The Battle of Rome

[Dragonslayer]

Well, half of the equation we 110% know for sure is in heaven at this point!

I’ve seen some harsh “fire’n’brimstone” posts here directed towards those outside the Church, and I’ve always wondered how they reconcile that attitude with the excommunication of His Grace.

I’m not entirely sure which half you are referring to, , but I’m sure Archbishop Leverbre is there as well. I would find it hard for him to intercede in our prayers if he wasn’t, and I have seen proof of such intercession.

 

[Melchior_1]

I’m not entirely sure which half you are referring to, , but I’m sure Archbishop Leverbre is there as well. I would find it hard for him to intercede in our prayers if he wasn’t, and I have seen proof of such intercession.

The Blessed half, of course!

I hope His Grace is in Heaven, just as I hope everyone is in Heaven. I also hope that traditionalists who think that he is are just as merciful to others who die while excommunicated.

 

[Dragonslayer]

The Blessed half, of course!

I hope His Grace is in Heaven, just as I hope everyone is in Heaven. I also hope that traditionalists who think that he is are just as merciful to others who die while excommunicated.

Yes, especially when not all excommunications are just. A recent saint, Saint Mary Mackillop had been excommunicated unjustly. Saint Joan of Arc died while excommunicated.

Considering that we know the Church will always prevail, I believe history will treat Archbishop Levebre more kindly than today.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

Yes, especially when not all excommunications are just. A recent saint, Saint Mary Mackillop had been excommunicated unjustly. Saint Joan of Arc died while excommunicated.

Considering that we know the Church will always prevail, I believe history will treat Archbishop Levebre more kindly than today.

Indeed there was a time when the Church suffered through the Arian Crisis, in the words of St. Jerome (paraphrasing) “the world woke up, and found itself to be Arian.” St. Athanasius was deprived of his See (he was Pope of Alexandria) and declared disobedient by a Bishop of Rome who was dominated by Arian heretics. The Church recovered after about fifty years of the Crisis (during which time she survived amongst the minority of clergy and laity who retained orthodoxy and tradition). In the same way I’m certain that one day, the Church shall rid Herself of the shackles of Modernism, and His Grace will be vindicated!

 

[Melchior_1]

Yes, especially when not all excommunications are just. A recent saint, Saint Mary Mackillop had been excommunicated unjustly. Saint Joan of Arc died while excommunicated.

Considering that we know the Church will always prevail, I believe history will treat Archbishop Levebre more kindly than today.

Agreed, but in this case the excommunication was quite just. His Grace needed to be punished for his actions, lest other traditionalists or modernists perform the same actions.

In this sense, His Grace proved to be everything he fought against. Going directly against the orders of the Pope and doing exactly what he was told not to do, like so many modernists before him.

He’s a good fellow, but I can’t accept the “end justifies the means” mentality.

 

[Hokomai]

If I understand American idiom correctly, let me make it clear that I don’t have a dog in this fight. However, I was surprised when I read Bp Fellay’s sermon to see this:

But I may say that there is something worse. On the one hand, you have this desire to put the Old Mass at the disposal of all the souls in the whole world. But then you have paragraph 19 which says that those who want to be the beneficiaries of this must neither belong to groups nor even help those who are against the New Mass. But 95 percent of those who want the Old Mass are against the New Mass! Why do we want the Old Mass? If we were satisfied with the New, we wouldn’t even think about the Old one! Those who are against the validity or the legitimacy of the New Mass are deprived of the Old one. For them: nothing! That is no longer an act of reconciliation; that’s an act of war!

Now can someone explain to me how this can be read as anything other than Bp Fellay supporting or at least accepting as reasonable the views of those who think the new Mass is invalid? Surely this means he thinks every Mass said by John Paull II since 1965 was invalid? How can someone who thinks this be considered a Catholic? Why is Rome talking to him?

 

[TrueLight]

If I understand American idiom correctly, let me make it clear that I don’t have a dog in this fight. However, I was surprised when I read Bp Fellay’s sermon to see this:

Now can someone explain to me how this can be read as anything other than Bp Fellay supporting or at least accepting as reasonable the views of those who think the new Mass is invalid? Surely this means he thinks every Mass said by John Paull II since 1965 was invalid? How can someone who thinks this be considered a Catholic? Why is Rome talking to him?

