If your point is to detract the Intervention, then this is a completely false and misleading argument.For your consideration:
"The first thing to note that this criticism was leveled before the final version of the Pauline Rite Mass was completed. However, few of those in the schismatic circles who circulate the “Ottaviani Intervention”, publish Cardinal Ottaviani comments on the final version of the Pauline Rite Mass AFTER IT WAS OFFICIALLY PROMULGATED. Pope Paul VI gave two general audiences in regards to the Pauline Rite Mass. Cardinal Ottaviani responded to this by writing:
“I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)
The Cardinal Ottaviani published later yet another very relevant public statement in which he said: “The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult-when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the LEGITIMACY OF THEIR ORIGIN PROTECTS AND GUARDS THEM AGAINST INFILTRATION OF ERRORS. . . .The PURITY AND UNITY OF THE FAITH is in this manner also UPHELD BY THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPE THROUGH THE LITURGICAL LAWS." (In Cruzado Espanol, May 25, 1970)”
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/defensem.htm
I know several who do… Friars Anthony Patalano, Donald Bramble, Dominic deDominico, Vincent Kelber, John Fearon. My first experience with the Dominican Latin Mass was about 1979… as an Altar Server!This list only proves the point of the untenable position in which the Vatican found itself. Why was it that, of all Rites and Uses (many of which were confined to tiny, localised groups, down to the Toledo Rite that was confined to just one side-chapel of Toledo Cathedral), only the Traditional Roman Rite – protected “until the End of Time” (“in perpetuam”) by Pope S. Pius V – was effectively banned for the Faithful? The declared aim of the SSPX was “to keep the pilot light burning until the church again turns on the gas”. This is what they have achieved, and for this I salute them.
But do they say the Old Dominican Rite publicly? I know of none who do. Can anybody explain why not?
Thank God that he did.Which, given the fact that he was soon to die, is precisely why he felt he needed to consecrate other bishops to ordain priests to preserve the TLM and the Catholic faith.
Don’t get me wrong, Aramis. I’m delighted to hear this. I only wish the Dominicans in Ireland would do the same.I know several who do… Friars Anthony Patalano, Donald Bramble, Dominic deDominico, Vincent Kelber, John Fearon. My first experience with the Dominican Latin Mass was about 1979… as an Altar Server!
Heck, go read the stuff written by Friars Augustine Thompson, F Pius Pietrzyk, Augustine Thompson, Anselm Ramelow, Gregory Schnakenberg, Vincent M. Kelber, Lawrence Lew, Corwin Low, Luke Clark, O.P. and Mr Jason Mata over at dominican-liturgy.blogspot.com/
cnytr.blogspot.com/2005/09/dominican-rite.html
catholic.org/diocese/diocese_story.php?id=30617
I was lucky, I guess… I grew up with Dominican Friars of the Western Dominican Province. The other houses in the US had dropped it (being established prior to the lifting of the ban on the other liturgies within the US), but the Western Province has used it their entire history.
He remained exactly as he was. It was the hierarchy that changed. Then we were all ordered to follow them. But they could not make a convincing enough case for their betrayals. That is why the SSPX seminaries have always been full, while the Modernist ones were closing down at an ever-accelerating pace for decades.Was Archbishop Lefebvre really disobedient? When I read about his distinguished career, I have a hard time believing that he would be disobedient just for the sake of being disobedient. He must have sincerely believed that his actions were necessary for the good of the Church. Was he right? How can one go from being a close friend of Popes to being a disobedient schismatic? How can one serve on the preparatory committees of Vatican II, sign all of the documents, and then say that the Council inadvertently caused a crisis in the Church? Archbishop Lefebvre is a perplexing figure. I just can’t figure him out.
Makes me wonder if she had some kind of bad experience with the SSPX. This almost sounds personal to me.Right on, Lycorth!
Maria sounds to me like she was involved in some kind of a cult at one time.
