SSPX

[JReducation]

This is the letter that the Archbishop sent to the Holy Father. Parts of the letter were interpreted as an affront to the Pope. “ . . . if you do [such and such] you are no longer the Good Shepherd”.

In other parts of the letter the Archbishop raises questions about heresies and schisms supported by the Pontiff’s actions. Not what one would consider a wise move.

sspx.org/miscellaneous/letter_to_pope_john_paul_ii_lefebvre_de_castro-mayer_1985.htm

This is Pope John Paul’s letter after the fact of the ordinations and he refers to the letter sent on Une 17 of the previous year by the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops. In that letter, the Prefect forbids the ordination of the new bishops. The Prefect speaks in the name of the Pontiff. To disobey the Prefect is disobeying the Pope.

3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience – which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy – constitutes a schismatic act[3]. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tisser de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law [4].

adoremus.org/EcclesiaDei.html

These are some of the events that got this ugly ball rolling.

JR

 

[JReducation]

I believe you have made a small mistake here, since I read that the Pope agreed in principle for the archbishop to ordain one bishop.although the Pope did not give a specific approval for a particular bishop, and I think that the Pope had rejected those names which were placed before him on the grounds of insufficient quality of background.

You may be right on this detail. I have never heard that before. In any case, if you present a candidate to the Holy See and your candidate is rejected, you cannot ordain him. If you do so, you incur excommunication and so does the candidate for accepting the ordination.

The same applies to priests. A bishop cannot ordain a priest unless he has jurisdiction to ordain. If he does, the ordination is valid, but ilicit and there are canonical consequences.

In one of our fraternities a friar wrote the Bishop to ask for ordination. The bishop wanted to do it. The Major Superior, who is a Lay Brother, forbade it, the Bishop had to back off. He had no jusridiction to ordain over the head of the Major Superior.

There is a hierarchy of command in the Church that is very well protected by canon law and by the popes.

JR

 

[JReducation]

I believe you have made a small mistake here, since I read that the Pope agreed in principle for the archbishop to ordain one bishop.although the Pope did not give a specific approval for a particular bishop, and I think that the Pope had rejected those names which were placed before him on the grounds of insufficient quality of background.

There are several conditions that must be met to be consecrated bishop.

1. The individual’s spiritual life of course.
2. Pastoral experience
3. Age
4. Good standing with the Church
5. The individual must have a Doctorate degree in an ecclesial science or in Canon Law
6. If the individul is a religious he must be released from obedience to his Major Superior, but not from his other obligations as a religious
7. He must have the approval of the Pope

JR

 

[Walking_Home]

Did you read Ut Unum Sint?

Why would our Holy Father pray for the ministry of the Orthodox Patriarch?

It may seem to you that I am reading my own ideas and that is fine. My mission is not to persuade you, only to share with you.

I’m a Franciscan Brother, not a Politician. I’m not here to do politics or to sell an idea.

Fraternally,

JR

---

Well JR-- the Orthodox are a few hops and skips away from being Catholic. Praying for them and their ministry – helps them from getting further --and further from us – would it not.

By the way —can you produce an authoritative document–where it is clearly stated the Orthodox are not in schism. And here I do not mean your “interpretation” . A document with language that you have been flinging here — for example – the Orthodox are not in schism from the Catholic Church etc.

 

[JReducation]

---

Well JR-- the Orthodox are a few hops and skips away from being Catholic. Praying for them and their ministry – helps them from getting further --and further from us – would it not.

By the way —can you produce an authoritative document–where it is clearly stated the Orthodox are not in schism. And here I do not mean your “interpretation” . A document with language that you have been flinging here -– for example – the Orthodox are not in schism from the Catholic Church etc.

I already referred you to Ut Unum Sint and to the Documents of Vatican II. If you want a document that uses the word schism, I don’t know one, if there is.

But that is a very Protestant approach. That’s like saying, show me a verse in the Bible that uses the word Trinity or Immaculate Conception… There is none, but the implications are there.

