How is it a mistake to continue and expand the Mass that the mainstream Latin Rite Church has celebrated for centuries? After all, it’s both a received and approved Catholic rite per Trent canons.Now, I do realize that many people feel that is exactly what happend when the novus ordo came out, and that it left many people angry and resentful, but didn’t we learn something then, and shouldn’t we look back at what happened and not make the same mistakes now?
You did not answer my question about when the SSPX said John Paul II should be made a saint. I never remember them saying that. I don’t think they ever said that because Archbishop LeFebvre did not agree with some of the things he was doing.You are not disagreeing with my post,. I’m just reporting what happened and how John Paul II became Venerable John Paul II. It is Pope Benedict with whom you’re disagreeing. You will have moral cunundrum if he is beatified and canonized. These are infallible statements from the Chair of Peter. Catholics must assent when the Church says that someone is a saint. They don’t have to pray to that saint, but they cannot question that person’s holiness. At this point, the Holy Father has closed any and all discussion on the holiness of John Paul II. There is no room in the Church for anyone to question it, because the Church tradition does not allow it.
As for the miracles there are two situations that must be considered.
FIRST: It must be proven that the miracle ocurred through the intercession of the deceased. Now . . . you say that this cannot be proven. But you’re deviating from tradition. The Church says that it can be proven. The proof is that the pope believes it. If there is a miracle and the pope believes that it was through the intercession of John Paul II, there is the proof. Peter has spoken.
SECOND: The miracles are not necessary for canonization. A pope can canonize without the miracles, without the studies of a person’s life and without the consent of the faithful and the canonization is still an infallible decree that must be accepted.
Pope Nicholas canonnized St. Clare 18 months after her death. He argued that she was a part of his order (he was a Franciscan Brother), that he had known her personally and there was no doubt that she was a saint. So he canonized her.
St. Francis, St. Anthony and St. Clare were never investigated. They were never Venerable or Blessed. They were burried and canonized.
Francis prayed with Muslims. He made a treaty with the Muslims not to preach to them or to the Jews if the Muslims would allow the Franciscans to pass through Jordan and Egypt to get to the Holy Land and if they would allow the brothers to establish a permanent community there. He promised that the community would serve the needs of Christians, Muslims and Jews and that the Catholic Church would not try to convert them. The deal was struck.
Francis came back to Rome with the agreement. Pope Honorius had never given permission for such an agreement. Francis persuaded him to accept, so that the friars could go to the Holy Land and serve the Christians who wanted to travel there. Honorius agreed. To this day the Franciscan Commisereate of the Holy Land has been in existence and it answers directly to the popes. They are an autonomous group of Franciscans. They have existed since 1228 and supported by every Pope. In fact, a percentage of every Good Friday collection goes to the Franciscan Commisereate and has been going since the time of Pius X. Pius X approved of it, because he too was a Franciscan.
If I’m not mistaken, Paul VI waved one of the miracles for the canonization of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton. The miracle wouldn’t come and so he decided that his conviction was enough. He wanted to do this before he died.
It’s not accurate to say that praying with people of other faiths was new. Francis had done it, Charles de Facould, who is also up for canonization, did it. Bl. John XXIII did it. And Bl. Mother Teresa did it. Charles de Facouls, John XXIII and Mother Teresa have all been beatified and had one miracle attributed to them. You can’t deny that they are Blessed or that these miracles happened through their intercession. That would be heresy. If the miracles happened through their intercession, then there is a seond sign of holiness. The first sign is always a person’s life. That’s the most important sign.
Unfortunately, Archbishop Lefebvre cannot be canonized, because he was excommunicated by a pope. This does not mean that the man is not in heaven. It simply means that the Church cannot evelate someone for public veneration when that person has committed an act of disobedience against a pope. I know that people argue that there is a canon in his favor, because there is a canon that speaks to fear, etc. But Pope Benedict has said that the canon does not apply to Archbishop Lefebvre. Once a pope says that a canon does not apply to you, there is nothing another pope can do to change that. That’s an infallible moral statement. Observe, the pope is not making a statement about the Archibishop’s soul. He’s only saying that the Archbishop died outside the Church.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
1.- Didn’t Benedict XVI want all parishes to atleast experiment with the TLM? So every priest and/or parish should be forced to offer atleast one TLM.I believe that these debates about the EF and OF are unnecessary for several reasons.
Fraternally,
- The EF has been opened up for those who want it.
- The OF is being revised.