DempseyWas Archbishop Lefebvre really disobedient? When I read about his distinguished career, I have a hard time believing that he would be disobedient just for the sake of being disobedient. He must have sincerely believed that his actions were necessary for the good of the Church. Was he right? How can one go from being a close friend of Popes to being a disobedient schismatic? How can one serve on the preparatory committees of Vatican II, sign all of the documents, and then say that the Council inadvertently caused a crisis in the Church? Archbishop Lefebvre is a perplexing figure. I just can’t figure him out.
What of those at the Councill that broke their Oath Against Modernism ?Yes, that is true about priests. They are alter christus. However, I have not made specific promises to my priest to obey him in all things as priests and bishops do on their ordination day.
I suggest you read up on what a priest really is. Here is an excerpt from the Rite of Ordination: •
Before being ordained, the candidates are asked to declare their intentions in undertaking the priestly office.
Promise of Obedience
• Each candidate places his joined hands in the hands of the Archbishop and promises obedience and respect to his Ordinary and his successors.
There is no question that Archbishop Lefebvre broke his promise of obedience. Disobedient priests are disobedient priests. It doesn’t matter the reason.
You can criticize me for doing this but I would like to look at it like this: On a hot summer’s day, a family decides to go to the beach but one of the kids insists on walking to Mass even though it’s in a hot church and his father wants the whole family to go to the beach. Yes, the child is disobeying but is he worthy of being cut off from the family?Was Archbishop Lefebvre really disobedient? When I read about his distinguished career, I have a hard time believing that he would be disobedient just for the sake of being disobedient. He must have sincerely believed that his actions were necessary for the good of the Church. Was he right? How can one go from being a close friend of Popes to being a disobedient schismatic? How can one serve on the preparatory committees of Vatican II, sign all of the documents, and then say that the Council inadvertently caused a crisis in the Church? Archbishop Lefebvre is a perplexing figure. I just can’t figure him out.
It helps to understand the historical context of what happened as well. For many years, Archbishop Lefebvre was working in French Africa at the direction of Pope Pius XII where he was, in a sense, sheltered from what was happening in Europe. In his writings, Msgr. Lefebvre explains his shock at the many changes in the Church he observed when he returned to Europe. He draws a lot of parallells between the Vatican II reforms and the changes that happened following the French Revolution.Was Archbishop Lefebvre really disobedient? When I read about his distinguished career, I have a hard time believing that he would be disobedient just for the sake of being disobedient.
For what it’s worth, I fully endorse that. The author, Wiltgen, isn’t even especially friendly towards the Trads, but he documents what (in the external forum) really happened. What went on it people’s souls, and what Heaven & Hell were doing ‘behind the veil’ is another story. But it is intimately bound up with Fatima.Dempsey
If you haven’t already, I suggest that you get yourself a copy of the book The Rhine Flows Into The Tiber. You will find out what happened during Vatican II. You couldn’t find a more objective author. He simply stated the facts.
I concur. Having lived through some Australian summers, I invoke the parable of the father, on a “Fire Ban Day”, who commands his son to go out and light a bonfire. The son tries to reason, “But father, that will set the whole countryside ablaze!” But the father does not listen. He says, “Stop being disobedient! We will discuss it after you have done what I have told you”. Would not the son be obliged to reply sorrowfully, “Father, in this particular instance I cannot do what you say”. and note well – in doing this, he is not at all saying, “And therefore you are not my father”. Lefebvre’s actions were not an act of schism. This is all in standard Catholic theology.You can criticize me for doing this but I would like to look at it like this: On a hot summer’s day, a family decides to go to the beach but one of the kids insists on walking to Mass even though it’s in a hot church and his father wants the whole family to go to the beach. Yes, the child is disobeying but is he worthy of being cut off from the family?
The better question is this: Archbishop Lefebvre had the God-given power to consecrate bishops. Did he abuse this power by consecrating other bishops to ordain priests to say the TLM and preserve old customs when no other bishop would ordain such priests and the archbishop himself was dying? Hardly. Remember God is a higher power than the Pope.
