N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Swedish TV aired the interview before the excommunications were lifted. How would Swedish TV have known about the upcoming event if someone on the inside had not tipped them off?
- Status
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
tnx for the post, Cassini. There are many issues here that are deeper than is generally appreciated. I hope the moderators will be indulgent. It does lead back to the topic of the thread!
Yes, I do think that Einstein said that this would be a consequence of General Relativity - that if you had a bucket of water, & the universe revolved around it, the water in the bucket would slosh up the sides. I never followed this up much because, saving your presence, I think it’s a bit of a non-issue. I would maintain it is perhaps fundamentally meaningless to ask which way round it is. I would not see it as an attack on the word of God, or on the Faith. See below.
You might have added that NASA bases its mathematics for space probes on the model of a Stationary Earth! They do this because the equations are much simpler, and come out the same anyway.
It is like asking whether two nails are ‘in line’ or not. The answer is: it depends on the point of view.
We import our habits of thought from the world around us into empty space, and real trouble begins.
It is easy to say whether a wheeled cart is moving or stationary, on the surface of the earth. The ground is our reference point. But in space: where is the reference? The real answer must be: God is the Reference. It is He who is the Unmoved Mover.
In the psalms it is written, ‘He made the Earth: not to be moved’. Nonetheless, I personally see nothing impious in asserting that the Earth rotates, revolves around the sun, etc. It does depend on ‘where you stand’. The tsunami of St Stephen’s Day 2005 did move the Earth, and the rotation has been speeded up by a thousandth of a second - which can be measured directly. I don’t think Holy Scripture concerns itself with these physical details. The psalm is talking about other things.
- To be continued…*
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Continued …
In the previous post, I was thinking of the stars as a component of a ‘static’ universe. One single star could not revolve around the Earth in an orbit of millions of miles, because of the strange effects that do not appear until very high velocity.
But could the Universe as a whole revolve around it?
I think that, as cassini points out, actual General Relativity does not rule this out as a possibility: or as one of several equally valid ways to describe the phenomenon.
Again, I think it depends on the point of view.
These things are counter-intuitive for exactly the same reason that we cannot comprehend the Blessed Trinity - we have had no direct experience of these things. Hence our intuition, our common sense, cannot comprehend it. We cannot imagine it. Yet our intellect can conceive of it.
Now, certain of the witnesses in 1917 reported the very definite impression that the sun was a living thing, and dancing for pure joy.
We do not know as a fact that the stars are not conscious spirits. God said to Job in that sublime passage, “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the World; what time all the morning stars sang together: and the angels of God shouted for joy?”
Like all bullies, Galileo was very taken aback, and cowed, when the Vatican moved in on him. His reaction was not to murmur “Eppur si muove!” but to resort to the most nauseating abject fawning. It’s all there in the record.
When we speak of the Velocity of Light as the maximum velocity, this is still misunderstood. It’s not like the speed limit on a motorway. Light is actually travelling at infinite velocity. If you could ride on a ray of light, you would cross the entire universe in exactly zero time. You would be able to measure the thickness of the Universe, and it would be exactly zero. That is why light never wears out or gets old - it has literally experienced no time since the beginning of the Universe. It is only the outside observer who sees light travelling at 186,000 miles per second - no matter what his own velocity might be.
In the previous post, I was thinking of the stars as a component of a ‘static’ universe. One single star could not revolve around the Earth in an orbit of millions of miles, because of the strange effects that do not appear until very high velocity.
But could the Universe as a whole revolve around it?
I think that, as cassini points out, actual General Relativity does not rule this out as a possibility: or as one of several equally valid ways to describe the phenomenon.
Again, I think it depends on the point of view.
These things are counter-intuitive for exactly the same reason that we cannot comprehend the Blessed Trinity - we have had no direct experience of these things. Hence our intuition, our common sense, cannot comprehend it. We cannot imagine it. Yet our intellect can conceive of it.
As for the Sun! Have you noticed how these sensible, honest, unsuperstitious, ruthlessly realistic atheists (and others!) always neglect the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima? Yet this is a datum of our world just like all the others.
Now, certain of the witnesses in 1917 reported the very definite impression that the sun was a living thing, and dancing for pure joy.
We do not know as a fact that the stars are not conscious spirits. God said to Job in that sublime passage, “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the World; what time all the morning stars sang together: and the angels of God shouted for joy?”
This is strictly faithful to the historical record.
Like all bullies, Galileo was very taken aback, and cowed, when the Vatican moved in on him. His reaction was not to murmur “Eppur si muove!” but to resort to the most nauseating abject fawning. It’s all there in the record.
