Overcoming RadTrad Temptations

by Jimmy Akin

in The Church

Part Two

As promised in my post Overcoming Temptations to RadTradism, here are some more ideas for taming the spiritual fruitchucker in you. (For those of you who may have missed the article that inspired the spiritual fruitchucking metaphor, click here.)

Once again, more suggestions, in no particular order.

Accept that you don’t Know It All. In my original article in this series, Surviving Sunday Mass, I led into this series by recalling the problems at a recent Sunday Mass in my parish. Turns out, not all of the problems that bothered me actually were problems. At least one thing that occurred was a legitimate option. Which goes to show that however well informed you think you are about the Catholic faith, it is possible (indeed, even likely) that you may have some misconceptions. When you become upset at a perceived abuse in the Church, assuming that there is a possibility that you could be mistaken about what the faith requires can spare you a lot of frustration and resentment. And acknowledging that popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, and religious are more likely than you to be better informed about what the faith requires is a simple act of humility.

Don’t rely on hearsay. Awhile back I read a post by a St. Blogger who was fuming because he had stumbled across an online article reporting on an apparently dubious action taken by a province of a religious order in dealing with alleged abusive members in their ranks. In reading the article to which my fellow St. Blogger referred, I too was concerned, but, unlike my fellow St. Blogger, I personally knew a member of that religious order’s province and so I asked him about the story. His explanation of the province’s action threw entirely new light onto the story and made the previously mystifying action reasonable.

The moral of this story is not to try to track down the Other Side Of A News Story. You probably won’t have the kind of contact I did with an insider willing to speak to you “off the record.” You also probably won’t have the time or resources to invest in researching all such stories like that on your own. The take-away lesson here is to be dubious of what you read in the media. Even when a journalist has all of his factual ducks in a row — which is not always the case — he may be unable to obtain comment from all parties to the story. Especially in the case of religious news stories, authorities with a diocese or a religious order may be unwilling to speak to the media — not out of a nefarious desire to cover up truth but because they are unable to comment on a particular case for any number of justifiable reasons. It will be far easier on your spiritual peace to assume that there is a reasonable explanation that could be offered if the circumstances existed in which it could be offered than to allow yourself to become scandalized over every headline you read on the Internet.

Seek out the good. In the comments to Surviving Sunday Mass, some commenters were perplexed over why I should be grateful that my parish has far fewer liturgical abuses than others. The implied concern was that I should instead seek out liturgical perfection and be satisfied with nothing less.

Liturgical perfection is a meritorious goal. No denying that. But when a parish that has had significant problems is making strides toward liturgical orthopraxy to nitpick over the wrinkles that remain rather than appreciate the work that has already been done is uncharitable. It’s one thing to continue to hope for more ironing; it’s another to refuse to be satisfied with nothing less than instant transformation according to your specifications. Sure, if I were a pastor, there would be things that I’d do differently at my parish than are already done. Fortunately for the parish, that’s never going to happen. And fortunately for me too, because then I’d be on the field exposed to “quarterback sacks” rather than calling the plays from the comfort of my armchair.

Appreciate the concept of spiritual fatherhood. A religious order priest once told me the story of how a parish that was staffed by his religious order decided to offer a pre-Vatican-II Latin Mass to their parish. The priests became more and more concerned because RadTrads in the parish were causing problems because they had to share the parish with “Novus Ordo” Masses. Finally, when the RadTrads demanded that only hosts consecrated at the Latin Mass be offered at the Latin Mass — they did not want hosts consecrated at a “Novus Ordo” Mass — the priests had had enough. In short order the pre-Vatican-II Latin Mass was cancelled and the RadTrads were further embittered over what they perceived to be “persecution.”