The same happens with the Documents of Vatican II and Ut Unum Sint. The Holy Father says, that we have put the past behind us, lifted the excommunications and anathemas.

The Orthodox are in schism, but they are not schismatic. I have not said they are not in schism. As long as they remain outside the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, they are in schism. Are they schismatic? No. There is a difference.

We are not guilty for the sins of our anscestors, neither side.

By the way (bold is mine) the term “flinging around here” is very rude. You don’t say that to people. It is confrontational and it is not necessary, if you are truly a person of peace.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Walking_Home]

I already referred you to Ut Unum Sint and to the Documents of Vatican II. If you want a document that uses the word schism, I don’t know one, if there is.

But that is a very Protestant approach. That’s like saying, show me a verse in the Bible that uses the word Trinity or Immaculate Conception… There is none, but the implications are there.

The same happens with the Documents of Vatican II and Ut Unum Sint. The Holy Father says, that we have put the past behind us, lifted the excommunications and anathemas.

The Orthodox are in schism, but they are not schismatic. I have not said they are not in schism. As long as they remain outside the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, they are in schism. Are they schismatic? No. There is a difference.

We are not guilty for the sins of our anscestors, neither side.

By the way (bold is mine) the term “flinging around here” is very rude. You don’t say that to people. It is confrontational and it is not necessary, if you are truly a person of peace.

Fraternally,

JR

---

I see – “You don’t know if there is”. But wait --wait a minute-- has there been some side stepping here. In a prior post you clearly said – the Orthodox are not outside the Catholic Church. They are not outside – but they are in schism.

 

[JReducation]

---

the Orthodox are not outside the Catholic Church. They are not outside – but they are in schism.

The Catholic Church recognizes that they are in communion with us in sacrament, faith, and apostolic succession.

To be completely outside of the Catholic Church there has to be a break in Apostolic Succession. The Orthodox maintain Apostolic Succession.

There would have to be a break in faith. They are united to us in faith. The dogmas the separate us were defined by the Catholic Church after the schism. In addition, Pope John Paul II said that dogmas have degrees of essentialness to the Catholic faith. Let’s not misunderstand what he is saying. But there are some truths that are not essential to communion. The two major truths separating the Orthodox and the Catholics are the Immaculate Conception and the Primacy of Peter. The latter is essential.

Notice that he refers to other Christian communities as Reformation Communities or ecclesial communities. They are not Churches.

All popes recognize the Orthodox as Church. They were founded by the Apostles. They share our common heritage. We cannot deny them that heritage.

Another way of demonstrating a total break with the Catholic Church would be in sacraments, especially the priesthood and Eucharist. The Orthodox Churches share in the same priesthood of Jesus Christ as the Roman Catholic Church. If they share in the same priesthood, they cannot be disconnected from us in sacrament. We share in the same sacraments and the same grace that comes from those sacraments. There is only one grace, one priesthood, one Eucharist. It’s not possible to share the same priesthood of Jesus Christ, the same Eucharist and not be the same Mystical Body. Christ is only one priest and has only one body.

The union can also be broken by excommunication. But the excommunications were lifted. They lifted theirs and we ours. It is important to remember that they had the power to excommunicate us as well. A bishop can excommunicate. The Patriarchs of the East in fact did excommunicate the Bishop of Rome and his followers. From a legal point of view, both excommunications were valid. Both sides have lifted them. Therefore this disruption in the union no longer exists.

The one reality that separates us is the recognition of the Primacy of Peter and our own biases toward each other. In light of different theological and ecumenical developments within the Catholic Church, we can say that the Ortodox are in a state of schism, because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, but they continue to be part of the Mystical Body of Christ as are we.

To pull it all together, John Paul had said that where there is the presence of the Church, even in its most remote form, there is the Church. In the case of the Orthodox, the presence of the Church is much more than remote. It is very visible. (Ut Unum Sint)

Do we have work to do to achieve a perfect union? Yes we do. Are we totally separated? Absolutely not. To say so we would have to deny the unitive power of apostolic succession, the one priesthood, one baptism, one faith and deny the restorative power of the lifting of the excommunications.

