Vatican II and its changes

[pnewton]

This site you posted, is interesting. In an of itself, it is flaming. The site speaks of the Jewry and the Jews devious plots. It says of Fulton Sheen, “Venerable Bishop Fulton J. Sheen may have been a real Bishop or he may have been a very good actor.” Now combine that with an article that says the last popes are occupiers of the Vatican, and I wouldn’t trust it for baseball scores. There is no reason to believe or respond to one word on that evil, disgusting site.

There really is no response other than that of the Archangel Michael, “The Lord rebuke you.”

 

[Melchior_1]

Yes seriously, the ball is in your court.

There’s problematic things like “is Jesus a descendant of David? No he is not”. There’s also “fake photographs of the earth from ‘space’”. Some lazy research, like saying the suppressed interview was due to “the occupiers of the Vatican” (as opposed to the USCCB, who actually suppressed it). And by saying there’s “Satanic Elements in the Novus Ordo Mass”, you’re saying that essentially the Ordinary Form is invalid. Which it isn’t, unless it was promulgated by someone without authority. Which means at that point, sedevacantistism.

Those in themselves is enough to throw out the content of the website. But there’s something else, two specific things she said I wanted to highlight though. You have to do a bit of digging to find them, but I did.

• From Suzanne Broussard herself: "the fact that under Bolshevism 60 million Christian white people were systematically murdered by Jewish Communists simply becomes a politically incorrect statement, to be replaced by the non-fact, though politically correct myth, of the Jewish Holocaust.
• From Suzanne Broussard herself: “The following is an article published in Look Magazine in 1966, if you can stomach it. It is an extremely detailed account of how a bunch of Jewish street-thugs, dressed up as Cardinals, Bishops and Popes, took control of the Vatican by using the myth of the Jewish ‘holocaust’ as a basis, along with a lot of sneakiness”.

The historical evidence for the Shoah is real. From a journalism perspective, there’s corroboration. From a documentation perspective, loads of it. We have eyewitness accounts, secondary witness accounts, survivors, people who worked at the camps, martyrs like Kolbe. There’s unbiased historical information which, again, has been corroborated and verified through the means which historians use to validate the accuracy of the information.

The Holocaust is a living memory, and is validated both by historical process, journalistic practices, witness accounts, and more. Suzanne may not question the genocides against the Jews in the Old Testament, but in the face of overwhelming evidence she calls the systematic extermination of the Jews in World War II a “myth”?

It’s intellectually dishonest, intellectually ignorant. And very much devalues the lives of those who died in the Shoah, and the sacrifices of those who tried to save them.

So no, the website isn’t credible at all. And frankly, if you agree with Suzanne Broussard regarding the “myth of the Holcaust”, you stand against history and the Catholic Church. And by associating Bishop Lefebvre with her as you did, you diminish him a great deal.

So I must ask, since you posted her site, do you agree with Suzanne Broussard’s stance onthe “satanic novus ordo”? About “fake pictures from space”?

And do you agree with her that the Holocaust was “a myth”?

I ask that Venerable Pope Pius XII and Saint Maximilian Kolbe intercede for Suzanne Broussard, and those who subscribe to her thoughts.

 

[Melchior_1]

According to Archbishop LeFebvre:

So, the suppressed interview, of which I hadn’t read before until today. The interview certainly has Bishop Lefebvre providing some clarity on some of his stances, while simultaneously making some of his motives both more clear and unclear at the same time.

Of particular interest is his dismissal of obedience. If all he said was “it’s not disobedience if you reject what your superior asks and it leads you to sin”, then I can understand things a bit better. Instead, he actually degenerates the virtue, saying “therefore it is far from ranking first in the hierarchy of virtues”. To me, it seems as if Bishop Lefebvre is trying to justify his actions. He was deliberately being disobedient, so to put himself in the right, he seeks to diminish the value of it - as well as say that what would ordinarily be disobedient actually isn’t due to extraordinary circumstances.

