So disheartened. Feel like leaving Church.

[bear06]

And you have yet to produce a document that means anything. Obviously you can plainly see that ED was wrong to provide the traditional mass by permission of a local ordinary… since the mass had never been abrogated and permission wasn’t needed in the first place.

I’m patient. Not that any pronouncements will change facts. But somehow I doubt the rejoicing you mentioned.

Steve

First of all, I suggest searching the forums for a wide variety of documents on the isse. Secondly, I suggest you address that part about you not being the Supreme Legislature. Thirdly, I suggest that in addition to acknowledging that you are not the Supreme Legistlator you also acknowledge that you haven’t been appointed by him.

Now a document from some people who are actually appointed by him. You probably wouldn’t be able to find this one in a search since I haven’t used it in quite awhile. Too bad. It’s a good one.

From the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts:

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=1224

On the excommunication for schism which the adherents to the movement of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre incur.

1 . From the Motu Proprio “Ecclesia dei” of 2nd July 1988 and from the Decree “Dominus Marcellus Lefebvre” of the Congregation for Bishops, of 1st July 1988, it appears above all that the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre was declared in immediate reaction to the episcopal ordinations conferred on 30th June 1988 without pontifical mandate (cf CIC, Can. 1382). All the same it also appears clear from the aforementioned documents that such a most grave act of disobedience formed the consummation of a progressive global situation of a schismatic character.

1. In effect no. 4. of the Motu Proprio explains the nature of the “doctrinal root of this schismatic act,” and no. 5. c) warns that a “formal adherence to the schism” (by which one must understand “the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre”) would bring with it the excommunication established by the universal law of the Church (CIC, can. 1364 para.1). Also the decree of the Congregation for Bishops makes explicit reference to the “schismatic nature” of the aforesaid episcopal ordinations and mentions the most grave penalty of excommunication which adherence “to the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre” would bring with it.
2. Unfortunately, the schismatic act which gave rise to the Motu Proprio and the Decree did no more than draw to a conclusion, in a particularly visible and unequivocal manner — with a most grave formal act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff — a process of distancing from hierarchical communion. As long as there are no changes which may lead to the re-establishment of this necessary communion, the whole Lefebvrian movement is to be held schismatic, in view of the existence of a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter.

continued…

 

[bear06]

…continued
4. One cannot furnish any judgement on the argumentation of Murray’s thesis (see below) because it is not known, and the two articles which refer to it appear confused. However, doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances. (cf CIC, can. 1323) As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of “serving” the church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity.

1. As the Motu Proprio declares in no. 5 c) the excommunication latae sententiae for schism regards those who “adhere formally” to the said schismatic movement. Even if the question of the exact import of the notion of “formal adherence to the schism” would be a matter for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this pontifical Council that such formal adherence would have to imply two complementary elements:

a) one of internal nature, consisting in a free and informed agreement with the substance of the schism, in other words, in the choice made in such a way of the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre which puts such an option above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the magisterium of the Church),

b) the other of an external character, consisting in the externalising of this option, the most manifest sign of which will be the exclusive participation in Lefebvrian “ecclesial” acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (one is dealing however with a sign that is not univocal, since there is the possibility that a member of the faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of the followers of Lefebvre but without going along with their schismatic spirit).

1. In the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests there seems no doubt that their ministerial activity in the ambit of the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign of the fact that the two requirements mentioned above (n.5) are met, and thus that there is a formal adherence.
2. On the other hand, in the case of the rest of the faithful it is obvious that an occasional participation in liturgical acts or the activity of the Lefebvrian movement, done without making one’s own the attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunion of such a movement, does not suffice for one to be able to speak of formal adherence to the movement. In pastoral practice the result can be that it is more difficult to judge their situation. One must take account above all of the person’s intentions, and the putting into practice of this internal disposition. For this reason the various situations are going to be judged case by case, in the competent forums both internal and external.
3. All the same, it will always be necessary to distinguish between the moral question on the existence or not of the sin of schism and the juridical-penal question on the existence of the delict of schism, and its consequent sanction. In this latter case the dispositions of Book V1 of the Code of Canon Law (including Cann.1323-1324) will be applied.
4. It does not seem advisable to make more precise the requirements for the delict of schism (but one would need to ask the competent Dicastery, cf. Ap. Const. “Pastor Bonus”, art 52). One might risk creating more problems by means of rigid norms of a penal kind which would not cover every case, leaving uncovered cases of substantial schism, or having regard to external behaviour which is not always subjectively schismatic.
5. Always from the pastoral point of view it would also seem opportune to recommend once again to sacred pastors all the norms of the Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei” with which the solicitude of the Vicar of Christ encouraged to dialogue and has provided the supernatural and human means necessary to facilitate the return of the Lefebvrians to full ecclesial communion.