This gets into an area of ecclesiology that is very complex. We really would need a theologian who is an expert in ecclesiology to explain how the union is maintained, despite the schism. But in a nutshell, that’s it.

I’m not an expert in theology of the Church. I took a few courses in my studies, but not enough to claim to be an expert in the field. Nor am I a canon lawyer. Again, I took some courses while working on my own degree, but not enough to make me an expert in canon law.

But there are too many links between us and the Orthodox Church, links that were acknowledged by Vatican II, John Paul II and Benedict XVI to ignore and say that they are out there somewhere and are not related to us or part of the same Mystical Body as we are.

What we believe is that the Orthodox Church is part of the universal Church, but are separated from the Church of Rome de juris. That kind of separation is different from a separation in sacris.

This statement was made by His Holines Pope Paul VI and His Holiness Mar Ignatius Iacob III on October 27, 1971. This was the first of many such statements.

**The Pope and the Patriarch have recognized the deep spiritual communion, which already exists between their Churches. The celebration of the sacraments of the Lord, the common profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God made man for man’s salvation, the apostolic traditions which form part of the common heritage of both Churches, the great Fathers and Doctors, including Saint Cyril of Alexandria, who are their common masters in the faith all these testify to the action of the Holy Spirit who has continued to work in their Churches even when there have been human weakness and failings. The period of mutual recrimination and condemnation has given place to a willingness to meet together in sincere efforts to lighten and eventually remove the burden of history which still weighs heavily upon Christians. **

If you read it, you will notice that what we’re looking for is for perfect communion, recognizing that there is already a union in the essentials.

John Paul II said the same and went further. Benedict XVI has gone further still.

All the Patriarchs as well agree that there is a communion, but there is still work to be done on the human weaknesses and failings on both sides. The period of mutual recrimination is over.

As faithful Catholics, we must follow the lead of our popes in seeing what unites us as one Mystical Body with the Orthodox and work toward healing of the sins of the past committed by both sides.

JR

 

[JReducation]

In UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO the Church says the following about other Christians.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Other Christian faiths are capable of giving access to the community of salvation. These applies to the Orthodox more than any other group of Christians due to the marks that bind them to the Catholic Church.

This is also what allows those who attend mass at the SSPX to receive the grace of the Eucharist.

Unfortunatly, because the priests of the SSPX are suspended, they cannot validly absolve sins. But all of the other sacraments are valid and are means to the community of salvation.

In charity, all of us have to recognizze the good that we find in every Christian and work to repair what separates us.

JR

 

[Walking_Home]

The Catholic Church recognizes that they are in communion with us in sacrament, faith, and apostolic succession.

To be completely outside of the Catholic Church there has to be a break in Apostolic Succession. The Orthodox maintain Apostolic Succession.

There would have to be a break in faith. They are united to us in faith. The dogmas the separate us were defined by the Catholic Church after the schism. In addition, Pope John Paul II said that dogmas have degrees of essentialness to the Catholic faith. Let’s not misunderstand what he is saying. But there are some truths that are not essential to communion. The two major truths separating the Orthodox and the Catholics are the Immaculate Conception and the Primacy of Peter. The latter is essential.

Notice that he refers to other Christian communities as Reformation Communities or ecclesial communities. They are not Churches.

All popes recognize the Orthodox as Church. They were founded by the Apostles. They share our common heritage. We cannot deny them that heritage.

Another way of demonstrating a total break with the Catholic Church would be in sacraments, especially the priesthood and Eucharist. The Orthodox Churches share in the same priesthood of Jesus Christ as the Roman Catholic Church. If they share in the same priesthood, they cannot be disconnected from us in sacrament. We share in the same sacraments and the same grace that comes from those sacraments. There is only one grace, one priesthood, one Eucharist. It’s not possible to share the same priesthood of Jesus Christ, the same Eucharist and not be the same Mystical Body. Christ is only one priest and has only one body.

