The Reform of the Roman Breviary

[maurin]

Tim, I think this exchange is a pretty good example of selective hearing…

If “the NO is a complete break from Tradition” because of its “non-organic” revision, then is the Breviary, with its “non-organic” revision, also a “break from Tradition, too?” Remember, the reformed Breviary was not just a case of simple “additions,” but a total, radically recast effort.

I get this from his statement, “The same with the Breviary. Until the new Breviary, all additions were quite organic.”

…because I had already put to rest your misunderstanding with this post:

I said nothing of the kind. I said the ‘new Breviary’ in reference to the one which is in common use today.

now you can continue to either misunderstand what I said without asking for more clarification–which I have already offered, or you can continue to misrepresent what I said. Either way, you’re only arguing a straw-man.

 

[Yours_Truly]

No, he’s saying the changes to the Pian breviary were organic the same as the Johanine changes to the missal. The Pauline mass was a break with tradition …

Exactly.

The Pope’s authority is bound to Tradition, and that includes the liturgy. He does not have the authority to make up a mass. He is bound to Tradition just like any other Catholic. He does have supreme jurisdiction and can modifiy disciplines, but he does not have the authority to manufacture a new Mass - at least not according to the following words of our new Pope prior to his election.

**Cardinal Ratzinger: **“After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . .” (The Spirit of the Liturgy, pg 165-166)."

Yet this is exactly what Pope Paul VI did, or allowed to happen. He replaced the Traditional Mass, which had grown organically over the centuries, with a fabricated liturgy - a banal on-the-spot product.

**Cardinal Ratzinger: **“What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of the liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product”.

In the first quote he says the Pope does not have the authority to “manufacture” a liturgy. In the second quote he says that this is exactly what happened. The conclusion is unavoidable: Pope Paul VI exceeded his authority when he created the “banal on-the-spot product” known as the Novus Ordo. But not only did he do that. Conspiring with the rest of the hierarchy, he illegally supressed the True Mass, thereby forcing all to attend his illicit “mass” - that now has the wrong words of consecration!

Thankfully, our new Pope had the courage to admit that it was all a big lie perpetrated by the Popes and Bishops in union with then. Contrary to all that had been said and done by the hierarchy for the previous 37, years our new Pope had the courage to admit that the Old Mass was actually permitted the entire time - it was all one big deception - an illusion. This must have been the greatest fraud perpetrated on Catholics since the beginning of the Church age. I personally know of no other time in Church history when such a thing has taken place. No wonder the Church is in the litugical condition that it is - not to mention the doctrinal condtion.

Thankfully we had the SSPX and other like-minded Catholics who refused to go along with the lie. These groups were hated by the deceivers in the hierarchy, but they received, as their reward, a strong faith. It is these Traditionalists who will restore the Church. God raised them up to preserve the faith during the great apostasy of the past 40 years. Like St. Athasius and St. Hilary of old, they stood virtually alone against heretics in high places, and refused to accept, as true, errors that had been formally condemned by the Church (in this case, the heresy of religious liberty and false ecumenism). Let us thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre the Great and his supporters who stood firm in the faith and refused to allow heretics to lead them into error. Thankfully Archbishop Lefebvre even had the courage to Consecrate Bishops who would then be able to Ordain Priests trained to say the old Mass, which was being illegally supressed by the hierarchy.

Let us thank God for the good that our current Pope is now doing, and pray that Archbishop Lefebvre the Great will be raised to the altars “subito”.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

the wrong words of consecration!

Your Truly,

What do you mean, exactly? What happens when you have the wrong words of consecration?

Thanks,
VC

 

[Yours_Truly]

Your Truly,

What do you mean, exactly? What happens when you have the wrong words of consecration?

Thanks,
VC

In the vernacular the words pro multis are mistransalted as “for all”. These are the wrong words. In fact, the Church has explained why Jesus did not use the words “for all” in this place. The reason is that the words in question (for many) refer only to the “fruit” of our Lord’s Passion - that is those who will be saved - “the elect”. The following is explanation found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent

Catechism of Trent: “The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind has received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles. WITH REASON, THEREFORE, WERE THE WORDS FOR ALL NOT USED, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.”