But look at it from the priests’ viewpoint: They are spiritual fathers charged with developing Christians into spiritually-mature adults. As an analogy, let’s assume that you were a parent and in your home your family had very specific ideas about what they would eat for dessert. Because you love them, you usually try to accommodate the children’s desire for Haagen-Dazs. But one night you run out of Haagen-Dazs and all you could offer was no-frills, off-brand vanilla. What would you do if your children screamed for Haagen-Dazs and refused to be satisfied with the dessert that you offered? If it were me, the children would be lucky to get fruit for dessert that night, and that would probably be the last they’d see of Haagen-Dazs for quite awhile.

This is an imperfect analogy, but the point is this: Sometimes the otherwise inexplicable actions of the Church become more clear when we remember that clergy are not our employees who must be expected to provide us with what we demand but our spiritual fathers who are charged to provide us with what we need — whether or not we want it.

Please feel free to contribute your suggestions to the combox.

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

{ 122 comments }

Tony April 7, 2006 at 6:58 am

That really is a neat analogy, Michelle. Do those RadTrads™ who want hosts “consecrated at the Latin Mass” understand that they are in schism? (Denying the validity of a legally promulgated Mass)
Why don’t they just go to an SSPX chapel and be done with it?

Jim Roche April 7, 2006 at 7:40 am

No attempt to “seek out the good” in people you are happy to dismiss as fruitchuckers then?
Clearly you “know it all” and from first hand sources too.

Mark April 7, 2006 at 8:02 am

See…automatically Tony say they are schism because they make a request ( you can’t be in schism when your parish offers the idult). He immediatly wants to throw traditionalist to the SSPX (which they wil accept with open arms and strengthens their Position) I understand the possible implications with using seperate consecrated hosts (do we have seperated Jesus?). But it seems anytime this discussion comes up we immediatly throw schism out there. We recent had a cardinal say SSPX was in schism!!! So what are we to think?. Will Tony turn his nose up if Pope Benedict allows Tridentine fully. Will he be a schismatic if the Latin increases and Novos Ordo fades? I have tried hard to find authentic Catholic teaching since returning to the Church. The only plaaces that I can find this is in FSSP ( Society of St Peter) a group in union with Rome or making the jump to SSPX ( they offer Ignatian Retreats and not New age drivel). IT seems there is no room for tradition in the Church that embraces Tradition ? Jimmy..What are we to do?

Tim J. April 7, 2006 at 8:11 am

Tony-
How does it follow that requesting a Latin Mass means that one rejects the validity of the Novus Ordo?

Old Zhou April 7, 2006 at 8:13 am

My solution:
I spend at most 5 hours per week in “live” liturgy in churches and chapels. That is, at most, 3% of my time. For that 3%, I’m generally happy to just go along with whatever the local ecclesial authority (be it cardinal, bishop, abbot, parish priest or community chaplain) decide; which is not to say that I’m blind to the wierdnesses that might take place. But I go along during the “live” liturgy. I use whatever text and language mix the local leadership and community prefer.
But I spend at least 20 hours a week in private prayer (the Hours) and reading (Lectio Divina, Lessons of Matins or Office of Readings), most of that in my monastic/eremitic cell. That is, at least, 12% of my time. About half of that time I am reading and praying in Latin, and I make free use not only of the Liturgical Books reformed since Vatican II (Missale Romanum editio tertia, Graduale Triplex, Liturgia Horarum editio altera, Psalterium Monasticum, Bibliorum Sacrorum Nova Vulgata, et cetera, and relevant modern translations), but also those from before the Council (1962 bi-lingual Missal, Liber Usualis of 1952, bi-lingual Monastic Diurnal of 1963, Anglican Breviary of 1955, Antiphonale Monasticum of 1934, etc.) In addition, I have a significant, multilingual library of Patristic and Biblical texts to read and study.
So, on the one hand, during the at most 3% of my time in “live” liturgy with community, I just submit to the will of the local community here and now in time.
But during the at least 12% of my time in private prayer, reading and study, I stay connected with the deeper and broader currents of prayer and understanding in the Church in the broader sense of the communion of saints throughout time and space.
That’s how I keep my balance.