The union can also be broken by excommunication. But the excommunications were lifted. They lifted theirs and we ours. It is important to remember that they had the power to excommunicate us as well. A bishop can excommunicate. The Patriarchs of the East in fact did excommunicate the Bishop of Rome and his followers. From a legal point of view, both excommunications were valid. Both sides have lifted them. Therefore this disruption in the union no longer exists.

The one reality that separates us is the recognition of the Primacy of Peter and our own biases toward each other. In light of different theological and ecumenical developments within the Catholic Church, we can say that the Ortodox are in a state of schism, because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, but they continue to be part of the Mystical Body of Christ as are we.

To pull it all together, John Paul had said that where there is the presence of the Church, even in its most remote form, there is the Church. In the case of the Orthodox, the presence of the Church is much more than remote. It is very visible. (Ut Unum Sint)

Do we have work to do to achieve a perfect union? Yes we do. Are we totally separated? Absolutely not. To say so we would have to deny the unitive power of apostolic succession, the one priesthood, one baptism, one faith and deny the restorative power of the lifting of the excommunications.

This gets into an area of ecclesiology that is very complex. We really would need a theologian who is an expert in ecclesiology to explain how the union is maintained, despite the schism. But in a nutshell, that’s it.

I’m not an expert in theology of the Church. I took a few courses in my studies, but not enough to claim to be an expert in the field. Nor am I a canon lawyer. Again, I took some courses while working on my own degree, but not enough to make me an expert in canon law.

But there are too many links between us and the Orthodox Church, links that were acknowledged by Vatican II, John Paul II and Benedict XVI to ignore and say that they are out there somewhere and are not related to us or part of the same Mystical Body as we are.

What we believe is that the Orthodox Church is part of the universal Church, but are separated from the Church of Rome de juris. That kind of separation is different from a separation in sacris.

JR

---

JR-- you are promoting the what the Church has forbidden us to hold. Even though the Orthodox have Apostolic Succession and the Sacraments — they are not part of the Catholic Church. No amount of words that you can put on a page will validate this error.

Remember this response to you –

Quote=Walking_Home
Now as to your statement about the Orthodox not being outside the Catholic Church nor are we outside of Orthodox. If the Orthodox Church is not outside the Catholic Church etc. etc. --this in essence means that the Church of Christ a made up of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church --divided (Orthodox not in communion with Rome) but in some way one (Orthodox not outside Catholic–Catholic not outside Orthodox). This is not a view we are permitted to hold.
end quote.

Dominus Jesus

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”

 

[JReducation]

---

JR-- you are promoting the what the Church has forbidden us to hold. Even though the Orthodox have Apostolic Succession and the Sacraments — they are not part of the Catholic Church. No amount of words that you can put on a page will validate this error.

Remember this response to you –

Quote=Walking_Home
Now as to your statement about the Orthodox not being outside the Catholic Church nor are we outside of Orthodox. If the Orthodox Church is not outside the Catholic Church etc. etc. --this in essence means that the Church of Christ a made up of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church --divided (Orthodox not in communion with Rome) but in some way one (Orthodox not outside Catholic–Catholic not outside Orthodox). This is not a view we are permitted to hold.
end quote.

Dominus Jesus

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”

I’m not promoting that the Catholic Church is a collection of Churches. I’m saying that the Orthodox and the Catholics have a communion. I’m taking this from the statements made by Vatican II and recent Popes.

I also said, my area of theological expertise is not ecclesiology or canon law. I know the works and the writings. But that does not make me a scholar in that field of theology.

If you’re an expert in ecclesiology, by all means go ahead and explain what these documents are saying and what the popes are saying. It is all very confusing to both Catholics and Othodox lay people.

JR

 

[thistle]

Let’s not forget, the Church can change the rules. Are we talking about changing doctrine or changing rules?

JR

bobzills insists the Church has changed doctrines (many of them).

 

[JReducation]

bobzills insists the Church has changed doctrines (many of them).

Dogma does not change. Rules do and so does our understanding and our explanation of dogma. But the dogma itself remains constant.

