luther is an internal problem: these two schismatic churches exist as internal problems within the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, because they conflict against the unity of our Catholic faith; they corrupt the deposit of faith our Catholic Church is to protect.
Martin Luther corrupted this deposit of faith, because he challenged the exclusive interpretation of scripture with respect to the consecration of the Eucharist that other interpretations outside The Real Presence should be allowable.
Archbishop Lefebvre corrupted the deposit of faith, because he denied the supreme authority of The Vicar of Christ.
It is true some thanks should be given to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre that Lefebvre, whom Catholics knew prior to his schismatic act against the late Pope John Paul II. Nonetheless, we might place the burden of responsibility on him that the Latin Mass (LM) has gained an infamous identity, which served to impede the growth of the LM made available within The Catholic Church by Pope John Paul II.
There is no reason that anyone should doubt that the Church has the authority that we see today in Vatican II that allowed not only for Sacred Scripture, but also for The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), and the mass to be provided in the vernacular, internationally.
With respect to Masons and to Protestants included in updated translations of the aforementioned books, the Catholic Church does welcome all; just as Christ did die, and was crucified for all.
The Catholic Church is not an organization exclusive to the US, but inclusive of every continent and therefore, there has been tremendous growth within Catholicism throughout the world–Africa in particular, and throughout former Communist Bloc countries. This within the diocese where my parish exists, statistically, and physically is very clear. Many priests within my diocese are foreign born. Two of the three priests, which function between at least five parishes between two counties are foreign born: one from Nigeria, the other from Poland. In the county north of here, a priest there is from Rwanda.
The generation inferior to my own, once recognized as Generation X, is being recognized as the first truly multi-media, multi-cultural (MMMC) generation in the US. Vatican II is an adequate accomodation for this generation, and those generations that will be inferior to their own.
Should we want to argue that the LM is somehow more attractive to young adult males, which would be an element that would substantiate an arguement that the LM will increase the priesthood in the US, then we might consider ignoring the LM, and consider modelling our masses, and our churches after the definitive structure of our US military as more young adult Catholics reside there, than in any other occupation.
It would seem to me that many seminaries closing within the US are closing not for any reason concerning flaws, abuses within the mass, but instead are due to flaws concerning the market: apparently, a preistly vocation is not at such a price anyone has found substantial enough to maintain their existence, but instead has proven to be a competitive failure. It would seem the quality of cooked food in the military is much more attractive, and the uniforms, too.
Maybe I strayed too far from the topic; though, I think that there is enough in the body of what I wrote that will allow anyone to think more reasonably about whatever attitudes people might encounter among those whom we meet that enjoy the LM.
For those of you regularly attending the LM, what has been done to handle attitudes against what some call the Pauline Mass–frankly, I believe it should be called the Johanian Mass after the initiator of Vatican II, Pope John XXIII.
Most sincerely,
Kristopher