Those extraordinary circumstances are usually referenced as there being a “crisis within the Church”. The important part is, however; did that crisis necessitate the need to consecrate Bishops to specifically keep a Society dedicated to the Tridentine going, a Society that rejected Vatican II and it’s documents? The Pope’s answer to that question was “no, there was no necessity for the consecrations”.

It’s important to note the role Canon Law has with this, as well as administration of the Sacraments. In times of emergencies and a crisis, Baptism can be done by anyone, and is valid if the proper form is used along with water. In the event of someone near-death, a priest gains the faculties required to administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation (I’m reasonably sure Anointing of the Sick works in this fashion as well, for obvious reasons).

The other Sacraments, however, do not hold any of these exceptional circumstances. Confirmation, for example, is not one of them. Certainly someone on their deathbed could be confirmed in a hurry, however you need the specific chrism oil, which priests may not have on them. Versus emergency Baptisms where you just need water, or emergency confessions where you just need a little bit of privacy.

But the Sacrament to look at is Holy Matrimony. There’s no “emergency provision” for marriage. Certainly on one’s deathbed one can get married if they are canonically able, however there’s no “this is a crisis, we must do it!” provision for it. Holy Orders, also a “Sacrament of vocation”, is in the same boat. Canon Law gives clear guidelines that ordinations requires the proper approval from Rome - with the Pope obviously being the one in charge.

 

[Melchior_1]

According to Archbishop LeFebvre:

The Canon Law aspect further comes into play when you look at who is the arbiter and judge of Canon Law. The chief judge for Canon Law is the one whom is has office of Kephas, the Pope. Regardless of our interpretation of a portion of Canon Law, when the Pope make a ruling on said portion of Canon Law, the Pope’s ruling overrules our own. In this case, Pope John Paul II made it very clear that the consecrations would not be authorized, and that they would be violating Canon Law.

Let us be clear on this; Bishop Lefebvre did not have the authority to circumvent Canon Law in this case. The Pope has the Keys, he is the one who decides such things. Otherwise any Bishop with their own motivations will unilaterally declare a crisis. I mean, if another Arius shows up, he could pull a Lefebvre and declare “crisis!”, and consecrate some Bishops unlawfully. To go against the lawful and valid authority of the office of Kephas, quite simply, is unacceptable.

Also of interest is the multiple efforts made by Bishop Lefebvre to essentially say he is loyal to the office of Kephas, but not loyal to the Pope himself. This is wildly dangerous, and certainly bordering outright sedevacantistism. It does reflect certain justification that SSPX supporters use which, among other things, diminish Papal authority and the validity of the 1983 Canon Law - which, again either borders on sedevacantistism or outright approaches it.

There’s irony in Bishop Lefebvre’s accusations towards Blessed Pope Paul VI (none of which have any citations, and some of which are second hand pieces of information), saying he is a “liberal”, when Bishop Lefebvre did what many would call a “liberal” action by going against Canon Law and Saint Pope John Paul II. His successors likewise engage in the liberal practice of administrating illicit and invalid Sacraments without batting an eye. Bishop Lefebvre saying “Pope Paul VI is a liberal and he does not believe in the fixity of dogmas”. If the Lawyer turned Prophet did not believe in the fixity of dogmas, you’d think he’d fold to the pressure of others and not write Humanae Vitae.

Circling back to disobedience. The namesake and patron of the SSPX is Saint Pope Pius X. Pius X was a full member of the Secular Franciscan Order, making him a full Franciscan just like the Friars and Poor Clares. Pius X would have advocated that any internal reforms be done in the same manner that St. Francis did. No actions that would cause the suspensions of clergy, no actions that would cause illicit and invalid Sacraments. And gaining the permission from local Bishops and working with them. Yes you can rock the boat, and you can say your piece. You can articulate your points and present your case. But for St. Francis, there would be no outright disobedience. In this sense, Bishop Lefebvre betrayed the founder of his Society, which we see the legacy of today with illicit Masses, invalid confirmations, invalid marriages, and for the longest while invalid confessions.