JR

 

[eelpis]

bobzills insists the Church has changed doctrines (many of them).

The doctrine on religious liberty seems on the surface to have changed but in reality the teaching is deepened and is indeed the same.

Regarding the Orthodox the Church sees everything that unites us but she does not pretend that the Orthodox are Catholics nor that there are no differences between our respective faiths.
"“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”

 

[JReducation]

The doctrine on religious liberty seems on the surface to have changed but in reality the teaching is deepened and is indeed the same.

Regarding the Orthodox the Church sees everything that unites us but she does not pretend that the Orthodox are Catholics nor that there are no differences between our respective faiths.
"“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”

You are right on both counts.

The Church has not changed in matters of doctrine. The teaching on religious freedom is not so much a dogma as it is a statement regarding our natural right. The right of man has never been denied by any prior statement of the Church. The wording is different, but the sense is the same. This was one of the “debates” between John Paul II and Archbishop Lefebvre. The Archbishop thought that the teaching on relgious freedom was changing. John Paul felt that the Archbishop’s understanding of Tradition was faulty. This would explain why the Archbishop could not accept different wording.

As to the Orthodox, the citation that you have provided from Ut Unum Sint is what I’ve been trying to say all along.

No one denies the separation, but the Church sees the areas of communion. Therefore, we are not strangers to each other or totally divorced as we would like to think. There is much of the Catholic Church in the Orthodox Church. And we have preserved a great deal from the East too. In fact there is more in common than there is lacking. That’s why dialogue with them is much easier and the relationship between our leaders is so fraternal.

In the end, I believe the laity contributes more to the separation than the hierarchy does. The laity will not put aside the differences of 1,000 years ago. The hierarchy is willing to deal with those much more patiently and much more willing to focus on the areas of communion. We, the laity, are almost like bigots. We keep pushing the differences and refusing to see the points of unity. This is true of both Catholics and Orthodox lay people and parish priests.

We’re doing this with the SSPX as well. We keep pushing the differences and we the laity are engaged in a constant debate (on these forums) about whose right and wrong. The Holy See goes to sleep every night without worrying about it. If it can’t be fixed today, tomorrow we’ll try again.

You don’t see the bishops casting stones at the SSPX bishops or the other way around. The only SSPX bishop that I find is often imprudent is Williamson. He is often rude in his manner of speaking about the Holy See. But Bishop Felay is a wonderful man and is very gentle in his manner of speech about the Holy See and his concerns. The other guys, you rarely hear from them.

But throw a few lay people into one of these forums and it’s like a cat fight. I wonder if Felay and Benedict XVI would even approve of such behaviour.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[maurin]

Dogma does not change. Rules do and so does our understanding and our explanation of dogma. But the dogma itself remains constant.

JR

Now I know this isn’t Dogma–or is it? Doesn’t this cut right to the heart of the Kingship of Christ?

with all this talk of changed teachings:

Condemned by Pius IX in Quanta cura
Liberty of conscience and of forms of worship is a right proper to every man.

Asserted by Vatican II in Dignitatis humanae
The person has a right to religious liberty.

Now I am neither asserting nor denying that each person has a right to religious liberty…it just seems that the teaching has changed.

also JR, the ex-Pope, may he RIP, did allow for the ordinations at the 11th hour, as long as the ordinations were performed according to the new Rite of Ordination. This was refused by Archbishop Lefebvre.

Now to lay all my cards out on the table (after all you are a gentleman and although I disagree with you, I respect you), I do feel a bit of discomfort at the ordinations for my own reasons…

 

[JReducation]

Now I know this isn’t Dogma–or is it?

I don’t think so. But on Monday, when I return to work, I’ll ask one of my colleagues who is a systematic theologian. These folks are experts on dogma. I’ll let you know.

Doesn’t this cut right to the heart of the Kingship of Christ?

Help me out with this one, because I got lost here.

also JR, the ex-Pope, may he RIP, did allow for the ordinations at the 11th hour, as long as the ordinations were performed according to the new Rite of Ordination. This was refused by Archbishop Lefebvre.

