SSPX View of the New Mass

[rben20]

I found the statement on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass simply appalling.

That statement is what originally made me post. How could they be brought into the Church completely I thought if they have this view of Vatican II and the New Mass.

 

[JReducation]

For newcomers to this debate, the canon law in question is in canons 1323, 1324 +1321. Find the complete text at vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM num: Mgr Lefebvre explained that he was under grave fear, based on the situation of the Church at that time, that if he did not maintain the SSPX against the tidal wave of error that was engulfing the Church; then he, being not a private citizen but a Bishop charged with continuing the Apostolic Succession under pain of mortal sin, would be guilty of dereliction of duty. This fear may or may not have been justified (I personally believe it was) but, right or wrong, it was his honest opinion. Therefore he was, according to Canon Law, exempt from penalty.num: A very interesting paragraph. Look carefully, and you will see that **it endows a subjective opinion with the force of law. ** This kind of legislation is not normal jurisprudence for the very reason that it makes the law unenforceable. The SSPX and their sympathisers have reiterated this from the very beginning. This was not in the Old Code of Canon Law. Mgr Lefebvre (and others) opposed the New Code! But, loyal sons of the Church as they were, once it was promulgated in 1983 they accepted it! Now, in 1988, they were perfectly entitled to invoke it.num: Mark well! Even if the accused ought to have known better, if he thought the matter was serious enough, he is indemnified against the ultimate penalty of excommunication, and some lesser penalty or a penance must, under the law, be substituted…
That was dealt with in the paragraph above. The SSPX are exempted from full imputability under the law and hence are released from the ‘normal’ penalty by this provision of Canon Law. Well, that is precisely the penalty that was hurled against Mgr Lefebvre and the others in a newspaper article that ***did not have a Vatican protocol number *** and hence was not an official document carrying the force of law, but only the personal opinion of the author (who was not identified as the Pope).

There are about half a dozen reasons, therefore, why these alleged excommunications were null and void from the beginning.

But that is exactly what he did not do. In fact, to this very day no official Vatican document or source has answered the point made by the SSPX. What Pope John Paul II did was to ignore the objection. But no Court of Law on the planet would accept this.

snipped for space

In fact, the one and only ***official *** action taken on the matter was Pope Benedict’s Motu Proprio that quietly lifted the decree of excommunication, without – let it be noted – requiring one single retraction from the SSPX. To me that speaks volumes.

You cannot lift an excommunication that does not exist. Therefore, the act of lifting it implies that he Pontiff acknowledges its existence and validity. If the Pontiff believed that the excommunications were invalid, he would have had to declare them null and void. This is not what he did. The Holy Father explained that he was lifting the excommunication and he explained why he was doing so.

John Paul II did say that the argument was not applicable. I can’t name the document, but I remember reading the statement.

The point here that people want to cotinue to use Canon Law to prove that the Vatican could not do what it did. But people forget that the entire curia acts with the full authority of the pope and that Canon Law is not binding on him. Canon Law binds us, not popes. Popes can ignore them anytime they want to do so. Canon Law is always subject to the interpretation of the pope and those to whom he delegates the authority to interpret and apply them.

I can tell you this from my own experience as a superior. I do not need to go to the pope to apply canon law to the brothers under my jurisdiction. I have what is considered assumed consent. of the pope. This applies to the members of the curia as well. The Prefects of the different congregations have the assumed consent to apply disciplinary actions in their domain without having to go to the pope.

In a recent interview with Msgr. Giorg, the Pope’s secretary, he was asked about these things. He said that the pope does not know nor need to know everything. One of his jobs is to sort through the tons of questions and requests for permissions and resolution of conflicts and to send them to the right people. He does this at his discretion. The pope never finds out what is sent out to other Curia officials, because they have authority to deal with these issues, dishout consequences and resolve problems. The pope does not want to be bothered by many of these things. When the whole question came up as to how many bishops Msgr. Lefebvre could ordain, Pope John Paul sent the whole thing down the hall to the proper Prefect to deal with it. When the Society asked for a hearing and a response from Pope John Paul II, they were not ignored. Their questions and complaint were simply farmed out to the proper Prefect. That’s not the same as being ignored. That’s simply a matter of trust. The pope trusts the Prefects to do their job and do it well. He only intervenes if HE believes that they messed up. Otherwise, he goes on with his business. Can you imagine what would happen if he dealt with all of these things himself? The man would never get much accomplished. Let’s face it. Popes don’t even write their own encyclicals. They are written by theologians and sent to him to review them and authorize their release. This is a well oiled machine that functions under his authority.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