Ah. That IS what you should ask yourself and not only that.

Rome cannot condone disobedience; however she did come to recognize the legitimacy of the spiritual need that some have for the old mass and the FSSP and others were born.

 

[hudson]

Agreed, but in this case the excommunication was quite just. His Grace needed to be punished for his actions, lest other traditionalists or modernists perform the same actions.

“Just” according to you, which means absolutely zero. Look at what the heretical priests in Austria are saying and doing now. Then think about where our Church would be heading without men like the Archbishop. Make no mistake there is a battle going on.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Now can someone explain to me how this can be read as anything other than Bp Fellay supporting or at least accepting as reasonable the views of those who think the new Mass is invalid? Surely this means he thinks every Mass said by John Paull II since 1965 was invalid? How can someone who thinks this be considered a Catholic? Why is Rome talking to him?

JP-II was elected Pope in 78. And took on the responsibility of re-translating the Mass in Latin and then again from Latin to English. This goes into effect this November 2011. So Pope Benedict is finishing what JP-II started in this regard. And slowly many change’s have been made.

However, what is important is that open dialogue remains intact. There could nothing gained by refusal of speaking to each other, regardless of what difference’s exist. The issue is not with those raised in V-I. The issue is those raised with the NO Mass of V-II.

Just this week I listened to Mother Angelica speak on receiveing communion in the hands which she is totally opposed to. However is quick to note its approved either way. I watched Fr Mitch Pacwa serve Mass and no-one received communion in their hands. All kneeled while receiving communion. However, he belongs to the Society of Jesus and here is their choice and thinking. However, he did the Mass in a NO template translating in a few languages. I could go on with what I see wrong with the Mass today, however I trust in this Novembers changes.

So there’s an aura of needed change to some degree, and I believe the Sept 14th meeting will produce postive results.

I don’t believe anything went over Pope Benedicts head in this regard. I believe its correct to trust his path today. He see’s with clarity and understands thus knows what must be done. He also seperates fact from fiction very quickly.

I see the Society of Pius very much in the same light that we witnessed the issue’s with the Society of Jesus with JP-II. Devote followers of the Catholic Faith who wish to aire their differences and correct any issue and make amends.

We advocate following Pope Benedict XVI here. However it must be noted and realized, that to keep the faith and not follow when one truly believes they are keeping the faith is not an error, that “is” keeping the faith. The truth is the truth if only one believes it. We have also seen this happen with St Padre Pio, and many other in time, Catherine of Sienna etc. When one has a spiritual calling they are then commited to follow what they are communicated by the Holy Spirit. There is no wrong there’s a difference of opinion. Time and Gods Will, thus corrects the difference.

Peace

 

[Warrenton]

I see the Society of Pius very much in the same light that we witnessed the issue’s with the Society of Jesus with JP-II. Devote followers of the Catholic Faith who wish to aire their differences and correct any issue and make amends.
Peace

It is similar, but the differences are somewhat distinct.

One thing that distinguishes Catholics from most other churches is that we have a strong idea of obedience, not only to our traditions but to each other. Because we are unique in that way, we naturally tend to focus on it, and the “battle of Rome” becomes an issue of obedience or not.

I do not believe the issue is fundamentally about obedience. Instead, it is about how ritual and worship developes in the Catholic church. Certainly since Trent, the Catholic Church has gone through a period where changes were generally imposed from the top down. However, there have also been changes that come from the bottom up - miraculous medals, the prayers of Fatima, are examples of popular changes.

In that context, Vatican 2 is something of a paradox: hoping to open the way for more popular changes, the implementers of council ideas hit the high note of top-down impostion of change, by abolishing most of the ancient rites and relpacing them with with new forms.

Something unexpected then happened: some people refused to abandon the old ways. Within its own logic, the council proponents should have said “great - the council is working like we intended.” But, because of Catholic exceptionalism, and our tendency to focus on obedience, they did not, and confusion set in.

Vatican 2 was correct in that it recognized that the trends that carried centralization were reversing, and would continue to reverse in the future - which is our present. In a negative way, the abuse scandals prove it: hundreds of priests worldwide just disobeyed, and there was no way to reign them in. The traditional Catholic movement is a positive aspect of the same decentralizing phenomenom.