The same teaching can be found in the Summa of St. Thomas and the writings of St. Alphonsus, who said the following:

St. Alphonsus: "St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on the Holy Eucharist: "The words for you and for many are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the Blood of Our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applied only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault…”

Now, the question you alluded to is this: Will these incorrect words invalidate the consecration? Here’s what the Council of Florence taught. First it gives the FORM (words) for Consecration

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441: “…the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul… uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord’s Body: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And of His blood: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS."

Notice that the Council includes as part of the FORM all of the words, not just “This is the Chalice of My Blood”. Next, the council says what will happen if any of these words are changed.

Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1: “The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. **Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament.” **

So, according to this General Council of the Church, if a word is changed, and if the new word does not mean what the old word meant, consecration would not take place. In other words, the “mass” would be invalid and no better than the invalid Anglical liturgy.

Now since “for all” not only means something different than “for many”, the conclusions are troubling - for those who attend the Novus Ordo.

At the very least, the change in words causes a reasonable doubt as to the validity, based on what the Council of Florence teaches;and given the principal of dubius sacramentum non sacramentum, I think the Novus Ordo should, for that reason alone (not to mention all of the other reason), be avoided.

 

[cam100]

Exactly.

The Pope’s authority is bound to Tradition, and that includes the liturgy. He does not have the authority to make up a mass. He is bound to Tradition just like any other Catholic. He does have supreme jurisdiction and can modifiy disciplines, but he does not have the authority to manufacture a new Mass - at least not according to the following words of our new Pope prior to his election.

**Cardinal Ratzinger: **“After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . .” (The Spirit of the Liturgy, pg 165-166)."

Yet this is exactly what Pope Paul VI did, or allowed to happen. He replaced the Traditional Mass, which had grown organically over the centuries, with a fabricated liturgy - a banal on-the-spot product.

**Cardinal Ratzinger: **“What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of the liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. **We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development **over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product”.

In the first quote he says the Pope does not have the authority to “manufacture” a liturgy. In the second quote he says that this is exactly what happened. The conclusion is unavoidable: Pope Paul VI exceeded his authority when he created the “banal on-the-spot product” known as the Novus Ordo. But not only did he do that. Conspiring with the rest of the hierarchy, he illegally supressed the True Mass, thereby forcing all to attend his illicit “mass” - that now has the wrong words of consecration!

Thankfully, our new Pope had the courage to admit that it was all a big lie perpetrated by the Popes and Bishops in union with then. Contrary to all that had been said and done by the hierarchy for the previous 37, years our new Pope had the courage to admit that the Old Mass was actually permitted the entire time - it was all one big deception - an illusion. This must have been the greatest fraud perpetrated on Catholics since the beginning of the Church age. I personally know of no other time in Church history when such a thing has taken place. No wonder the Church is in the litugical condition that it is - not to mention the doctrinal condtion.

You are clearly misunderstanding Cardinal Ratzinger. He was NOT saying that the Novus Ordo is illicit. If he actually believed that, he wouldn’t have been celebrating the Mass according to the Novus Ordo missal for all these years! It is obvious that Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, treasures the Traditional Mass. But he continues to celebrate the Novus Ordo, as well. That simply wouldn’t make sense if he really thought that the Novus Ordo was illicit.

 

[Chatter163]

If “the NO is a complete break from Tradition” because of its “non-organic” revision, then is the Breviary, with its “non-organic” revision, also a “break from Tradition, too?” Remember, the reformed Breviary was not just a case of simple “additions,” but a total, radically recast effort.

I get this from his statement, “The same with the Breviary. Until the new Breviary, all additions were quite organic.”

And what does this have to do with the breviary of St. Piux X???

 

[JReducation]

And what does this have to do with the breviary of St. Piux X???

I second that question and add another. Since when did the breviary of St. Pius X become the only breviary in the Catholic Church? Such has never been the case. St. Pius’ breviary is the Roman Breviary, true enough. However, the Roman Breviary was never the only breviary in the Church and is still not the only breviary in the Church of the west.

As I pointed out above, the large religous orders have used their own form of the breviary, uninterruptedly for over 500 years.

Why do we want to pretent that the Roman Breviary is the only lawful or legitimate Latin Rite breviary? That makes no sense given the history of the Liturgy of the Hours.

My religious family was founded in 1209 and has never used the Roman Breviary. First we used the Office of the Passion written by St. Francis. Later we used the Breviary promulgated by the Minister General, St. Bonaventure, and later the Roman-Franciscan Breviary, which is a merger.