Vatican City, 24th August 1996.

 

[Leo1984]

Please hang in there. Of course there are liberal priests, but God is not liberal. You know that birth control is morally evil, and that is what the church teaches. Make many babies and teach them how to be good Catholics and, God willing, some will grow up to be the kind of priests that we need.

 

[Steve_Sanborn]

I can understand why our mutual friend is so disheartened by the church. In 40 years, it hasn’t attempted to use language so unequivocal and certain. So strange that such language is not used against the factions, the liberals, the heretics, the sodomites, the de-constructors… the ones for whom disobedience is their absolute course of action, the premeditated foundation of their disdain for the faith. They thrive.

While Rome considers all sorts of ways to find how the eastern orthodox and russion orthodox schismatics are no longer schismatics so we can all just get along… it would attempt to prove that a lone bishop and his group of priests are… By rights, the SSPX would do well to simply tell Rome to get bent and then wait it out… according to the current plan, Rome would eventually come crawling to be politically correct with them… ah if it were only that easy.

You consider the language. Keep that, it’s yours.

Odd that Hoyos and Pope BXVI are not in line with the language you posted. I don’t disagree it is out there… you obviously did not make it up. I have seen it before.

I certainly need no reminders that I am no “chosen” one. I’m just a Catholic whose sense of the faith sees that if this issue were an onion, you would be at the very core of it holding tightly to the language while it tears the church to pieces. You’ll go on to tell me that Vatican II just needs to be interpreted correctly.

But you can’t mix good with evil… and that’s what Vatican II does. This co-mixture is at the very heart of the council and its documents, which in fact counter the faith and the previous documents of other councils. This is the very nature of the novus ordo mass. Without the blend of the two opposing forces, the confusion, the destruction, the failure all dissipate. The enemies of the faith within the church cannot have this. As a result, they deal with outward evil and its affliction on the church as a dead man would prevent an assailant from breaking into his home. But when the truth smacks up against their heresies, they must draw out the swords of absolutism and swing and hack as if they were the saints of old attacking Satan himself, with the same fervor and clarity. They certainly are not the saints.

The accusation of schism is wrong, but you hold on to it as tightly as you wish. Keep the language and be technically and temporarily correct on paper.

It seems pointless for us to continue the banter… tomorrow I’ll be heading for a mass that isn’t extraordinary, just exTRAORdinary. The sanctuary will be whole, unbroken, undefiled. The priest will face God, not me. We will kneel to recieve Our Lord, not dance our way up the aisle. We will say the prayers at the foot of the alter. Lefebvre was excommunicated for his protection of this. This thing that was never abrogated. If there is a schism, it seems clear enough where it truly lies.

Steve

 

[bear06]

I can understand why our mutual friend is so disheartened by the church. In 40 years, it hasn’t attempted to use language so unequivocal and certain. So strange that such language is not used against the factions, the liberals, the heretics, the sodomites, the de-constructors… the ones for whom disobedience is their absolute course of action, the premeditated foundation of their disdain for the faith. They thrive.

While Rome considers all sorts of ways to find how the eastern orthodox and russion orthodox schismatics are no longer schismatics so we can all just get along… it would attempt to prove that a lone bishop and his group of priests are… By rights, the SSPX would do well to simply tell Rome to get bent and then wait it out… according to the current plan, Rome would eventually come crawling to be politically correct with them… ah if it were only that easy.

You consider the language. Keep that, it’s yours.

Odd that Hoyos and Pope BXVI are not in line with the language you posted. I don’t disagree it is out there… you obviously did not make it up. I have seen it before.

I certainly need no reminders that I am no “chosen” one. I’m just a Catholic whose sense of the faith sees that if this issue were an onion, you would be at the very core of it holding tightly to the language while it tears the church to pieces. You’ll go on to tell me that Vatican II just needs to be interpreted correctly.

But you can’t mix good with evil… and that’s what Vatican II does. This co-mixture is at the very heart of the council and its documents, which in fact counter the faith and the previous documents of other councils. This is the very nature of the novus ordo mass. Without the blend of the two opposing forces, the confusion, the destruction, the failure all dissipate. The enemies of the faith within the church cannot have this. As a result, they deal with outward evil and its affliction on the church as a dead man would prevent an assailant from breaking into his home. But when the truth smacks up against their heresies, they must draw out the swords of absolutism and swing and hack as if they were the saints of old attacking Satan himself, with the same fervor and clarity. They certainly are not the saints.