- You cannot force any priest to celebrate the EF. The rule does not say that have to do so. It says that the bishop should make an attempt to have it available. But there is a glitch in the law. The only priests who can celebrate the EF without permission from a higher authority are secular priests. Priests who are religious can only celebrate it with the permission of their major superior. The major superior can only give permission if it does not create a conflict within the religious community. His primary obligation is not to the faithful, but to his religious. That being said, a bishop cannot order a secular priest to celebrate either form of the mass. He does not have that kind of authority over secular priests. They are not religious in vows. Therefore, he can only order what the Church allows him to order. This is not one of those things. The bishop has very little authority over the religious in his diocese. He must remain within the parameters of the law.
- Once the pope approves a form of the mass, EF and OF, it is the canonical form and it must be accepted by all. Our opinions on either form are irrelevant, because there are many opinions. The many opinions are in conflict with each other. You have to settle the issue. The only way to do so is to appeal to a central figure of authority. The pope can make a prudential judgment on the form of the mass and I do not have to agree with it. But since he is the highest authority in the Church, I have to accept it. Our parents made prudential judgments all the time. Some of them may have been mistakes. But the parent remains the parent and the child the child. The child is bound to obey the parent. It’s not a question of obeying the parent when he can prove himself to the child. The parent has a moral duty never to lead his child into a situation that he knows is sinful. He does not have a moral duty to be right all the time.
- No one has ever said that the form of the mass in the past was wrong. Changes are not always aboiut something being bad or wrong. They are often made out of pastoral necessity at a given time. This was very much the case with Summorum Pontificum. It was a pastoral necessity. It does not say that the Ordinary Form is bad. When the Ordinary From was introduced by Pope Paul VI, he never said that the Tridentine Form was bad. We have to move away from that mode of thinking that a change is a rejectioin. That’s not always the case. It certainly was not the case in the minds of Paul VI and Benedict XVI.
Br. JR, OSF
I never said that, although I do prefer altars to be up against the wall.
You said, “Altars are supposed to have altar stones. Altar stones contain relics of saints. A table at a Novus Ordo Mass does not have an altar stone. Not to mention at a Novus Ordo Mass it’s just sitting in the very middle and isn’t up against a wall like it’s supposed to be.” I’m glad you’re retracting that now.
Oh, my mistake then. I make so many posts that I don’t recall ever saying that.
The Holy Father did not life the Archbishop’s ecommunication. He only lifted that of the four bishops. St. Athanasius excommunication was not valid, because it has to be approved by a pope who is in good standing with the Church.
As a poster said in another thread, just because a Pope does something does not automatically mean it’s right. Paul VI and JPII were not up-holding Tradition. So anyone who says Archbishop LeFebvre broke his vows of obedience is wrong because he promised to always obey the Pope as long as he up-held Tradition. They did not do that. And Archbishop LeFebvre was more concerned about obeying God than the Pope. People say that if you dis-obey the Pope you dis-obey God. But God knows better than anyone, even the Pope. The Pope may be the shepard but he still has a master. And for those who say it’s impossible for God not to aprrove of anything the Pope does because God chose the Pope, let us not forget the Pope that was thrown into the tiber river. No human is perfect, not even the Pope. One last thing I’d like to point out is that your conscience is really the voice of God. You can choose to listen to it or ignore it. Archbishop LeFebvre chose to listen to it and saved the Traditional Latin Mass. God chose him to preserve Tradition.The Holy Father did not life the Archbishop’s ecommunication. He only lifted that of the four bishops. St. Athanasius excommunication was not valid, because it has to be approved by a pope who is in good standing with the Church.
Even if an excommunication is lifted, the fact remains that you have been excommunicated. That’s why you cannot be canonized. The excommunication was for direct disobedience to the pope. That cannot be held up for public veneration. It has no bearing on whether the person is in heaven or not. The Church will not hold someone up for public veneration who has disobeyed a valid order from a valid pope, even if in conscience the person felt they were right. The Church has to look at the case objectively. Is a bishop allowed to disobye a pope in matters of ordinations? No. That being the case, then the Archbishop is disqualified from canonization. You see how it works?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Bold is mine
You haven’t made that particular argument, but another has on this thread.
That’s certainly how I read your argument. But, if you are clarifying that knowledge doesn’t inherently impede holiness, but doesn’t inherently foster it either (or in other words, knowledge is amoral) – I can agree with that and this therefore becomes a moot point.
Well put.I believe that these debates about the EF and OF are unnecessary for several reasons.