That does not invalidate the ordinations. It only makes them ilicit. I’ve never heard that he did that. The letter that I read suggests that he did not authorize the ordination. Here is the one that I’m referring to.

With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last [1988] by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail [1].

adoremus.org/EcclesiaDei.html

The letter seems to have been written after the ordinations.

Now to lay all my cards out on the table (after all you are a gentleman and although I disagree with you, I respect you),

Thank you. The feeling is mutual. Anyone who is named after Pierre Maurin can’t be all bad.

I do feel a bit of discomfort at the ordinations for my own reasons…

My discomfort with the ordinations has to do with obedience and with some of the statements that the Archbishop made to the Holy Father in his letter prior to the event. My take is that the good Archbisop was under a great deal of presure from other sources.

If you look at this man’s life, he had posed his objections to many changes and statements after Vatican II, but he had always been her faithful servant and obedient to the Holy See. Even when he founded the Society, he did so with all of the proper licenses. He ordained the priests using the indult to use the rituals approved in 1963. One has to ask the question, what changed that would cause this man to be so afraid? The Church herself was not much different. There were errors and there were casualties. But there have always been such after every council. Archbishop Lefebvre was not an unitelligent man. He knew history.

He also knew that the Magisterium resides with the successor of Peter and that Peter is the supreme interpreter of the Magisterium. He never denied that John Paul II was a validly reigning pope. He was not a sedevacantist. His actions do not add up with his personal beliefs and his prior actions. Something else was happening in his life or in the Society itself. History will tell us.

I have no bone to pick with the SSPX. I have been to their liturgies several times. I have also been to the FSSP and to the EF. It’s beautiful. It’s not what I would want for my daily bread; but then again, I don’t need that form of the liturgy for my own spiritual journey. The OF meets and exeeds my spiritual needs. I acknowledge that we do not all have the same spiritual needs. That’s not an issue.

I do not go to communion or confession at the SSPX. For one, when you receive communion from a priest who is suspended for disciplinary reasons there is the danger of reinforcing the individual instead of encouraging the individual to seek reinstatement. I don’t go to confession at SSPX, because priests who do not have faculties cannot absolve.

There is the belief that “the Church supplies”; but some of our greatest canonical minds are unsure whether this is applicable here, since it is not a matter of necessity to go to confession to a priest in the Society.

What I do not like at all and I have said this already, is that the laity on these threads is aggravating this situation instead of helping. St. Francis always taught his sons and daughters to be instruments of peace. These were not his own words, but the words of Christ on the occasion of his resurrection, “Peace be with you.”

We fail to be instruments of peace and to live according to the peace that Christ offered us when we attack, judge and condemn each other for the sake of proving that I’m right and you’re wrong. Many of these arguments on these threads are about what we the laity want, than they are about what the Church wants. The way that we use documents and law is too similar to the way that Protestants use the scriptures. It is a very literal approach, out of context and with no room for application or interpretation. Some people are too stuck on “show me where the Pope said this”.

The Pope does not speak about every little detail in the Church. Many statements are made by his delegates or vicars and their voice is his voice. The Sacred Congregations exist to speak for the Holy Father. When they are wrong, we can trust that the Holy Father will correct them.

In fact, the Church has one of the tightest systems of checks of any organization in the world. Everyone reports to someone, except the Pope. We can’t go around asking for a papal statement for every situation and say that since it was said by Cardinal So and So of such and such a congregation and not the Pope, it carries no weight. Or because I don’t like Cardinal So and So, it has no weight.

I do not believe that either Msgr. Lefebvre or the Holy Father would bless this attitude among the laity. We have to adopt a spirit of peace making, if we are to salvage this situation and contribute to healing.

JR

 

[maurin]

JR,

I LOVE Peter Maurin. Dorothy Day, too–minus her politics.

The Good Archbishop Lefebvre, may he rest in the Peace of Our Lord and one day be recognized as the Saint he is, absolutely felt pressure; the sources of that pressure were the liberal modernists who were having success in forcing out the Society from their seminary and mother house. But he did what he did out of love for the Church and especially for Our Lord and His Blessed Virgin Mother.