The accusation of schism is wrong, but you hold on to it as tightly as you wish. Keep the language and be technically and temporarily correct on paper.

It seems pointless for us to continue the banter… tomorrow I’ll be heading for a mass that isn’t extraordinary, just exTRAORdinary. The sanctuary will be whole, unbroken, undefiled. The priest will face God, not me. We will kneel to recieve Our Lord, not dance our way up the aisle. We will say the prayers at the foot of the alter. Lefebvre was excommunicated for his protection of this. This thing that was never abrogated. If there is a schism, it seems clear enough where it truly lies.

Steve

I guess I got the right document then.

 

[scottm]

You should not be going to a Baptist church for “serious Bible studies”. I cant remember which saint said this, “Protestants understand the Bible enough to misinterpret it.” You will get your head hogwashed by a lot of this most used Bible quotes by Protestants. … The Haydock Bible is the best I recommend if you are reading the Bible mostly alone. … And logic itself says it so if the Church is the truth why go for half-truths.

I’ll keep that particular Bible in mind. I like the sound of in-line commentary from Doctors of the Church.

As for Baptist “hogwash” – being that I’m coming from the other direction I already know the ins and outs and where to turn. Give me today one Catholic priest in my town who has the courage to preach for more than 12 minutes week after week, and I’ll be there. I’ll be the first through the door. Just one priest. As it is, out of the five parishes in my area no Catholic priest has the courage to preach more than 12 minutes ever. Usually the homilies are 8 minutes. Whenever a priest goes over 10 minutes numerous people in the pews complain. "You’re talking too long about Jesus. I don’t want you to talk that long about Jesus in my church. Stop talking so much about Jesus during mass."

And the priests obey! The priests shut up, and stop talking so much about Jesus inside their churches! It’s a scandal!

This is the opposite of the Apostles behavior in Acts 5:28-29. It is the opposite of Jeremiah in the Old Testament. It is wrong, it is ungodly, and it is immature. It’s also the opposite of Baptists. They, not the Catholic priests in five churches where I live, have enough spiritual maturity to continue talking about Jesus inside their churches every Sunday. They love Jesus enough to go on for 45 minutes week after week without ever running out of preaching material. Baptist pastors are not afraid of their parishoners, no. Only Catholic priests are afraid of the parishoners who don’t want Jesus preached inside their churches.

And for Bible studies? There are 10,000 adults in two of the Catholic churches every weekend. About 50 show up for the three weekly Bible studies at one church. The other church has only 2 weekly Bible studies, and thus has fewer attendees. (These stats were affirmed by the priests at these churches.) The local Baptist church has at best 300 adult attendees and has eleven weekly Bible studies drawing half the adults. Again, it’s the Baptists, and not the Catholics, who love Jesus enough to want to open their Bibles and learn his teachings.

It’s scandalous.

I’d quit if I didn’t have particular Catholic friends spurring me on, giving me encouragement. One of them is the leader of one of those three Bible studies. I’m proud of him. He gives me hope for the future.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Steve,

Abp. Lefebvre was not excommunicated for saying the Tridentine Mass, he was excommunicated for illicitly consecrating 4 bishops.

 

[Steve_Sanborn]

Steve,

Abp. Lefebvre was not excommunicated for saying the Tridentine Mass, he was excommunicated for illicitly consecrating 4 bishops.

Actually no, he was excommunicated for being a cross-dresser who liked to fondle little boys in between black masses and before gay rallies. There’s something in there about him denying the true presence, inviting clowns and scuba-divers onto the altar and hosting co-ed naked tarot card readings with leaders of other religions and cults.

Thanks for the heads up…

 

[Steve_Sanborn]

I guess I got the right document then.

No but you do seem to be adept at using emoticons…

 

[Like]

Steve,

Abp. Lefebvre was not excommunicated for saying the Tridentine Mass, he was excommunicated for illicitly consecrating 4 bishops.

Actually no, **he was excommunicated for being a cross-dresser who liked to fondle little boys in between black masses and before gay rallies. There’s something in there about him denying the true presence, inviting clowns and scuba-divers onto the altar and hosting co-ed naked tarot card readings with leaders of other religions and cults.
**
Thanks for the heads up…

Steve, I sure hope I misread your statement above in reference to Abp. Lefebvre! Do you honestly believe that?

 

[thecoach]

Actually no, he was excommunicated for being a cross-dresser who liked to fondle little boys in between black masses and before gay rallies. There’s something in there about him denying the true presence, inviting clowns and scuba-divers onto the altar and hosting co-ed naked tarot card readings with leaders of other religions and cults.