Fraternally,
- The EF has been opened up for those who want it.
- The OF is being revised.
- You cannot force any priest to celebrate the EF. The rule does not say that have to do so. It says that the bishop should make an attempt to have it available. But there is a glitch in the law. The only priests who can celebrate the EF without permission from a higher authority are secular priests. Priests who are religious can only celebrate it with the permission of their major superior. The major superior can only give permission if it does not create a conflict within the religious community. His primary obligation is not to the faithful, but to his religious. That being said, a bishop cannot order a secular priest to celebrate either form of the mass. He does not have that kind of authority over secular priests. They are not religious in vows. Therefore, he can only order what the Church allows him to order. This is not one of those things. The bishop has very little authority over the religious in his diocese. He must remain within the parameters of the law.
- Once the pope approves a form of the mass, EF and OF, it is the canonical form and it must be accepted by all. Our opinions on either form are irrelevant, because there are many opinions. The many opinions are in conflict with each other. You have to settle the issue. The only way to do so is to appeal to a central figure of authority. The pope can make a prudential judgment on the form of the mass and I do not have to agree with it. But since he is the highest authority in the Church, I have to accept it. Our parents made prudential judgments all the time. Some of them may have been mistakes. But the parent remains the parent and the child the child. The child is bound to obey the parent. It’s not a question of obeying the parent when he can prove himself to the child. The parent has a moral duty never to lead his child into a situation that he knows is sinful. He does not have a moral duty to be right all the time.
- No one has ever said that the form of the mass in the past was wrong. Changes are not always aboiut something being bad or wrong. They are often made out of pastoral necessity at a given time. This was very much the case with Summorum Pontificum. It was a pastoral necessity. It does not say that the Ordinary Form is bad. When the Ordinary From was introduced by Pope Paul VI, he never said that the Tridentine Form was bad. We have to move away from that mode of thinking that a change is a rejectioin. That’s not always the case. It certainly was not the case in the minds of Paul VI and Benedict XVI.
Br. JR, OSF
However, I get an odd sense that mere knowledge of rubrics past and foreign to the RC rite confers authority on academics, in the minds of liberals, to alter a rite designed to be a mediator of holiness for lay people.That’s certainly how I read your argument. But, if you are clarifying that knowledge doesn’t inherently impede holiness, but doesn’t inherently foster it either (or in other words, knowledge is amoral) – I can agree with that and this therefore becomes a moot point.
I believe you were given one in the charism of Austerity.
Do you mean “less is more”? In a Mass? In a wealthy society? If so, I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry.
Why do you mock the charism that has carried the Trappists, Carthusians and Franciscans so far?
If Paul VI was following in the footsteps of Gregory IX and Nicholas IV (or any other of his predecessors, for that matter) he would have up-held Tradition. That would mean no Vatican II and therefore there would not be a crisis in the Church today. Most Traditional Catholics do not accept Vatican II. Why don’t I accept it? Because I know what all went on at Vatican II. You can either trust the documents or the research you do that says what really happened. Since Vatican II gave no detail what-so-ever about what was really going on, I think I’ll happily trust the research instead. And how can we say the Pope’s opinion is the only one that counts? What about God’s opinion?Bold is mine
Bl. Mother Teresa prayed with Hindus and Muslims.
Bl. Charles de Facould prayed with Muslims
Bl. John XXIII led Sabbath services for Jews during WW II
St. Francis of Assisi prayed with Muslims
None of this is private or secret information. You can read it in their biographies.
On the second point, you say “I can’t see”. But what we, you and I, have to understand is that the Pope is not interested in what you and I see. He said that John Paul II has lead a holy and heroic life of virute and should proceed to canonization. In the end, his opinion is the only one that counts.
Remember what I said. A pope does not have to allow an inquiry prior to canonization. He can canonize without it. It has been done several times. In my order it’s been done three times. I know that it has been done for other saints as well. But I don’t know which ones, except for Elizabeth Ann Seton for whom Pope Paul VI changed the rules so that he could canonize her. She was one miracle short. The rule was three miracles. Paul VI canonized her with two. Afterward, John Paul II made it law that it ony has to be two miracles. He was following the footsteps of Paul VI. And Paul VI was following the footsteps of Gregory IX and Nicholas IV.
As we know, a decree of Beatification or Canonization cannot be taken back. They are infallible statements to which all Catholics must submit. So as much as we may not like the idea of Vatican II, the Father of Vatican II is a Blessed.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
St. Benedict said “LISTEN with the ears of your heart”