Each and every Rosary I pray is for the intention of a full reintegration of the Society into the life of the Church, a lifting of the excommunications from her Bishops, and for the Society to flourish and rejuvenate the Faith.

Peace to you JR. maurin

 

[JReducation]

JR,

I LOVE Peter Maurin. Dorothy Day, too–minus her politics.

The Good Archbishop Lefebvre, may he rest in the Peace of Our Lord and one day be recognized as the Saint he is, absolutely felt pressure; the sources of that pressure were the liberal modernists who were having success in forcing out the Society from their seminary and mother house. But he did what he did out of love for the Church and especially for Our Lord and His Blessed Virgin Mother.

Each and every Rosary I pray is for the intention of a full reintegration of the Society into the life of the Church, a lifting of the excommunications from her Bishops, and for the Society to flourish and rejuvenate the Faith.

Peace to you JR. maurin

I believe that Dorothy Day will be canonized some day. Pierre Maurin is in a precarious situation because of his status with his religious community. I’m not sure if that was ever cleaned up. Maybe you know. But his writings were awesome.

I believe that there is value to what you say regarding the presure that Lefebvre felt from the “modernists”. God knows the French Catholics can be a little extremist in both directions. And France has a serious moral problem. It is probably worse than any other nation in Europe. I also believe that there was internal presure within some elements in the Society who did not have the good Bishop’s best interests at heart and who did not care for John Paul II.

This is not unusual in the case of many founders. Brother Elias, was our third General Minister. He had his own agenda. He cornered Francis and caused him a great deal of sadness. Fortunately, Francis simply separated himself from Elias, even though Elias was his superior at the time. The separation weakened Elias’ grip on the community. Eventually, he was impeached and excommunicated. He did die in communion with the Church, after he renewed his vow of obedience to Francis and to the Pope.

St. Alphonsus Ligouri was also stressed from within. He eventually had to leave the Redemptorists, which he founded. He returned when those elements were gone.

St. Teresa of Avila experienced the same and so did John of the Cross with the Discalced Carmelites and the Carmelites of the Ancient Observance. Teresa never left the community, but faced many challenges from within. John of the Cross had to hide for a while until the heat cooled down.

Cardinal Ratzinger did not always agree with John Paul II, but they were truly very close. Ratzinger believed that John Paul was being guided by God and he trusted that faith. It worked in the end. He never expected to be John Paul’s successor. Today, he was the first to refer to John Paul as “The Great.”

Given this trend in history, it is not out of the question that Archbishop Lefebvre was in a tight situation between forces outside the Society and forces within. I cannot see any other reason for him to change his customary obedience to the Church even when he disagreed and expressed concern.

Something happened that had nothing to do with John Paul II. I can’t help but believe that his mind was poisoned against John Paul. Because he and John Paul had a good relationship since the days of Vatican II, even though they disagreed on many practical matters. Lefebvre is said to have admired the genious and holiness of John Paul. This is not as evident in his latter days.

What went wrong and who was behind it? Only God knows for now. But I believe that the truth will come out and when it does there will be an accounting and hopefully a healing.

JR

 

[centurionguard]