Anonymous April 7, 2006 at 9:42 am

Tim-
It’s not that following the Latin Mass in of itself rejects the Novus Ordo, but if you refuse to have hosts that were consecrated at the Novus Ordo, as in Michelle’s post, then you would seem to be denying that the Norvus Ordo can make a validly consecrated host.

Tim J. April 7, 2006 at 9:59 am

Okay, I see that.
As Michelle presents it, such a situation could stem from out-and-out schism (refusing to acknowledge the validity of the Novus Ordo), or it could just be the RadTrads acting like big babies, or both.
It’s possible that such people could, while grudgingly accepting the validity of the NO, still carry such disdain for it that they wouldn’t even want to mix consecrated N.O. hosts with Latin Mass hosts.
Problem is, they would be guilty in either case of rejecting CHRIST himself. If that is the case, they deserved what they got.

tim April 7, 2006 at 10:54 am

Gee whiz, even MORE generalized, undiscerning, unfair labeling of people who prefer the traditional Mass as evil RadTrads! I guess if I beat my head on this brick wall of a blog enough I will become unconscious and be spared the ignorance.
Michelle, I assume the parish to which you referred was offering an approved TLM? How does that make the participants RadTrads? Because they disagree with your “magisterial” pronouncements?
Should I just call all self-styled “orthodox conservatives” “neo-Catholics” instead, as those who don’t want to be charitable do on the other side of the issue? It corresponds to the labeling policy taking place here with great frequency. Does that make it right?
If we can’t have civil, let alone charitable, discussions about liturgy and doctrine it isn’t worth continuing the charade (see my request in your last post about a positive compare/contrast focusing on the good in both). Have fun earnestly hoping that somehow your parish cuts down the number of abuses in your Masses from 50 to 38, so you can feel better about your continued participation in them. It might surprise your readers to find, should they happen to read any one of several books or speeches by our Holy Father, that he isn’t as serene about the current state of the novus ordo.

Jim Roche April 7, 2006 at 11:01 am

I suspect the point about the hosts is being misunderstood. The issue is not Novus Ordo hosts being mixed in with Latin Mass hosts. It’s the other way around. It is to ensure that hosts consecrated during the Latin Mass are not handed around like snuff at a wake by Sister Mary Sunshine or any of the other para-priestesses who see fit to handle the host.
There is a responsibility on those organising a Latin Mass to ensure that the reverence we believe is owed to the Blessed Sacrament is maintained. While Indult Priests can’t dictate to the NO Priests as to how they should allow the hosts to be treated nor can they be dictated to by them.
It’s that simple.

bill912 April 7, 2006 at 11:06 am

“It is to insure that hosts consecrated during the Latin Mass are not handed around like snuff at a wake by Sister Mary Sunshine or any other para-priestesses who see fit to handle the host.”
Thanks for letting us know that you don’t want to be taken seriously.

tim April 7, 2006 at 11:18 am

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, who style themselves as “orthodox conservatives” although they are quite willing to insult fellow Catholics and be shocked and mystified when they are called on it and conclude it must be further evidence of the depravity of the insulted and confirmation of their oh-so-sanctity and who further believe that the only items constituting the magisterium of the Church are what they heard on the radio the other day and what someone told them Vatican II “really” means but who don’t realize that Christ founded this Church over nineteen hundred years ago and that Catholics prior to 1965 weren’t morons:
Here are some deck chairs. Please enjoy yourself while rearranging them. Other activities to follow.
– Cruise Director, HMS Titanic

Dan April 7, 2006 at 11:32 am

Perhaps this is a little off the subject, although I consider myself a bit of a traditionalist myself. As a longtime parishioner in the Arlington (VA) Diocese I was disappointed when our bishop decided to allow girls to serve on the altar. That aside, I have seen in several southern Catholic masses the practice of a grown woman “serving” on the altar. This woman is not dressed as an altar boy (or girl), but is wearing what appear to be the vestments of a deacon, sometimes including a stole. She performs many of the duties of an altar server. I was shocked when I first saw it, although I assume it is common outside of Arlington. Could someone enlighten me on the title, and liturgical legitimacy of this person?