After Vatican II we used Christian Prayer until the new edition of the Roman-Franciscan Breviary was written and approved by the Sacred Congregation on the Liturgy. Now we have the four volume Roman-Franciscan Breviary, which has some significant differences in the Franciscan addendum.

This is the same for Carmelites, Benedictines, Dominicans, and Augustinians. None use the Roman Breviary of St. Pius X as it was published and have never done so. That breviary is more common among the secular clergy, the laity, secular instututes, and religious congregations of simple vows.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[malphono]

I second that question and add another. Since when did the breviary of St. Pius X become the only breviary in the Catholic Church? Such has never been the case. St. Pius’ breviary is the Roman Breviary, true enough. However, the Roman Breviary was never the only breviary in the Church and is still not the only breviary in the Church of the west.

As I pointed out above, the large religous orders have used their own form of the breviary, uninterruptedly for over 500 years.

Why do we want to pretent that the Roman Breviary is the only lawful or legitimate Latin Rite breviary? That makes no sense given the history of the Liturgy of the Hours.

My religious family was founded in 1209 and has never used the Roman Breviary. First we used the Office of the Passion written by St. Francis. Later we used the Breviary promulgated by the Minister General, St. Bonaventure, and later the Roman-Franciscan Breviary, which is a merger.

After Vatican II we used Christian Prayer until the new edition of the Roman-Franciscan Breviary was written and approved by the Sacred Congregation on the Liturgy. Now we have the four volume Roman-Franciscan Breviary, which has some significant differences in the Franciscan addendum.

This is the same for Carmelites, Benedictines, Dominicans, and Augustinians. None use the Roman Breviary of St. Pius X as it was published and have never done so. That breviary is more common among the secular clergy, the laity, secular instututes, and religious congregations of simple vows.

Fraternally,

JR

With all respect, I am well aware of the proper Offices of the various Orders, (I have one volume of the old Berviarium Seraphicum and the Breviarium Cisterciense (sp) (which seems to be missing in your listing) somewhere, as well as full set of the Breviarium Carmelitanum), and so I have but to agree with that part of the post. And yes, the Breviarium Romanum applies mainly to secular clergy, etc. No argument there, either. (I am not engaging in a discussion of any post-conciliar “variations” in any of the ancient offices.)

Some will pretend that the Roman Breviary is universal, just as they will claim that the Mass of Trent is universal, all the while ignoring the Carmelite (albeit moribund), Dominican, Cistercian, and Carthusian Missals, all of which which pre-date Trent by well over 200 years, and were never suppressed. (I am not engaging in a discussion of any post-conciliar “variations” in any of the ancient Missals either.) Add the territorial Ambrosian, Mozarabic, and Brangan usages to that list. (And again, I am not dealing with any post-conciliar aberrations to any of them, although I think only the Ambrosian suffered at those hands.) In short, those who pretend that Roman Breviary is (or ever was) universal are in error.

Those Offices, (just as in the case of the Missals), in continuous use for at least 200 years before Trent, were never suppressed. Now, what happened to any of those Offices at the hands of their own masters, is a different question, and one which I am not competent to delve into.

 

[JReducation]

With all respect, I am well aware of the proper Offices of the various Orders, (I have one volume of the old Berviarium Seraphicum and the Breviarium Cisterciense (sp) (which seems to be missing in your listing) somewhere, as well as full set of the Breviarium Carmelitanum), and so I have but to agree with that part of the post. And yes, the Breviarium Romanum applies mainly to secular clergy, etc. No argument there, either. (I am not engaging in a discussion of any post-conciliar “variations” in any of the ancient offices.)

Some will pretend that the Roman Breviary is universal, just as they will claim that the Mass of Trent is universal, all the while ignoring the Carmelite (albeit moribund), Dominican, Cistercian, and Carthusian Missals, all of which which pre-date Trent by well over 200 years, and were never suppressed. (I am not engaging in a discussion of any post-conciliar “variations” in any of the ancient Missals either.) Add the territorial Ambrosian, Mozarabic, and Brangan usages to that list. (And again, I am not dealing with any post-conciliar aberrations to any of them, although I think only the Ambrosian suffered at those hands.) In short, those who pretend that Roman Breviary is (or ever was) universal are in error.