It is very unfortunate that the words: sacrilege, banal, liberal and modernist are often thrown around ever so lightly. We should be ashamed of ourselves for the anger and hatred that we generate amongst ourselves, because of our carelessness in speech.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

It gets old yes, but a very famous and powerful Bishop called it banal. Cardinal Ratzinger lamented the changes.

 

[JReducation]

It gets old yes, but a very famous and powerful Bishop called it banal. Cardinal Ratzinger lamented the changes.

The difference is that he did not use the word to bash people over the head with it. He was expressing an opinion, one which he has modified since that time. The poor man never expected to be so misquoted in his life. The people who are using his wording at that time are not using his wording in Summorum Pontificum, when he refers to the Ordinary Form as holy and that there has been no rupture in continuity. It’s almost as if some people only want to quote what he said once and not what he said later. That’s why I call it an unfortunate use of language, not by him, but by the rest of the world.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Aramis]

Very difficult to tell someone that who was subjected to a female baptist preacher preaching during the Mass. To someone who heard a priest defending his homosexual relationship (prior to entering the seminary, one hopes) from the Sanctuary. To someone who heard in another Sermon that it doesn’t matter if Mary was assumed into heaven or not. To someone whose prayer was interrupted on a regular basis during the Agnus Dei by an overly zealous usher who insisted that I pass along the sign of peace. To someone who was told in the Confessional that onanism is not a sin, and the Church ought to reconsider the teaching. To someone who sat through all verses and choruses of “The Cat’s in the Cradle” sung solo by the Priest in lieu of a homily on Father’s Day.

These occurred in several different Parishes over the last two or three years of my life in the Diocesan Churches in Texas, Florida and South Carolina. Certainly not confined to a single Priest, Parish, Diocese, or even geographical area. Of course, I also did encounter some very Holy and Reverant Priests along the way, and was grateful. Until my job transferred me again. How many of the Faithful, I wonder, well-intentioned and sincere, were mislead by these same men.

There are no problems. Everything’s fine. No danger whatsoever of losing the Faith.

You have a duty to inform their bishop/ordinary of these abuses. If you didn’t, then you are part of the problem. If you did, even if only anonymously, then you are part of the solution.

 

[JReducation]

I have to self-correct what I said in post 64. It was not in Summorum Pontificum that to which I was referring, but in the letter that accompanied it. The same man who had earlier called the OF banal, later says

Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

His use of the word “banal” is thrown around too readily, without recourse to his later thinking. That is what I call unfortunate for everyone.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Very difficult to tell someone that who was subjected to a female baptist preacher preaching during the Mass. To someone who heard a priest defending his homosexual relationship (prior to entering the seminary, one hopes) from the Sanctuary. To someone who heard in another Sermon that it doesn’t matter if Mary was assumed into heaven or not. To someone whose prayer was interrupted on a regular basis during the Agnus Dei by an overly zealous usher who insisted that I pass along the sign of peace.

This should be taken up with the pastor and later with the Chancellor. That’s the proper chain of command.

To someone who was told in the Confessional that onanism is not a sin, and the Church ought to reconsider the teaching.

This may only be taken up by the penitent. No one else has the right to discuss what happens in the confessional between priest and penitent.

To someone who sat through all verses and choruses of “The Cat’s in the Cradle” sung solo by the Priest in lieu of a homily on Father’s Day.

This too goes to the pastor and then the chancellor

There are no problems. Everything’s fine. No danger whatsoever of losing the Faith.

To this St. Francis de Sales eloquently wrote that he who causes another to lose faith is murderer and he who allows himself to lose faith is suicidal; therefore, they are both guilty.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

…If the Pontiff believed that the excommunications were invalid, he would have had to declare them null and void…

Whoa !