Jim Roche April 7, 2006 at 11:32 am

Bill912
Try, at least, to be original enough to pass the Turing test;-)

Mark April 7, 2006 at 11:41 am

That happens at my parish on special feast days..Seems the Sacristan puts on a “vestment and cross. She lingers near the altar assisting the priest. ..The new Pastor has recently placed a chait near door to the Sacrisrty where the sacristans can sit. At one point she pours the wine into chalices to be , after the consecration.Maaaybeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..para-priest is a good term?

Inocencio April 7, 2006 at 11:56 am

“magisterium of the Church are what they heard on the radio the other day and what someone told them Vatican II “really” means but who don’t realize that Christ founded this Church over nineteen hundred years ago and that Catholics prior to 1965 weren’t morons
Exactly Tim and the same Holy Spirit that has always guided the Church is doing so now. Our Blessed Lord established His Church with His authority and promise that His Church would not fail (not in 1965 not ever) and it would be guide to all truth by the Holy Spirit.
Either you believe Our Blessed Lord or you do not. If you believe you work toward healing the Mystical Body of Christ and not injuring it. We cannot heal the Mystical Body of Christ by tearing it apart or deciding not to be obedient to the authority Our Blessed Lord established with His Suffering and Blood.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Patrick April 7, 2006 at 12:06 pm

In Michelle’s post she states:
“…the RadTrads demanded that only hosts consecrated at the Latin Mass be offered at the Latin Mass — they did not want hosts consecrated at a “Novus Ordo” Mass…”
The reason she refers to them is RadTrads here is that they have clearly taken a position that the hosts consecrated at the Novus Ordo Mass are inferior or invalid. Does anyone out there maintain that holding such a position is not radical?
One might have a (weak) point if the situation were reversed as described by Jim Roche, but that is very different from the situation described by Michelle. In her description, they were out of line and the label “RadTrad” fits.

Tim J. April 7, 2006 at 12:12 pm

Why should Latin Mass hosts be treated any differently than Novus Ordo hosts? It is all Christ!
Maybe instead of “RadTrads” we should be more specific and say “Schismatic Trads”.
A commenter on an earlier post pointed out that not all Rad Trads are schismatic. True enough.
I asked her which ones, in her opinion, WERE schismatic, but never got an answer.
I’m a traditionalist! I am all for the return of the Latin Mass, but I’ll not dive off the Barque of Peter to find it. That’s all I’m sayin’!

Tim J. April 7, 2006 at 12:15 pm

“Maaaybeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..para-priest is a good term?”
Why not just call this what it is?… “Pretend Priest”.

Inocencio April 7, 2006 at 12:16 pm

Jim Roche,
Our Blessed Lord is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in every consecrated Host whether or not it was consecrated during the Tridentine or Pauline Mass.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Jim Roche April 7, 2006 at 1:04 pm

Inocencio
That is not in dispute.
The question is not what the host is. The question is how it should be treated, given what it is. It would be better to have no Indult than to allow the hosts concecrated at a Latin Mass to be treated the way hosts are treated at the NO Mass.
If an Indult is granted then the fair and right thing to do is allow it to proceed as it should with the reverence for the host maintained as per the 1962 Missal.
It introduces an unacceptable contradiction to have the host treated now on one basis and later on another basis.
I don’t see why anyone would demand such a thing.

John Lilburne April 7, 2006 at 1:23 pm

Each Mass should have an altar server. For example, from 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) n. 145: “… the priest washes his hands standing at the side of the altar and, as the minister pours the water, says quietly, Lava me, Domine (Lord, wash away my iniquity).” So I would not discourage the “practice of a grown woman “serving” on the altar” (as it was described above). Fix abuses such as altar servers wearing stoles or adding the wine the chalice. But do not pretend the problem is fixed by having no altar server.