Those Offices, (just as in the case of the Missals), in continuous use for at least 200 years before Trent, were never suppressed. Now, what happened to any of those Offices at the hands of their own masters, is a different question, and one which I am not competent to delve into.

First, I didn’t list the Cistercian breviary, because I grouped all the branches of the Benedictine family under one label, Benedictine. Yes, you are correct. Each branch of the Benedictine family has its own breviary, lectionary and missal.

The changes made to the different breviaries after Vatican II were the result of the Chapters of each order. Some were not changed, simply translated into modern languages or at least the modern language of Europe, as was the case with the Franciscan breviary. The most commonly used edition is the Spanish language breviary.

Other changes made was the movement of Matins to the Office of Readings to allow for those communities that do not rise in the middle of the night to pray the Office of Readings at any time during the day. The old Latin names were replaced by translations into the modern languages. Vespers became Evening prayer and so forth. But the form remained the same.

Some of the psalms and readings of each day were changed to correspond to the mass of the day. This is very complex process because the liturgical calendar is not absolutely universal. What I mean is that not every nation celebrates the same holy days 365 days a year. There are holy days that are particular to certain regions, nations, dioceses and religious communities. Preparing the liturgical guide and calendars for the Liturgy is no small project, as some may think. There have always been cultural elements in the liturgy, even when there was the Tridentine mass and the older breviaries.

Just an example from my own religious family. Our five major holy days have always been: Easter, Christmas, Immaculate Conception, Solemnity of St. Francis and Solemnity of St. Clare. There is very little difference in the solemnity, the music, the the awe and reverence between these four holy days. I have listed them in order of priority, lest anyone think that we do not follow the proper order.

In other communities: religious, dioceses, nations and prelatures, the holy days are different. Even though the form was the same, the prayers, readings, psalms, hymns and other liturgical action varied accordingly.

The desire of a unified breviary is really a dream that never existed within the Catholic Church, neither the West nor the East. The same can apply to the missal and Gospel book. The commons were named such, because that part was universal. The rest was never universal.

The “owners” of the different breviaries made changes according to their needs. For example, St. Francis took all Gregorian chant out of the breviary for his order. It was to be recited, never chanted, though appropriate hymns could be included. This was done in 1221. After Vatican II, Paul VI gave the Franciscan a special indult to chant the office if they desired to do so. The General Chapter then voted on it and said that it could only be done if the local community voted on it and decided to do so. But this is an indult to this day. The rule still stands. The Divine Office must be recited unless it is voted on by the local community. The same applied to certain parts of the mass, they had to be recited, not chanted. Later Paul VI also gave an indult for a fully chanted mass.

Among Carthusians, the indult was the opposite. The indult was that the Divine Office could be recited if the local abbey voted on it and so forth with the different traditions.

They are still considered choral forms of the office, even when they are recited. The other change that came out of Vatican II was the praying the Divine Office under pain of mortal sin was lifted. But the obligation was not lifted. All clerics and religious in solemn vows as well as Secular Orders that belong to one of the Orders are bound to pray the Liturgy of the Hours. The number of hours that they are bound to pray varies from one community to another. Secular clergy are bound to pray Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, Office of Readings and Night Prayer, unless the local bishop prescribes something else. But they are not bound to pray in choir.

The reason for eliminating the choral Divine Office for the secular clergy is because the choir is proper to religious, not secular men and women. Diocesan deacons, priests and bishops are secular men.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[diggerdomer]

Exactly.

The Pope’s authority is bound to Tradition, and that includes the liturgy. He does not have the authority to make up a mass. He is bound to Tradition just like any other Catholic. He does have supreme jurisdiction and can modifiy disciplines, but he does not have the authority to manufacture a new Mass - at least not according to the following words of our new Pope prior to his election.

**Cardinal Ratzinger: **“After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . .” (The Spirit of the Liturgy, pg 165-166)."

Yet this is exactly what Pope Paul VI did, or allowed to happen. He replaced the Traditional Mass, which had grown organically over the centuries, with a fabricated liturgy - a banal on-the-spot product.

**Cardinal Ratzinger: **“What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of the liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. **We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development **over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product”.

In the first quote he says the Pope does not have the authority to “manufacture” a liturgy. In the second quote he says that this is exactly what happened. The conclusion is unavoidable: Pope Paul VI exceeded his authority when he created the “banal on-the-spot product” known as the Novus Ordo. But not only did he do that. Conspiring with the rest of the hierarchy, he illegally supressed the True Mass, thereby forcing all to attend his illicit “mass” - that now has the wrong words of consecration!