 

[pnewton]

Holy Orders, also a “Sacrament of vocation”, is in the same boat. Canon Law gives clear guidelines that ordinations requires the proper approval from Rome - with the Pope obviously being the one in charge.

The reason I heard for this particular disobedience was that he thought if he did not do this before his death, then all would be lost with respect to having legitimate Mass. He was God’s last hope for the Church.

 

[godisgood77]

Divorcing yourself from the Catholic Church is not a good option. Joining either of those two schismatic organizations would be a mistake.

 

[StarMapp]

Anytime you wish to remain in context let me know. There could be other articles and various opinions on other sites, and this is no exception, but I have not read them and I took my reference from one article as truthful, but most of all sincere, very important for our RCIA people. I naturally assumed you were refering my article in your flaming diatribe.

But the attribute of various contributors of various knowledge bases is also mirrored in CA. That’s the nature of it.

If you don’t like my posts, you can blot them out.

 

[Melchior_1]

The reason I heard for this particular disobedience was that he thought if he did not do this before his death, then all would be lost with respect to having legitimate Mass. He was God’s last hope for the Church.

I have heard this too. Multiple issues with this line of thinking though (of which I know you do not subscribe to, so this response is directed towards the people who actually believe that Bishop Lefebvre was “God’s last hope” for a “legitimate” Mass).

The idea presumes that the new Missal isn’t legitimate, which if the new Missal was inherently deficient in any theological capacity, then the Pope (and the Church) promulgated an error regarding the Mass. Which then means, you guessed it; sedevacantistism.

The Pope specifically said said that “all would not be lost” (or something to that effect), so the Canon Law as it pertained to the ordinations stood. To deny the Pope in this area is to deny the authority of the office of Kephas, to deny the validity of the 1983 Canon Law. Which then means, you guessed it, sedevacantistism.

Lets say, for a moment though, that the people that think this are correct. That this was an emergency, so Canon Law didn’t apply. By doing this, it means that the authority of the Pope as it pertains to Canon Law is being questioned. That means the authority of the Pope must be questioned when he said that Canon Law applied, because he authoritatively said that it did. It begins to cascade from there when you begin to start questioning the authority of the Pope as a whole. Which then means, you guessed it, sedevacantistism.

 

[Melchior_1]

but I have not read them and I took my reference from one article as truthful

You clearly have not read them. Because by posting Bishop Lefebvre’s interview attached that site, you’re associating him with denying the Holocaust.

 

[StarMapp]

Interesting post. But I wonder if we are deviating from the thread here. It is a huge topic all it’s own.

sedavantsism - not that simple. There are heirarchies of truth(Ott), and two of them concern free opinion. Sententia Pia and Tolerata. LeFebvre mentions this also.

I’m not an expert on Bshp LeFebvre. I took a quote of what he said and found it in context of what I wished to say, nor do I blindly recommend anyone on title. We are to test everything. I am not an SSPX adherent, as I think it is denegrating to unsavory types seeking a venue for wars. Their site title is not very welcoming, “Church Militant” sends the wrong message(it doesn’t mean that). I am loyal to the FFSP and a member of the Confraternity of St. Peter. I agree to the truth of Bishop LeFebvre’s teaching, where what I was taught is what he expounds. It is exactly according to my Catholic grade schooling of 1953. You will note I do the same when quoting Bishop Sheen.

The Archbishop’s position is mostly from the standpoint of those times and 50 years, ago, and he speaks of the possibly of what compounding effect that a certain issue could cause in the future(now). You will note that many times to his credit, he puts the question to his audience, showing his willingness to share in resolution to problems he envisions. (In that he had 380 bishops who agreed). He states that the Pope agreed with some of his conclusions. If there were intents at deception and conspiracy, he was very bad at it. He shared in his struggle, quite out of character with heretics and podium seeking. He sought nothing for himself. This was realized after he died and his excomm was rescinded.