Expletive deleted! I didn’t know that! Definitely the work of those who are ‘at enmity with the Woman’ (Genesis 3:15).
I agree. If you don’t know ‘where’ God is, then you can’t use Him, the one and only Absolute Reference Frame, to determine the relative motions of the Universe as a whole.
Point of order! The Church was not humiliated for getting a decree wrong, but on a deliberately-planted red herring. The storm of abuse and hatred generated, not just against Bp Williamson but against the whole Church and the Pope, however, does prove the relevance of Genesis 3:15 …
Yes. GKChesterton wrote about ‘The halo of hatred around the Church of Rome”.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
I don’t think he was misrepresented: he does believe those things. But it was not his intention to deliberately flout the laws of the country he was in. Your post rather implied it was. That is what I meant.
Yes; I can see, I think, why the Germans would feel that an Act of Reparation was in order when they introduced this law. Also why they would be very concerned lest there be a resurgence of neo-Nazism in a younger generation. As it is not a matter of the Faith, Bp W. would not be able to claim that the Law was not binding. If it came to a trial, his lawyer would plead that he had been caught off guard by a non-sequitur question, and could note that he had already apologised for inviting the furore that developed.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Is that a rhetorical question? The world was buzzing with the rumours. As for tip-offs from the Vatican, unfortunately they are well documented. Cdl Villot, Cdl Secretary of State to Pope Paul VI, regularly leaked confidential info. about the progress of Vatican II to the Press while the Council was in session, significantly helping to shape the intense Media Pressure on the Church at that time.
J
JReducation
Guest
Did anyone read what Cardinal Sean, OFM, Cap wrote? I think it is full of wisdom and answers this question.
JR
JR
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Let us hear the words of Mgr Lefebvre:
An Open Letter to Confused Catholics
By His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
sspxasia.com/Documents/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics
*
21. Neither Heretic Nor Schismatic
My statement of November 21, 1974, which triggered off the proceedings of which I have spoken, ended with these words: “In doing so… we are convinced of remaining loyal to the Catholic and Roman Church and to all the successors of Peter, and of being faithful dispensers of the Mysteries of Our Lord Jesus Christ.” When publishing the text, the Osservatore Romano omitted this paragraph. For ten years and more our opponents have been set on casting us out of the Church’s communion by presenting us as not accepting the Pope’s authority. It would be very convenient to turn us into a sect and declare us schismatics. How many times the word schism has been applied to us!
I have not ceased repeating that if anyone separates himself from the Pope, it will not be I. The question comes down to this: the power of the Pope within the Church is supreme, but not absolute and limitless, because it is subordinate to the Divine authority which is expressed in Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated by the Church’s magisterium. In fact, the limits of papal power are set by the ends for which it was given to Christ’s Vicar on earth, ends which Pius IX clearly defined in the Constitution Pastor aeternus of the First Vatican Council. So in saying this I am not expressing a personal theory.
Blind obedience is not Catholic; nobody is exempt from responsibility for having obeyed man rather than God if he accepts orders from a higher authority, even the Pope, when these are contrary to the Will of God as it is known with certainty from Tradition. It is true that such an eventuality cannot be envisaged when Papal infallibility is engaged; but this happens only in a limited number of cases. It is an error to think that every word uttered by the Pope is infallible.
19. The Seminary of Ecône and Rome
…[in 1975] Mgr. Mamie [Bishop of Fribourg] wrote to me: “I hereby inform you that I withdraw the acts and concessions effected by my predecessor with regard to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Plus X, in particular the decree of foundation dated* November 1, 1970.* This decision takes effect immediately.”
If you have followed me closely,* you will be able to see that this suppression was made by the Bishop of Fribourg and not by the Holy See. By virtue of Canon 493, it is therefore completely void in law for lack of competence.* Added to that there is a lack of sufficient cause. The decision can only be based on my declaration of November 21, 1974,* judged by the Commission to be “unacceptable on all points,” because of the Commission’s own admission the results of the Apostolic Visitation were favorable.* Yet my declaration has never been the subject of a condemnation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the former Holy Office) which alone is competent to judge whether it is opposed to the Catholic Faith. It has only been deemed “unacceptable on all points” by three cardinals in the course of what remains officially a discussion.
The juridical existence of the Commission itself has never been proved.* By what pontifical act was it instituted? On what date? What form did it take? Who was notified of it? The fact that the Roman authorities refuse to produce any such act permits us to doubt its existence.* If there is doubt about its validity a law is not binding,* says the Code of Canon Law.* Even less so when there is doubt about the competence or even the existence of the authority.* The words “with the complete approval of His Holiness” are not legally sufficient; they cannot take the place of the decree which should have constituted the Commission of Cardinals and defined its powers.