It will help all sides to recall that the Catholic Church has existed with much less centralization, and that centralization is not the same as obedience. The Celtic Church was completely Catholic, but also much more autonomous than even a place like Holland now. The medieval Church possessed an astonishing number of different ways of doing the same thing, and we will probably move back to that method over time.

Striking the balance of local control and popular devotion is critical. Focusing on the technicalities of obedience, while familiar to both sides, hearkens back to ideals of papal control that do not fit modern circumstances.

 

[Melchior_1]

“Just” according to you, which means absolutely zero. Look at what the heretical priests in Austria are saying and doing now. Then think about where our Church would be heading without men like the Archbishop. Make no mistake there is a battle going on.

There is a battle, and people need to be mindful of how they fight it. You do not fight heresy with heresy, and you do not fight disobedience with disobedience. Make no mistake; the root cause of heresy, sin, and the like is simple disobedience. It even starts from the beginning - God said “do not eat from the Tree”, and man proceeded to do just that.

To draw parallels, in several fiction stories we see the good guys say something along the lines of “if you go down this path, you will become what you hate”.

Lets say, for example, there was a “crisis” on the scale His Grace thought. This crisis was caused by disobedience of modernists. So how does one fight that? You certainly do not fight it with disobedience, because then you become just like them. You splinter off and have to answer awkward questions about if the Confessions you offer are legit.

Right now, His Grace’s legacy is one of confusion and near schism. He died excommunicated, his current Priestly followers have no canonical faculties. This is his legacy, born from disobedience. If the SSPX gets brought back into the fold, it will be despite his actions, no because of them.

I respect that he felt that action needed to be taken, but I do not respect the actions that he took. I am not alone with this, my opinions mirror that of several people. Specifically, my opinions mirror those of JP2, who obviously wasn’t pleased with His Grace’s actions. I hope he’s Heaven, but I cannot condone or respect the actions of a clergyman who took the actions he did (modernists included).

 

[Warrenton]

There is a battle

 

[Warrenton]

We both looked into the abyss, but when it looked back as us…you blinked.

This would actually be two differences: when we were both supposed to be looking into the abyss, instead, you were looking at me!

 

[Melchior_1]

I said disobedience is at the root of things, it’s not the only thing.

The example you give regarding how the SSPX could have acted is just as divisive as what they are doing now. The way you mentioned is hurtful, but the method(s) they’re using now have resulted in such things as invalid Confessions and illicit Masses. Unless you, and others, think that’s a small price to pay.

The legacy His Grace leaves behind is certainly one of confusion and division. If it wasn’t, this wouldn’t be such a hot button issue now would it?

Your WW1 analogy is a bit flawed. Unless you’re referring to Rome having a terrible and non-effective plan in the battle for people’s souls, which at the time of the excommunication was being led by Blessed John Paul II.

The quote in my signature if from a film, from where Batman refuses to stoop down to the nihilistic level of an alternate Earth counterpart. Which, based on what I said in an earlier post about heroes crossing the line becoming like their villains, is apt.

 

[jmj1984]

I said disobedience is at the root of things, it’s not the only thing.

The example you give regarding how the SSPX could have acted is just as divisive as what they are doing now. The way you mentioned is hurtful, but the method(s) they’re using now have resulted in such things as invalid Confessions and illicit Masses. Unless you, and others, think that’s a small price to pay.

Arguably invalid confessions and arguably illicit Masses.

The legacy His Grace leaves behind is certainly one of confusion and division. If it wasn’t, this wouldn’t be such a hot button issue now would it?

Lets not forget the very fact that the 1962 roman breviary, missal and office are used is because of his grace, the traditionalist movement as a whole is his legacy and when weighed against that any confusion or division is a price worth paying.

Your WW1 analogy is a bit flawed. Unless you’re referring to Rome having a terrible and non-effective plan in the battle for people’s souls, which at the time of the excommunication was being led by Blessed John Paul II.

Your point being? There are now less catholics than ever, more heterodox catholics than ever and the greatest blatant opposition to the will of rome and outright heresy at any time since the reformation. It appears that Romes ‘methods’ may need changing.