Thanks for the heads up…

I have NEVER heard of this, I hope you have proof to support your statement.

 

[thechrismyster]

It seems pointless for us to continue the banter…

WHY does it always take people 20 pages of comments to figure this out?

tomorrow I’ll be heading for a mass that isn’t extraordinary, just exTRAORdinary. The sanctuary will be whole, unbroken, undefiled. The priest will face God, not me. We will kneel to recieve Our Lord, not dance our way up the aisle. We will say the prayers at the foot of the alter. Lefebvre was excommunicated for his protection of this. This thing that was never abrogated. If there is a schism, it seems clear enough where it truly lies.

Dramatic and over the top., writing style, which, may i comment, entertains me. the message is self aggrandizing. but well written.

 

[Steve_Sanborn]

I have NEVER heard of this, I hope you have proof to support your statement.

Come one guys… give me a break. Sorry, he was excommunicated for executing his divine right as a prince of the Catholic Church for the sake of carrying on that which was given to him. He was denied this right by liberal modernists in cassocks because he would not say the new mass… because he would not leave tradition and be a part of the new conciliar religion. Do you know anything about Lefebvre except that he was “excommunicated”???

 

[thecoach]

Come one guys… give me a break. Sorry, he was excommunicated for executing his divine right as a prince of the Catholic Church for the sake of carrying on that which was given to him. He was denied this right by liberal modernists in cassocks because he would not say the new mass… because he would not leave tradition and be a part of the new conciliar religion. Do you know anything about Lefebvre except that he was “excommunicated”???

Apparently you know nothing of him either, so you would be wise to cease from slander.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

“The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition”

That doesn’t even make logical canonical sense.

1.Any decent (and honest) canon lawyer knows that the excommunication issue must be dealt with from Cardinal Gantin’s canonical warning alone and not Pope John Paul II’s motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, which has no legal bearing on the case. As the pope simply repeated what Cardinal Gantin stated, it is not a matter of “what the pope said”, but rather, what does the Code of Canon Law state.
2.It has been proven by independent canon lawyers that without a doubt per the 1983 (and even the more stricter 1917) Code of Canon Law, Archbishop Lefebvre et al were not ipso facto excommunicated for their actions specifically because of canon 1323, 7 (he subjectively believed that there was a necessity) and other canons. Cf. this page for a brief expose on the matter as well as links to more details articles on this important subject: sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q11_abexcommunicated.htm and sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q12_sspxschismatic.htm.
3.There was no schism; again, any decent canon lawyer will admit that an act of (apparent) disobedience does not equal a schismatic act (e.g., saying “no” to one’s mother does not constitute a rejection of her being your mother); nor does consecrating a bishop without a papal mandate (cf. Cardinal Lara’s remarks). Furthermore, the canon used to accuse the bishops of schism was the one for heretics, which certainly Archbishop Lefebvre was not. If anyone should be accused of schism it is the American Church, which even Fr. Kenneth Baker (a priest in good standing who is the editor of The Homiletic & Pastoral Review) said “is de facto, if not de jure is in a state of schism” for their continual disobedience to the Holy Father.

Great to see you here Steve, and of course everything you are saying is exactly correct.

 

[suupah]

I feel like leaving the Church…everyone seems so hypocritical…even the Priests. I don’t know what to do. The SSPX is looking more and more appealing. I’m feel very upset at the moment .

Excuse my RANT…

I have had many similar experiences and witnessed many abuses.

I once had a priest tell me in confession that “at least i know that my di*k works” after i confessed lustful thoughts. My jaw hit the floor and i was so upset yet felt powerless. I still think about writing his Bishop and telling him about that experience but i feel that it wouldn’t do any good.

There are huge issues with the church and I put most of the responsibility with the Bishops because they wield all the power. And it is their job to lead the church. The laity are called sheep because we need to be sheparded. The Bishops carry a shepards staff because it is there job to shepard us.

Catechesis in almost every parish i have belonged to is terrible. there is no funding for quality programs and full time dedicated staff. There is plenty of funding for 50,000 dollar shrines and ornate gardens but the salvation and formation of our children and adults lacks funding.

Marriage in the catholic church is a joke. Couples openly living in sin, taking birth control as well as never attending mass can easily get a valid sacramental marriage in front of Gods church and in front of God. Also it seems anyone can get an annulment if the marriage was “not valid” (wink wink).

All this because our Bishops are afraid of their sheep going to other pastures. We need new leadership. I have so much hohpe for B-16 because he seems to be a man unwilling to compromise the truth no matter what the cost. Even if the church is crucified by society and other christians. Our lord crucified himself for us, why not return the favor. Truth until Death!!!