There are procedural irregularities which render the suppression of the Fraternity a nullity.* Nor must we forget that the Church is not a totalitarian society of the Nazi or Marxist type, and that the law even when it is properly observed–which was not the case in this instance is not an absolute. It has to be related to faith, truth and life.* Canon Law is designed to make us live spiritually and thus to lead us to Eternal Life. If this law is used to prevent us from attaining it, or as it were to abort our spiritual life, we are obliged to disobey exactly in the same way that citizens are obliged to disobey the abortion laws of the State.
To return to the juridical aspect, I entered two successive appeals before the Apostolic Signatura, which is more or less the equivalent of a court of appeal in civil law.* The Cardinal Secretary of State, Mgr. Villot, forbade this supreme tribunal of the Church to entertain them, which amounts to an interference by the executive in the judiciary.
Ch23 Building Up Versus Pulling Down.
If my work is of God, He will guard it and use it for the good of the Church. Our Lord has promised us, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her.
This is why I persist, and if you wish to know the real reason for my persistence, it is this:* At the hour of my death, when Our Lord asks me, “What have you done with your episcopate, what have you done with your episcopal and priestly grace?” I do not want to hear from His lips the terrible words, “You have helped to destroy the Church along with the rest of them.”
An Open Letter to Confused Catholics
By His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
sspxasia.com/Documents/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics
*
21. Neither Heretic Nor Schismatic
My statement of November 21, 1974, which triggered off the proceedings of which I have spoken, ended with these words: “In doing so… we are convinced of remaining loyal to the Catholic and Roman Church and to all the successors of Peter, and of being faithful dispensers of the Mysteries of Our Lord Jesus Christ.” When publishing the text, the Osservatore Romano omitted this paragraph. For ten years and more our opponents have been set on casting us out of the Church’s communion by presenting us as not accepting the Pope’s authority. It would be very convenient to turn us into a sect and declare us schismatics. How many times the word schism has been applied to us!
I have not ceased repeating that if anyone separates himself from the Pope, it will not be I. The question comes down to this: the power of the Pope within the Church is supreme, but not absolute and limitless, because it is subordinate to the Divine authority which is expressed in Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the definitions already promulgated by the Church’s magisterium. In fact, the limits of papal power are set by the ends for which it was given to Christ’s Vicar on earth, ends which Pius IX clearly defined in the Constitution Pastor aeternus of the First Vatican Council. So in saying this I am not expressing a personal theory.
Blind obedience is not Catholic; nobody is exempt from responsibility for having obeyed man rather than God if he accepts orders from a higher authority, even the Pope, when these are contrary to the Will of God as it is known with certainty from Tradition. It is true that such an eventuality cannot be envisaged when Papal infallibility is engaged; but this happens only in a limited number of cases. It is an error to think that every word uttered by the Pope is infallible.
19. The Seminary of Ecône and Rome
…[in 1975] Mgr. Mamie [Bishop of Fribourg] wrote to me: “I hereby inform you that I withdraw the acts and concessions effected by my predecessor with regard to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Plus X, in particular the decree of foundation dated* November 1, 1970.* This decision takes effect immediately.”
If you have followed me closely,* you will be able to see that this suppression was made by the Bishop of Fribourg and not by the Holy See. By virtue of Canon 493, it is therefore completely void in law for lack of competence.* Added to that there is a lack of sufficient cause. The decision can only be based on my declaration of November 21, 1974,* judged by the Commission to be “unacceptable on all points,” because of the Commission’s own admission the results of the Apostolic Visitation were favorable.* Yet my declaration has never been the subject of a condemnation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the former Holy Office) which alone is competent to judge whether it is opposed to the Catholic Faith. It has only been deemed “unacceptable on all points” by three cardinals in the course of what remains officially a discussion.
The juridical existence of the Commission itself has never been proved.* By what pontifical act was it instituted? On what date? What form did it take? Who was notified of it? The fact that the Roman authorities refuse to produce any such act permits us to doubt its existence.* If there is doubt about its validity a law is not binding,* says the Code of Canon Law.* Even less so when there is doubt about the competence or even the existence of the authority.* The words “with the complete approval of His Holiness” are not legally sufficient; they cannot take the place of the decree which should have constituted the Commission of Cardinals and defined its powers.
There are procedural irregularities which render the suppression of the Fraternity a nullity.* Nor must we forget that the Church is not a totalitarian society of the Nazi or Marxist type, and that the law even when it is properly observed–which was not the case in this instance is not an absolute. It has to be related to faith, truth and life.* Canon Law is designed to make us live spiritually and thus to lead us to Eternal Life. If this law is used to prevent us from attaining it, or as it were to abort our spiritual life, we are obliged to disobey exactly in the same way that citizens are obliged to disobey the abortion laws of the State.