Apologies for butting in but as a great ‘fan’ of his grace, I could hardly say nothing on his behalf.

 

[Melchior_1]

Arguably invalid confessions and arguably illicit Masses.

There isn’t any arguing on these, actually. This has been made quite clear on these boards and elsewhere; the Confessions being heard aren’t valid because you need the faculties to perform them. The Priests of the Society do not have said faculties. Due to being suspended, their Masses are just as illicit as the “clown Masses” people bring up.

Lets not forget the very fact that the 1962 roman breviary, missal and office are used is because of his grace, the traditionalist movement as a whole is his legacy and when weighed against that any confusion or division is a price worth paying.

Well, first off you’re advocating the ends justifying the means. People a lot of times, including when trying to advocate things against Church teaching.

Further, what we know now is that Blessed John Paul II had several traditional advisers. Out current Pope was one of them. His advisers who were more charismatic (such as the papal preacher) were/are Traditional, therefore they also respected traditional practices. With the rise of BXVI, we could just as easily look at the items you listed and say that those things would have gained prominence thanks to Benedict’s efforts.

Your point being? There are now less catholics than ever, more heterodox catholics than ever and the greatest blatant opposition to the will of rome and outright heresy at any time since the reformation. It appears that Romes ‘methods’ may need changing.

My point being is that you may think you have a better way to do things, that doesn’t mean that:

A) It’s right.
B) You have the right to go against the Pope when he outright personally tells you “don’t do this”.

Rome can do a lot of things better (like their PR). But Canon Law is Canon Law, and the Pope said it didn’t apply. So it didn’t apply. And for all we know more Catholics would have stayed if he stayed. For that matter, some members leave the SSPX and go to places like the SSPV or “consistent Catholicism”.

Apologies for butting in but as a great ‘fan’ of his grace, I could hardly say nothing on his behalf.

No apologies required, you’re entitled to your opinion. Personally, I find it to be a bit hypocritical though. THIS act of disobedience was fine, THIS disobedient man should be canonized. All the while those same people question JP2’s motives and speak harshly of, say, priests in Austria. One inaccurate headline about an Archbishop in Scotland gets people riled up.

Did His Grace get what he wanted? Who knows? But was it worth the possible loss of souls?

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR WARNING

1. Proselytizing for the SSPX is not allowed.
2. Disparaging remarks about the SSPX bishops is not allowed either. Regardless of their circumstances, they are bishops.
3. ALL bishops, no exceptions, are to be spoken about respectfully on this fourm.

 

[ProVobis]

Now can someone explain to me how this can be read as anything other than Bp Fellay supporting or at least accepting as reasonable the views of those who think the new Mass is invalid?

I have heard this too but this view doesn’t seem to make sense. If you compare the Canon of the EF with the Latin EP1, you’d find them to be almost the same. If one is valid, certainly the other one is. Just trying to be objective here.

 

[Warrenton]

The example you give regarding how the SSPX could have acted is just as divisive as what they are doing now. The way you mentioned is hurtful, but the method(s) they’re using now have resulted in such things as invalid Confessions and illicit Masses. Unless you, and others, think that’s a small price to pay.

 

[Warrenton]

I have heard this too but this view doesn’t seem to make sense. If you compare the Canon of the EF with the Latin EP1, you’d find them to be almost the same. If one is valid, certainly the other one is. Just trying to be objective here.

Questioning the validity of rites is a logical necessity of the “battle” mentality. The battle mentality arises from the lack of structures for dealing with dissent. One the one hand, the Church is like an empire, with its king, nobles, and deliberative bodies. But the analogy only extends so far, because the purpose of the Church is not to at essence governmental. At essence, the Church is more like a family.

How do families deal with dissent - even serious dissent? When is a son or daughter no longer a son or daughter? Ever?

If CAF has done one thing for me, it has convinced me of the folly of perceiving other Catholics and Christians as “at war” with me. Concord is a gift that we need to earn. I think we earn it through charity toward each other. This does not mean weakness, or refusal to go to bat for what we think is right - but it does require an acceptance of the possibility that the other side has the right to pursue a separate line from mine.