Much can be said in support of Pope John Paul’s Ecclesia Dei Adflicta decision. Most catholics support the former pope’s canonical issues on this. However; there are a growing number of catholics today including clergy members who explicitly do not support the Novus Ordo Mass with all it’s liturgical abuses and New Age fanfare. While most can agree Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was canonically wrong to consecrate four bishops I can at least understand some of his reasoning and his disgust for the Protestanized Novus Ordo Mass procured by 33rd degree Mason Annibale Bugnini .
At least that is how I see today’s Catholic Mass compared to the Latin Rite. Gosh ! I can think of the countless number of Jesuits who left the New Ordered Modernized Catholic Church and went in hiding underground after 1963. Regardless however; I still pray and have a great love for my Church despite it’s frailty’s. IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN A CRISIS ? No doubt you could compile another thread on that question.
In 1965 an emmissary of his Emminence Archbiship Fulton J. Sheen answered questions regarding the implementation of the liturgical changes attributed to Vatican II Novus Ordo. This was a panel discussion eminating from Chicago, Illinois. It was stated “we are prepared to write off a generation of orthodoxy in order to fullfill these changes.” At that time it was my conclusion that my church left me. Since the inception of the internet, I have been made aware of the fact not only was I not alone, but there exists a large number of “write offs” in the Novus Ordo Mass. And as myself that are desirous of bringing back the Latin and Eastern Rite. New Age catholic revisionists are responsible for this catastrophe. I laud you and many others for your committment to the faith but truth must will out. Papal Encyclicals have been repleat with calls to return to the Latin Rite in a political way. I must accept the possibility that the pope is aware of the many potential problems that would arise from a direct confrontation with the revisionists and seems to be seeking a long term solution. if many did not have the education via the latin rite, your position is noted as you just don’t know as you were not taught. the church has left us liturgical “write offs” and I think it past time these liturgical “write offs” return to us.
Pax Domini.

 

[JReducation]

Much can be said in support of Pope John Paul’s Ecclesia Dei Adflicta decision. Most catholics support the former pope’s canonical issues on this. However; there are a growing number of catholics today including clergy members who explicitly do not support the Novus Ordo Mass with all it’s liturgical abuses and New Age fanfare. While most can agree Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was canonically wrong to consecrate four bishops I can at least understand some of his reasoning and his disgust for the Protestanized Novus Ordo Mass procured by 33rd degree Mason Annibale Bugnini .
At least that is how I see today’s Catholic Mass compared to the Latin Rite. Gosh ! I can think of the countless number of Jesuits who left the New Ordered Modernized Catholic Church and went in hiding underground after 1963. Regardless however; I still pray and have a great love for my Church despite it’s frailty’s. IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN A CRISIS ? No doubt you could compile another thread on that question.
In 1965 an emmissary of his Emminence Archbiship Fulton J. Sheen answered questions regarding the implementation of the liturgical changes attributed to Vatican II Novus Ordo. This was a panel discussion eminating from Chicago, Illinois. It was stated “we are prepared to write off a generation of orthodoxy in order to fullfill these changes.” At that time it was my conclusion that my church left me. Since the inception of the internet, I have been made aware of the fact not only was I not alone, but there exists a large number of “write offs” in the Novus Ordo Mass. And as myself that are desirous of bringing back the Latin and Eastern Rite. New Age catholic revisionists are responsible for this catastrophe. I laud you and many others for your committment to the faith but truth must will out. Papal Encyclicals have been repleat with calls to return to the Latin Rite in a political way. I must accept the possibility that the pope is aware of the many potential problems that would arise from a direct confrontation with the revisionists and seems to be seeking a long term solution. if many did not have the education via the latin rite, your position is noted as you just don’t know as you were not taught. the church has left us liturgical “write offs” and I think it past time these liturgical “write offs” return to us.
Pax Domini.

However one believes that the Ordinary Form of the Mass was composed, the fact is that His Holiness has declared it the Ordinary Form for the Latin Rite and has called it holy.

Whether something comes from the back kitchen of the Vatican or is handed down to us through thousands of years of tradition, in the end, when the Holy Father speaks, the case is closed. The Novus Ordo is the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite and we have to accept that. We can make it beautiful and solemn, but we cannot wish it away when the Church tells us that it is not going away.

It is our duty as Catholics to support the wisdom of the Holy Father and to speak words of reconciliation, not throw more mud into the ring. That will not make things better, not will it make us better Christians. It will certainly not make us Instruments of Peace.

An Instrument of Peace is one who who as St. Augustine said to his friars, “Works in harmony with the Church, not one who reluctantly goes along.”

To put it as St. Francis said, “An Instrument of Peace only speaks words that will bring peace to souls, not further pain, anger and resentment.”

Fraternally,

JR