But an idea just occured to me. Why don’t you start a forum group to discuss that position. You can transfer your post to that forum as the initial post.

 

[ProVobis]

The idea presumes that the new Missal isn’t legitimate, which if the new Missal was inherently deficient in any theological capacity, then the Pope (and the Church) promulgated an error regarding the Mass.

For the record, the Council of Trent forbade any pastor of the Church to contemn any received and approved rite or to form new ones. (see Session 7, Canon 13) However, and this is what many choose to ignore, was that Pius XII in his Mediator Dei specified (or clarified) that the Pope and ONLY the Pope can make changes in the rites. This document is dated 1947.

 

[Melchior_1]

Hey mate, you were the one who introduced Bishop LeFebvre’s comments via a Holocaust denier’s website to this thread. Because you introduced it, especially with using such a website, I responded.

This was realized after he died and his excomm was rescinded.

The lifting of the excommunications was for the four Bishops who were alive, not Bishop LeFebvre, his was never rescinded. Unless something happened between him and the Pope before Bishop LeFebvre’s death (of which you would think that would have been published at this point), he died excommunicated.

For the record, the Council of Trent forbade any pastor of the Church to contemn any received and approved rite or to form new ones. (see Session 7, Canon 13) However, and this is what many choose to ignore, was that Pius XII in his Mediator Dei specified (or clarified) that the Pope and ONLY the Pope can make changes in the rites. This document is dated 1947.

Very interesting. It further reinforces the validity of the Missal of Paul VI, in that case.

 

[ProVobis]

Actually I was reinforcing the LEGITIMACY of what Paul VI promulgated. Validity is understood as long as De Defectibus isn’t violated.

 

[StarMapp]

Interesting. Most of your objections I find are a matter in form. Little do you address his objections on principles he sited from the references from the catechism and canon from his time. I am interested in what he and the Church says on specific principles, AS APPLIES TO RULINGS OF THOSE TIMES. (that is, what are not categorically Sententia Pia or Opinio Tolerata, or truths not yet formally accepted by the Theologians).

It is dangerous to give the impression that any objection is an affront to the Church, and so it was back then.

On the issue of his excomm, what would you say concerning the July 1, 1988 paragraph from the SSPX site. I read again that he was excommunicated, case closed. It turns out that he may not technically/formerly be excommunicated, no matter what the Vatican says, depending on his beliefs,intents and purposes. He canonized these because he was genuinely afraid of what would happen to the order.

http://sspx.ca/en/faq-page/wasnt-archbishop-lefebvre-excommunicated-faq11

Could this be true?

 

[pnewton]

Could this be true?

I say not. Anyone who believe he is God’s last and only hope for the salvation of the World has bigger issues than latae sententiae excomunication. There is no other understanding for the idea of being “necessary.” I refuse to slander the Archbishop by assuming him to be that arrogant.

But what did you expect quoting the SSPX on a Catholic website?

 

[Saxum]

But what did you expect quoting the SSPX on a Catholic website?

Do you mean to say the SSPX are not Catholic?

 

[pnewton]

Do you mean to say the SSPX are not Catholic?

No.

 

[2towers]

Good point. I used to worry that I was leaning in that direction until I started running across this kind of thing. This type of “trad” is really ugly all the way around.

 

[pnewton]

This type of “trad” is really ugly all the way around.

We always need to bear in mind not to judge all by the worst, or to use your word, the ugliest. I believe we have a clue in the words of Jesus of one way to separate the beauty of traditional spirituality from the ugliness. It seems the Pharisee-like mind cannot keep from revealing hypocrisy. There is a glaring example above of this.

Then, of course, there is that traditionalism that recognizes the need for full unity with the Church as a greater tradition than any of the complaints about Vatican II.

 

[commenter]

Do you mean to say the SSPX are not Catholic?

Of course, the SSPX are Catholic (plural, referring to individual priests who belong to it). It is a separate question whether the SSPX is Catholic. That is where you get disagreement.