Inocencio April 7, 2006 at 1:28 pm

Jim Roche,
You assume that you have the authority of the hierarchy. You do not and I do not have that authority, we are called to obedience.
The example we are given is by our Blessed Lord Himself. Not only was He obedient to the religious authority of His time He instructed His apstoles to be until He gave His apostles His authority and their commission.
We are called to prayer, obedience and to offer up our suffering not to reject God-given authority and decide we know better.
“We are not called to be succesful, just faithful” Blessed Mother Teresa
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Michelle Arnold April 7, 2006 at 1:29 pm

Just to be clear here: In the story I told about the hosts, there was no question of proper reverence due the Eucharist. The RadTrad parishioners were insisting that they did not want to receive hosts that had been consecrated at a “Novus Ordo” Mass presumably because they doubted whether such hosts had been validly consecrated.
Even so, the idea that hosts consecrated at a Latin Mass somehow deserve even more reverence than hosts consecrated at a standard-rite Mass is deeply problematic. Any validly-consecrated host should be treated with due reverence and can also be distributed in the manner prescribed by the Church to a Catholic in need of Communion.
The crack that “Sister Mary Sunshine” should not be allowed near TLM hosts appears to me to treat with scorn the idea that duly-deputized EMHCs can take Communion to the faithful, and that, if the Church says they can, well then keep them away from hosts consecrated at the TLM.

Jim Roche April 7, 2006 at 1:46 pm

Michelle
“The RadTrad parishioners were insisting that they did not want to receive hosts that had been consecrated at a “Novus Ordo” Mass presumably because they doubted whether such hosts had been validly consecrated.”
Presumably? Whatever happened to “Don’t rely on hearsay” and “Accept that you don’t Know It All”
Why don’t you ask them?
“Even so, the idea that hosts consecrated at a Latin Mass somehow deserve even more reverence than hosts consecrated at a standard-rite Mass is deeply problematic.”
Nobody is claiming that. Every host deserves the same reverence but they don’t always get it do they? A Latin Mass Priest must take responsibility for the hosts he has consecrated You have talked about abuses in the NO. There are widespread abuses relating to the Eucharist which arise in the NO Mass and which can’t be simply ignored in the circumstances. That is the concern.
A few examples
Failure of Priest to wash hands at beginning of Liturgy of the Eucharist
People say parts of Eucharistic prayer which are reserved to Priest, such as Per ipsum (“Through him, with him, in him…”)
Priest uses unapproved Eucharistic Prayer or changes words of consecration
Recipe for altar bread includes ingredients other than flour and water in the dough (except in an Eastern rite parish)
People at altar receiving Communion at same time as Priest
Outside of health reasons, Priest fails to distribute Communion, leaving task to Deacons and/or Eucharistic Ministers
Refusal of Minister or Priest a person’s right to choose whether to receive Host on tongue or in hands (in cases other than Communion by instinction)
Extraordinary ministers and altar servers forced by Priest to receive Host in hand
Chalice containing Precious Blood picked up by Communicants from altar or table
Consecrated Hosts picked up by Communicants from altar or table
Communion given to Protestants apart from special circumstances indicated in Code of Canon Law
Precious Blood poured down sink or sacrarium
Chalice containing Precious Blood is made of absorbent material, such as unglazed clay, or an ungilded and corrosion-prone material, such as silver
Failure of Priest to carefully and reverently collect and consume or dissolve any particles from Hosts during purification of vessels
Failure of Priest to reverently dissolve any drops of Precious Blood
Failure to consume remainder of Precious Blood (unless it is being taken to the sick)
USE of altar or main part of the church (ie, the “liturgical space,” as some insist on calling it) for purposes other than (or in addition to) divine Worship
Use of baskets to hold consecrated Hosts
Location (ie, removal) of Tabernacle to hard-to-find, out-of-the way chapel
People standing during the consecration and Eucharistic Prayer due to absence of kneelers
Failure of people, either on own initiative or at “invitation,” to kneel, following conclusion of Sanctus (“Holy, Holy, Holy….”) and through conclusion of Great Amen
People stand around altar holding hands during consecration
People imitate gestures made by Priest that are appropriate for his role alone

Jim Roche April 7, 2006 at 1:57 pm

The crack that “Sister Mary Sunshine” should not be allowed near TLM hosts appears to me to treat with scorn the idea that duly-deputized EMHCs can take Communion to the faithful, and that, if the Church says they can, well then keep them away from hosts consecrated at the TLM.
Do you claim that all (or any) EMCHs are acting in emergency situations as intended? I think you have enough to be doing sorting out the NO abuses without picking on Trads RadTrads fruitchuckers or whatever you want to call us.