JReducation:

The man who made the law can interpret it and change it without the consent of the governed.

Come on now, which is it ? First the pope is not subject to Cannon Law and then he suddenly is ?

See what is happening here JR ? I honestly don’t believe you realize it, and I don’t think you mean ill intent. But you are basically promoting the notion that when a pope does something in favor of the SSPX, he had better do it by the book. But when a pope does something not favorable to the SSPX, Cannon Law means nothing.

See it’s an ugly double standard. The SSPX disputes pastoral documents and is branded schismatic, but those who deny the Cannon Law invoked by H.E.+ are free to do so. No due process.

Which is more appalling ? What would Pope St Pius V + do ?

http://saints.sqpn.com/saintp32.jpg

 

[JM3]

What would Pope St Pius V + do ?

Smack you upside the head and tell you to stop your bickering, then give you two hours before the Blessed Sacrament as penance?

 

[JReducation]

Whoa !

Come on now, which is it ? First the pope is not subject to Cannon Law and then he suddenly is ?

See what is happening here JR ? I honestly don’t believe you realize it, and I don’t think you mean ill intent. But you are basically promoting the notion that when a pope does something in favor of the SSPX, he had better do it by the book. But when a pope does something not favorable to the SSPX, Cannon Law means nothing.

See it’s an ugly double standard. The SSPX disputes pastoral documents and is branded schismatic, but those who deny the Cannon Law invoked by H.E.+ are free to do so. No due process.

Which is more appalling ? What would Pope St Pius V + do ?

http://saints.sqpn.com/saintp32.jpg

I’m not stating that this is an either or. I’m stating that both are realities.

1. The pope can overrule canon law, regardless of who the subject is, the SSPX or the Dominicans.
2. In the case of these excommunications, the Holy Father said that he was lifting, not nullifying.

The pope can decide how to interpret and apply canon law. We may not like that idea, but there is nothing that we can do about it. He is the law-giver. It’s not a doiuble standard. It’s called absolute authority over the governed. Some may call it a theocratic dictatorship.

Yes, you are right. I do not have ill-will toward the priests and bishops of the Society. I respect them for what they are. They are clergymen and deserve respect. I do beleive that they have made some serious mistakes. I also believe that they are not the only ones who have made mistakes.

I also trust Pope Benedict XVI when he says that their issues go far beyond the OF and that there is much more for them to fix than that. In fact, my impression is that he is not concerned about their attachment to the EF. As he says in Summorum Pontificum, the EF was never abrogated and it was a mistake made by many to say that it was abrogated. As far as I’m concerned, if the pope is OK with their attachment to the EF, so am I. If the pope says that there was an excommunication to be lifted, then there was. I’m not in a position to call the pope into question.

I remember when I was a novice, many many years ago. We were studying the admonitions of St. Francis. He said something that comes to mind right now. He told the brothers that they had a moral duty to obey the pope and him, as if they were hearing it directly from the mouth of Christ, whether or not the command was ex-cathedra and even if the command was in error, as long as the command did not require one to violate the moral law. But he went on to say that it was not up to the friars to decide what was moral and what was not. The moral law was to be defined by the competent ecclesial authority and that conscience had no right over authority, because conscience must always be well-formed. The only well-formed conscience is one that is consistent with those who speak for Christ. Any objection of conscience that deviated from the voice of Christ, as he speaks through the pope and himself, is an invallid objection. He cautioned the friars to do two things: to obey even when they knew that they were right and authority was wrong, because such obedience is pleasing to Christ and man. Second, to remember that Christ obeyed, even though he was unjustly accused and condemned. Obedience was not about who is right, but about suffering for the sake of redemptive love.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

Smack you upside the head and tell you to stop your bickering, then give you two hours before the Blessed Sacrament as penance?

figured that one would get a rise

Not sure how he’d receive me, but can guess what he told Annabelle and the Paulie girls if they made it to the Gate.