Some posters have reacted angrily to this post. I would say that it demonstrates why Our Lord appointed shepherds over his sheep. He asked most of us, not to become shepherds, but merely to be good sheep. If Our Lord called us by that name, we may wear it without shame. He also said (through S. Paul,) “Not all of you ought to be teachers: for you will suffer the severer judgment”. And he said, “I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.” The poster above need not be accused of unworthy motives. She (like millions of Catholics today) is trying to make sense of a very complex and subtle crisis in the Church, using a toolbox of very simplistic and superficial reasonings. “In a normal situation” it is enough to take the word of the nearest authority figure. But when the leaders no longer lead; when the teachers no longer teach – then the laypeople are in big trouble. As C.S. Lewis wrote long ago, (about the Church of England) … acting as missionary to one’s own clergy is a very uncomfortable position to be in.I give up. This has been the problem all along with sedevacantists/separatists/protestants. They will never admit to any wrongdoing whatsoever. When your own leader is excommunicated, that’s a serious thing.
Archbishop Lefebvre was no better than Martin Luther. They both thought they knew better than the Pope and their followers did as well.
The SSPX has taken all the pomp and circumstance with them but have left the substance behind.
I pray for your full communion with the church.
Until then, there is no more to be said.
Timothysis:How do you know this? Are you clairvoyant?
How can you substantiate the statement “I don’t think Rome would have come through for them and would rather have waited the three years to Lefebvre’s death?”
Are you privy to something that the rest of us aren’t???
This is one of the best things I’ve read at CAF! Why? Because it perfectly describes what happened to me. I left the faith in my teenage years because I had never been given the faith; the catechises I received was extremely poor. The sad thing is, I was not an isolated case. My sister’s husband grew up in a devout Catholic home but he no longer practices the faith; this is not surprising considering he didn’t even know that the Mass was the one Sacrifice at Calvary! He thought the Mass was a memorial meal; and this coming from an ex-Altar boy! Something is definitely wrong!As a result – and I have seen this happen now for three generations – the older Faithful did not notice the omissions, while the rising generation never learned the omitted parts. Thus they lapsed from the Faith, and their parents could not understand why.
Excellent point. The Archbishop did not want to have any confrontation with Rome. It is clear he did what he had to do; such is the burden of being in a position of leadership.You can criticize me for doing this but I would like to look at it like this: On a hot summer’s day, a family decides to go to the beach but one of the kids insists on walking to Mass even though it’s in a hot church and his father wants the whole family to go to the beach. Yes, the child is disobeying but is he worthy of being cut off from the family?
The better question is this: Archbishop Lefebvre had the God-given power to consecrate bishops. Did he abuse this power by consecrating other bishops to ordain priests to say the TLM and preserve old customs when no other bishop would ordain such priests and the archbishop himself was dying? Hardly. Remember God is a higher power than the Pope.
Precisely!Thanks for the book recommendation, I’ll definitely look into getting the Rhine Flows into the Tiber.
I’ve been thinking about it, and there is one critical thing that should be considered before judging the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX:
Is there a crisis in the Church?
If the answer to this question is yes, then Archbishop Lefebvre should be applauded; I would go so far as to call him a saint!
However, if the answer to this question is no, then Archbishop Lefebvre was disobedient and wrong for going against the will of the Pope.
How you judge the SSPX really depends on whether you think there is a crisis in the Church. If such a crisis exists, then the impact of the SSPX will be immense. If no crisis exists, then the SSPX has no impact on the Church, and exists only to preserve one form of the Mass from extinction.
Those who believe there are no problems in the Church are burying their heads in sand. It should be clear to everyone that there is a major crisis in the Church. The decline in vocations, the decreased Mass attendance figures, the false ecumenism, the widespread dissent and lastly, the sex abuse scandal all prove that there is a crisis in the Church!The most vocal critics of the SSPX, and of Traditionalists in general, seem to be those who think everything is just hunky-dory, that no problems exist in the Church, and that despite the foundering of the faith of many, the Church is on the right track.
It IS Catholic teaching that a priest promises obedience to his bishop. He makes that promise at his ordination.It is not Catholic teaching that each and every pronouncement of the pope is the direct voice of God.