Patrick April 7, 2006 at 2:01 pm

Wow. That’s a long list of abuses. It’s also irrelevent to what was written. It is only relevent to a situation that you invented (the RadTrads are scared of hosts being abused). The point was people who believe that hosts consecrated at a “Novus Ordo” Mass are in some way inferior or invalid. I don’t see how inventing a new “what if” situation and then arguing for it really makes your point.
What is your opinion on the original scenario as decribed?

Old Zhou April 7, 2006 at 2:15 pm

Jim, that sounds like the Litany of the Grumpy.
Get with it, man. At my local suburban American parish, when the music for Mass is conga and djembe drums, with electric guitars (melody, harmony and bass), and multiple keyboards, and the cantorettes are cute young girls with bare middles when they sway to the responsory, and I’m serving as Lector reading from the Ambo wearing shorts and no socks in my Birkies, and we pass around the ceramic plate with the hosts to each other, well, dude, your list is just so….dated.
On the other hand, when I’m at a chanted Mass at a monastery in a remote mountainside in Europe, a place where real saints from the calendar guided the community in centuries past, a place built of stones starting before AD 1000, and there is no hot water after morning, and no TV or radio or computers, well, dude, who needs kneelers? I just kneel on the pointy stone floor and chant Stabat Mater.
But in both cases, the communities are faithfully following the guidance of their local ordinaries, and using the current Mass.

Tim J. April 7, 2006 at 2:57 pm

Yipe! Old Zhou, that first scenario sounds like an unmitigated nightmare… umm, dude.
Jim Roche, if these abuses (as in your list) occur, it is just as great an abuse of Jesus whether the hosts were consecrated at the LM or the NO.
The Real Presence of Christ in the LM hosts could not possibly warrant “more” reverence than that present in the NO hosts. NO hosts are no less precious than LM hosts, unless one doubts the validity of the NO.

Inocencio April 7, 2006 at 3:29 pm

Old Zhou,
I know I have poor sense of humor but I never know when you are being serious. But your post are always interesting.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Jim Roche April 7, 2006 at 3:41 pm

Tim J
Jim Roche, if these abuses (as in your list) occur, it is just as great an abuse of Jesus whether the hosts were consecrated at the LM or the NO.
Of course. But the priest who says the Latin Mass can’t do anything about the hosts he has not concecrated.
Patrick
The point was people who believe that hosts consecrated at a “Novus Ordo” Mass are in some way inferior or invalid.
Michelle put it like this.
“The RadTrad parishioners were insisting that they did not want to receive hosts that had been consecrated at a “Novus Ordo” Mass presumably because they doubted whether such hosts had been validly consecrated.”
I think she would need to check with the people involved before making such an assumption.
You don’t have to be a fruitchucker but you should at least be a factchecker.
Don’t rely on hearsay.

Inocencio April 7, 2006 at 3:47 pm

“You don’t have to be a fruitchucker but you should at least be a factchecker.
Excellent point Jim add obedience and you make a bad situation better.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Tammy April 7, 2006 at 4:01 pm