To return to the juridical aspect, I entered two successive appeals before the Apostolic Signatura, which is more or less the equivalent of a court of appeal in civil law.* The Cardinal Secretary of State, Mgr. Villot, forbade this supreme tribunal of the Church to entertain them, which amounts to an interference by the executive in the judiciary.
Ch23 Building Up Versus Pulling Down.
If my work is of God, He will guard it and use it for the good of the Church. Our Lord has promised us, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her.
This is why I persist, and if you wish to know the real reason for my persistence, it is this:* At the hour of my death, when Our Lord asks me, “What have you done with your episcopate, what have you done with your episcopal and priestly grace?” I do not want to hear from His lips the terrible words, “You have helped to destroy the Church along with the rest of them.”
P
pnewton
Guest
I missed the connection of this to the topic. Do you mind filling in the gaps a little for the slow folk.
J
JReducation
Guest
The excommunication of the four bishops has been lifted. Why are we still focusing on the letters of Archbishop Lefebvre (RIP)?
There seems to be a current here that wants to deny the Holy Father his right to govern bishops. He lifted the excommunication, which he did not have to do. He has invited the bishops to dialogue, which he does not have to do. He has demanded that they accept his authority and that of Vatican II, which he has the right to do.
Where is the problem?
I see more lay people arguing this than the four bishops. They seem to be ready for the dialogue and happy with the lifting of the excommunication. They are even grateful. Shouldn’t we be too?
JR
V
vs_trumpet
Guest
For better or worse, one can believe in the things the Catholic bishop of noteriety might believe, and still be in full communion with the Church.
“The pope is demanding a retraction from Williamson not as a pre-condition to full communion, but rather, as a pre-condition to higher function in the Church. Verifying that someone, however ‘orthodox’ he might be, is not also a nut-case before allowing him to function in higher office within the Church seems to me entirely within a pope’s authority.”
“The pope is demanding a retraction from Williamson not as a pre-condition to full communion, but rather, as a pre-condition to higher function in the Church. Verifying that someone, however ‘orthodox’ he might be, is not also a nut-case before allowing him to function in higher office within the Church seems to me entirely within a pope’s authority.”
J
JReducation
Guest
It is a tradition that is as old as the Church itself that any ecclesial superior has the right to demand obedience from his subordinates in any matter, except sin.
Look at religious life when superiors demand obedience on simple things such as when to drink water and when to speak.
Look at the popes of the past who demanded obedience of kings and clergy alike.
Look at relgious founders who demanded obedience even after the deaths. Many left testaments that bound their spiritual sons and daughters to their spirituality and their mode of doing things.
Look at bishops of the past who demanded obedience and submission of their clergy and the laity in their diocese in simple things such as kneeling and kissing their ring or they would deny you their blessing.
Look at spiritual directors of the past who demanded obedience from their spiritual sons and daughters.
Where is the surprise here?
I find it ironic that a bishop who is a Traditionalist cannot be held to the standards of traditional obedience.
JR
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
I missed the connection of this to the topic. Do you mind filling in the gaps a little for the slow folk.
jreducation has given us the comments of Cdl O’Malley, which I thought were balanced and charitable. Yet it continues the presupposition that Mgr Lefebvre et al were always in the wrong. I decided to post some comments from Mgr Lefebvre himself to show that, in fact, there is an excellent case for the SSPX having held out.
num: My bold.
For my part, I am highly relieved that the SSPX leadership are taking the action that they are: insisting on their fidelity to the Pope and willing to draw a line under the past. As Cdl O’Malley points out, this lifting of excommunications is only one step. Perhaps a calmer discussion of the real problems with the Vartican II documents can now be carried out. I remember when Bl. John XXIII called the Council. It was 1985 before I heard the slightest hint from any official Church Organ that there was anything at all wrong with either the Council or its aftermath. Any debate was blocked.
P
pnewton
Guest
Thanks. I am trying something new here. When I see something that I do not understand, I am asking for clarification instead of assuming the worst.
I am waiting to see if this is allowed here.
B
bobzills
Guest
At one time it was said that the faithful adherents to SSPX were excommunicated, but I did not hear anything about their excommunications having been lifted?
G
GodsGadfly
Guest
Technically, no, the laity were never excommunicated. It’s kind of a complicated issue:
Now, here’s one exception: Archdiocese of Lincoln, Nebraska: Archbishop Bruskewitz did formally excommunicate all Catholics in his diocese who participate in the SSPX.