Thankfully, our new Pope had the courage to admit that it was all a big lie perpetrated by the Popes and Bishops in union with then. Contrary to all that had been said and done by the hierarchy for the previous 37, years our new Pope had the courage to admit that the Old Mass was actually permitted the entire time - it was all one big deception - an illusion. This must have been the greatest fraud perpetrated on Catholics since the beginning of the Church age. I personally know of no other time in Church history when such a thing has taken place. No wonder the Church is in the litugical condition that it is - not to mention the doctrinal condtion.

Thankfully we had the SSPX and other like-minded Catholics who refused to go along with the lie. These groups were hated by the deceivers in the hierarchy, but they received, as their reward, a strong faith. It is these Traditionalists who will restore the Church. God raised them up to preserve the faith during the great apostasy of the past 40 years. Like St. Athasius and St. Hilary of old, they stood virtually alone against heretics in high places, and refused to accept, as true, errors that had been formally condemned by the Church (in this case, the heresy of religious liberty and false ecumenism). Let us thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre the Great and his supporters who stood firm in the faith and refused to allow heretics to lead them into error. Thankfully Archbishop Lefebvre even had the courage to Consecrate Bishops who would then be able to Ordain Priests trained to say the old Mass, which was being illegally supressed by the hierarchy.

Let us thank God for the good that our current Pope is now doing, and pray that Archbishop Lefebvre the Great will be raised to the altars “subito”.

Since you apparently know more than the Popes, please give us more specific references for the sources you cite, i.e. links to the actual references that we can read for ourselves. I’m not necessarily disputing your citations, but it would help your position if you shared the actual references you’re claiming.

Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers have been either excommunicated and/or they’re in schism. I hardly think that’s an exemplary model for Catholics.

Cheers

 

[JReducation]

Since you apparently know more than the Popes, please give us more specific references for the sources you cite, i.e. links to the actual references that we can read for ourselves. I’m not necessarily disputing your citations, but it would help your position if you shared the actual references you’re claiming.

Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers have been either excommunicated and/or they’re in schism. I hardly think that’s an exemplary model for Catholics.

Cheers

This is especially true when the Holy Father LIFTED the excommunication. He did not declare it invalid as some want to claim.

In addition, in his letter to the bishops concerning the lifting of the excommunication he refers to some of the statements made by the members of the Society as “arrogant”.

He also says that he wants to reinforce that although the excommunication is lifted, the clergy of the Society have no canonical place in the Church and neither does the Society. He states very clearly that they cannot licitly celebrate the sacraments; therefore, they are still suspended.

He does mention that there are many good people in the Society and I believe there are and so do many other Catholics. He mentions that he believes that those who have become priests in the Society really want to serve Christ and many of us believe that too.

But he does not defend the Society’s actions or those of Archbishop Lefebvre, nor did he lift the deceased Archbishop’s excommunication or declare it invalid. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the Archbishop, with his good intentions, died an excommunicated priest. You cannot canonize an excommunicated person.

You have to declare the excommunication invalid. Benedict did not do so either in the case of the Archbishop or that of the four bishops.

Here is the letter.

**He said his overture to Bishop Williamson and the other three bishops of the Society of St. Pius X was designed to close a wound and bring unity to the church, by lifting excommunications incurred in 1988 and opening the way to dialogue with the society.

The pope said he recognized that disturbing statements have often come from the society’s leadership, reflecting “arrogance and presumptuousness.” But he said he has also witnessed “an openness of hearts” among some members.

thefloridacatholic.org/pope/pope_articles/20090311_pope_responds.php

**

This letter is all over the Internet. The case does not look as easy or as good as some would like it to be or as dismal either.

The facts speak for themselves. We have a Society that is suspended with an excommunicated founder.

Some may argue that other excommunications were lifted after death. That’s not entirely accurate. One that comes to mind is that of Joan of Arc. She was excommunicated by the bishop, but the Holy See found the excommunication to be invalid. There was nothing to lift.

My suggestion is to take both John Paul II and Benedict XVI at their word and follow along to see where this all goes. It’s sad, but life is not always fair and certainly never perfect.

Fraternally,

JR