 

[At_Trent]

… gotta save this thread to file 'fore it gets chopped…it’s a good’n

 

[runningdude]

…I remember when I was a novice, many many years ago. We were studying the admonitions of St. Francis. He said something that comes to mind right now. He told the brothers that they had a moral duty to obey the pope and him, as if they were hearing it directly from the mouth of Christ, whether or not the command was ex-cathedra and even if the command was in error, as long as the command did not require one to violate the moral law. But he went on to say that it was not up to the friars to decide what was moral and what was not. The moral law was to be defined by the competent ecclesial authority and that conscience had no right over authority, because conscience must always be well-formed. The only well-formed conscience is one that is consistent with those who speak for Christ. Any objection of conscience that deviated from the voice of Christ, as he speaks through the pope and himself, is an invallid objection. He cautioned the friars to do two things: to obey even when they knew that they were right and authority was wrong, because such obedience is pleasing to Christ and man. Second, to remember that Christ obeyed, even though he was unjustly accused and condemned. Obedience was not about who is right, but about suffering for the sake of redemptive love.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Oy, the burden we Catholic’s bear!

 

[At_Trent]

I’m not stating that this is an either or. I’m stating that both are realities.

1. The pope can overrule canon law, regardless of who the subject is, the SSPX or the Dominicans.

Tell that to Pius V

And see ? You are doing it again. Without thinking, the Franciscan in ya threw the Dominicans under the bus with the SSPX !

 

[At_Trent]

Catch the spirit !
youtube.com/watch?v=XWOBD0hkb1I

 

[JReducation]

Tell that to Pius V

And see ? You are doing it again. Without thinking, the Franciscan in ya threw the Dominicans under the bus with the SSPX !

I figured that since you brought up a Dominican pope, he’s be more kindly toward them than to Salesians or some other group. I know that he’d be nice to us, because Dominicans and Franciscans are tight.

There is an old game between the Dominicans and the Franciscans. The Holy Spirit sent the Dominicans to conver the heretics, because they were easier and he gave the Franciscans the real dirty work, to conver the Catholics.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Oy, the burden we Catholic’s bear!

It’s funny that you should mention the word “burden”. If Catholics only knew how liberating this kind of obedience really is, they would all embrace it.

St. Bonaventure explained it best when he taught us that the mind questions, answers and passes judgment on its own responses. But the heart simply loves and let’s God do the rest.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

I figured that since you brought up a Dominican pope, he’s be more kindly toward them than to Salesians or some other group. I know that he’d be nice to us, because Dominicans and Franciscans are tight.

There is an old game between the Dominicans and the Franciscans. The Holy Spirit sent the Dominicans to conver the heretics, because they were easier and he gave the Franciscans the real dirty work, to conver the Catholics.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well the Dominicans sure have their hands full

 

[JReducation]

Well the Dominicans sure have their hands full

I don’t know about that. I’ve had a fair share of Catholics who just love to be angry. I’m having an interesting exchange with a Catholic student of theology on another thread who wants to defend tradition, but he or she also wants me to put distance between me and traditional Franciscan submission to the authority of the pope. I’m trying to tell him that he cannot require tradition in one domain and not in another.

That is something that I have always found very interesting about many of our Catholics today. We have a whole group that want religious to be and to say what they want, not what their founders wanted. I always get confused talking to these folks. If you want me to be traditional, I’m going to tell you exactly what St. Francis told me to tell you. I can’t get more traditional than that.

If you want me to be liberal, I’m going to tell you exacty what St. Francis told me to tell you again. Some of his ideas were pretty liberal for his time.

Whenever I engage in this subject I find myself in a tough place, because my religious community is very traditional. But it’s traditionally Franciscan. We’re part of the whole Franciscan renewal, going back to the 13th century. The original mandate was very simple, obey, obey and when you get tired, obey again.

You are totally poor. You own nothing, not even opinions. Some people don’t want to deal with us because of this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

You cannot lift an excommunication that does not exist. Therefore, the act of lifting it implies that he Pontiff acknowledges its existence and validity.

JR, we discussed this at one point. The issue then was whether the excommunications were latae sententiae or ferendae sententiae. The Pope claimed they were latae sententiae but canon lawyers have pointed out they couldn’t have been because of the subjective nature of the “necessity” clause. So it appears the excommunications were ferendae sententiae, but that means the Pope (or any bishop, for that matter) can validly excommunicate anyone he wants to, regardless of the nature or degree of the crime.