Lastly, I would raise the question that lies at the root of most Traditionalists’ arguments: Vatican II was not a “doctrinal” Council, but a “pastoral” Council, a new entity in the Church. Vatican II defined some teachings that were never formally defined by a Council, but most of them were present in the Church before the Council (there are a couple noteworthy exceptions).
However, Vatican II–unlike every previous Council–issued no anathemas.
Therefore, is it possible to be in heresy for rejecting a teaching formulated by Vatican II? After all, the Council itself did not formally define dogma, and it did not issue any anathemas in regard to rejection of its teachings.
- The bishops were formally excommunicated for reason of illicit ordination. They were also suspended in their faculties as both priests and bishops. So, they are sacramentally valid bishops with apostolic succession, but any time they perform the sacraments, it is illicit.
- The priests of the Order are also not, technically, excommunicated, but they are suspended in their faculties as priests.
Now, here’s the thing: those who are suspended but continue to perform the Sacraments are technically liable to the punishment of excommunication.
We also know that anyone who persists in manifest grave sin (such as illicit Masses) and anyone who persists in heresy (deal with that below) is also excommunicated. But there has never been a formal decree of excommunication for any of this.
- The Vatican has stated that Laity who receive sacraments from the SSPX do not incur any penalty and can validly fulfill their Sunday obligations if a) it is mainly their intention to practice the traditional liturgy, b) they have no legitimate traditional Mass offered nearby, and c) their intention is not specifically to be schismatic or heretical by their attendance. Also note: it is permissble to receive sacraments at any schismatic church if there is no Catholic Church within a reasonable distance, or under special circumstances.
Now, here’s one exception: Archdiocese of Lincoln, Nebraska: Archbishop Bruskewitz did formally excommunicate all Catholics in his diocese who participate in the SSPX.
Lastly, I would raise the question that lies at the root of most Traditionalists’ arguments: Vatican II was not a “doctrinal” Council, but a “pastoral” Council, a new entity in the Church. Vatican II defined some teachings that were never formally defined by a Council, but most of them were present in the Church before the Council (there are a couple noteworthy exceptions).
However, Vatican II–unlike every previous Council–issued no anathemas.
Therefore, is it possible to be in heresy for rejecting a teaching formulated by Vatican II? After all, the Council itself did not formally define dogma, and it did not issue any anathemas in regard to rejection of its teachings.
B
bobzills
Guest
However according to an apostolic letter of Pope John Paul II, July 2, 1988:
“Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law…”
Do you say then, that if a layperson formally adhered to the SSPX, he would not be excommunicated?
A
avflf
Guest
Rather confusing, I’d say. From what I gather, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that Archbishop Lefebvre rebelled against the Pope because of the changes in the Church’s traditions at Vatican II. Now the question is, was he justified in doing so? It seems that by introducing liberal ideology into the Church it was Vatican II that was in error, in which case instead of accepting the sin in the doctrines of Vatican II Lefebvre took the only honorable course open to him to preserve the ancient tradition of the Catholic Church.
C
cassini
Guest
Here is a comment from another site. It describes the situation to perfection.
Mcsnagpile,
30/01/2009 05:58:42
Such irony, the Pope has recently been excommunicated for having a heretic bishop; who does not believe six million Jews were gassed by anti lice pellets and incinerated using millions of tons of coal.
How times change.
Mcsnagpile,
30/01/2009 05:58:42
Such irony, the Pope has recently been excommunicated for having a heretic bishop; who does not believe six million Jews were gassed by anti lice pellets and incinerated using millions of tons of coal.
How times change.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
To point to only one of the knots into which the Church has tied itself since Vatican II: The Church has always been very careful to define its terms. GKChesterton remarked that, when he came into contact with the Catholic Church, this was one of the things that impressed him most. It is, of course, presupposed by Thomism. Now I regret to say that, since the beginning of Vatican II, this is never done. Hence you literally don’t know what they are talking about. If we are not told what constitutes " formal adherence to the schism" how do we know we are excommunicated?
And the state of ‘schism’ is an objective reality. The pope must express reality: he does not create it. He cannot ‘own’ the definition of schism, and change it to suit his purposes. We are not in schism just because a pope decides to say we are. This is because the pope is the guardian of the Church, the custodian: not the absolute owner. If i own a pub I can throw out whomever i like: but if I am only the barman I have to follow the publican’s rules. I recommend the article on ‘schism’ on tradwiki website (warning: google often seems unable to find tradwiki, tho’ yahoo! has no such trouble).
B
bobzills
Guest
Grave offense agaisnt God and penalty of excommunication sound pretty clear to me?
- Status