I think we either do this thing right or walk away from it. This watered down wine that the Bishops are giving out now needs to go to the discount Christian center for the luke warm and not at the Blood bought Catholic Church. We need to be serving the good stuff in Christs church. Christ paid full price, we should serve Full strength. Then we would be intoxicated with the love of God like in Acts2:13. Its time that Christ gets what he paid for and not some cheap imitation.

When the Catholic Church stands in its truth and trusts only in the wisdom of God and not our own wisdom, it will flourish and be the light of the world, the salt of the earth. People will run to it for salvation!

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Despite the many aberrations in the Mass; priests that do not exude holiness; the many cases of child molestations and the lawsuits that follow; despite the fall-off of the Sacrament of Penance; despite some varying notions that the Eucharist is merely “symbolic;” despite overt disobedience by some bishops and cardinals to the Holy Father; and even fringe “heresies”:

The Church will remain until the Last day. Yes, it will be a
a “remnant” Church and may even be a sort of “underground”
Church but she will always be there.

The truth will always endure.

 

[Like]

Apparently you know nothing of him either, so you would be wise to cease from slander.

I know I shouldn’t judge, but sure looks like Steve went way beyond slander!

 

[thecoach]

I know I shouldn’t judge, but sure looks like Steve went way beyond slander!

Indeed.

 

[TuEsPetrus]

I’ll keep that particular Bible in mind. I like the sound of in-line commentary from Doctors of the Church.

As for Baptist “hogwash” – being that I’m coming from the other direction I already know the ins and outs and where to turn. Give me today one Catholic priest in my town who has the courage to preach for more than 12 minutes week after week, and I’ll be there. I’ll be the first through the door. Just one priest. As it is, out of the five parishes in my area no Catholic priest has the courage to preach more than 12 minutes ever. Usually the homilies are 8 minutes. Whenever a priest goes over 10 minutes numerous people in the pews complain. "You’re talking too long about Jesus. I don’t want you to talk that long about Jesus in my church. Stop talking so much about Jesus during mass."

And the priests obey! The priests shut up, and stop talking so much about Jesus inside their churches! It’s a scandal!

This is the opposite of the Apostles behavior in Acts 5:28-29. It is the opposite of Jeremiah in the Old Testament. It is wrong, it is ungodly, and it is immature. It’s also the opposite of Baptists. They, not the Catholic priests in five churches where I live, have enough spiritual maturity to continue talking about Jesus inside their churches every Sunday. They love Jesus enough to go on for 45 minutes week after week without ever running out of preaching material. Baptist pastors are not afraid of their parishoners, no. Only Catholic priests are afraid of the parishoners who don’t want Jesus preached inside their churches.

And for Bible studies? There are 10,000 adults in two of the Catholic churches every weekend. About 50 show up for the three weekly Bible studies at one church. The other church has only 2 weekly Bible studies, and thus has fewer attendees. (These stats were affirmed by the priests at these churches.) The local Baptist church has at best 300 adult attendees and has eleven weekly Bible studies drawing half the adults. Again, it’s the Baptists, and not the Catholics, who love Jesus enough to want to open their Bibles and learn his teachings.

It’s scandalous.

I’d quit if I didn’t have particular Catholic friends spurring me on, giving me encouragement. One of them is the leader of one of those three Bible studies. I’m proud of him. He gives me hope for the future.

Alright my dear friend, I can see you are serious in your faith and I am happy for you. You are quite intelligent, why not get “some” Catholic GOOD books, and read it for yourself. To tell you the truth, there is like 10% of the stuff I learn is from the priest, I do personal reading all the time and debate and so on. But to go to another church is the worst thing you can do, I dont care how much you think they love Jesus. The true love is only found I Cor 13. That charity only to the true faith, and Christ said that the Church EVEN if every SINGLE priest WERE THE MOST liberal priest and they were the worst pedophiles in the world, will be where the true faith stands. Which would be Orthodox Catholic teachings such as the Fathers of the Church and Doctors of the Church and older books. Usually I would recoomend books from the 1920’s they are excellent alot of the best Catholic materail out there was probably written about that time because it was a little shortly after the reign of St. Pius X, where modernism was almost completely suppresed. I know you have to keep the good fight, but dont give and just simply say well if the “priest” dont teach me then my jesus-loving pastor will. ONE word that is truly said with the best thought and faith is greater then everything a pastor could say. Lives of the Saints you will never hear that from pastors, or if you do “their good christians i agree”. If you have any more questions or personally e-mail me or priavate message me to let you know of some good books. I say this only good Catholic admonishing.