COnfession time (haha). I used to be a RadTrad. Talk about a confused youth. I went from a liberal teenager to to a radtrad all in the span of like three semesters at a liberal catholic college that missed the point so badly even *I* could pick it out. I understand where the radtrads are coming from, at least. doing things completely “the way they used to be” doesn’t leave room for “creativity” “interpretation” or “abuse” (or at least it doesn’t seem to–the past is set in stone and provides at least that much security). It means not seeing something “new” and “different” and having to hit the books and research whether that was valid or not. It means not having to change your opinion about people because… hey, you thought they were a nice person, or he was a good priest… until he did THAT. It means not having to give an inch, in a world that asks you to compromise who you are and what you believe every day.
That being said… I’m a lot calmer now. I Have a lot less ulcers in the stomach. I can still be moved to get up and leave if things get TOO wacky for my patience.
But hey, everybody believes that they are right. Just as much as I’m sure whatever wacky thing they’re doing is wrong, they’re sure they’re “enlightening” everybody and “broadening horizons.” Probably no ill will intended… benign stupidity versus malitious stupidity. That’s just the way things are. Nothing will ever be perfect. Being a grownup is about knowing when to pick and choose your battles. It’s OK sometimes to try to work things out and unenlighten the enlightened, but it’s ok to just move on to another parish sometimes… till they irritate you too much too. I’m a grownup, I can do that. I also don’t eat the crust on my PB&J sandwiches any more.

Jim Roche April 7, 2006 at 4:24 pm

Inocencio
For ten years, Timothy Radcliffe led the international Dominican order. Here is a quote from him from Rorate Caeli today
“We must accompany [gay people] as they discern what this means, letting our images be stretched open… This means watching ‘Brokeback Mountain,’ reading gay novels, living with our gay friends and listening with them as they listen to the Lord.”
When the Church is in such a crisis that someone so prominent can make such a statement then we have to consider what obedience means. I know I’m never going to hear anything other that the faith the whole faith and nothing but the faith from an SSPX Priest. I’m as old as Vatican II For the first 38 years of my life I was not given the Catholic faith by my Catholic School my local Catholic Church or by my Catholic family. If it wasn’t for the SSPX I would probably have died in ignorance. How can you obey what you don’t know.
“Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.
- St. Thomas Aquinas
But though we , or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema Galatians 1:8

bill912 April 7, 2006 at 4:33 pm

Jim Roche: You weren’t given the whole Faith from an SSPX priest; If he had the whole Faith, he would accept the authority of the Church and the Holy Father. That he is a member of a schismatic group show that he doesn’t. Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia.

Inocencio April 7, 2006 at 4:58 pm

Jim Roche,
The words of our Blessed Lord:
Matt. 10:24 “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master;
Matt. 23:2-3 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice”
Matt. 16:18 “I will give you (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Matt. 18:17-18 “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Luke 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
and of course from Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302:
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
“we have to consider what obedience means”
obedience
(Latin: ob, near; audio, hear)
Submission to the will or law of one who exercises authority; to the Will or law of God, to the laws of the Church; to a lawfully constituted superior, civil or religious. -New Catholic Dictionary
Remain obedient to the pope his authority comes from God and not from us.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Mary April 7, 2006 at 5:28 pm

It would be better to have no Indult than to allow the hosts concecrated at a Latin Mass to be treated the way hosts are treated at the NO Mass.
And why are the hosts consecrated at a Latin Mass such special little hosts?
Are the ones at a NO Mass not consecrated? Does the consecration not take completely? Does being consecrated at NO Mass mean that Jesus’s Real Presence is innured to the things that go on at a NO Mass, but being consecrated at a Latin Mass leaves Him more sensitive?
The only way one can draw a distinction between the hosts is to deny the validity of the Mass in English. There is no other choice.

Inocencio April 7, 2006 at 5:39 pm

Jim Roche,
Just so you understand St. Thomas Aquinas’ thoughts on obedience to the Pope the earlier quote from Pope Boniface VIII papal bull Unam Sanctam is a direct quotation from Aquinas’ Contra Errores Graecorum (Latin for “Against the Errors of the Greeks”)
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Jim Roche April 7, 2006 at 11:31 pm

Mary
There is no distinction between the hosts. The distinction is between the way the hosts are treated.
And why are the hosts consecrated at a Latin Mass such special little hosts?
Every single host is special. Every Priest should ensure as much as possible that the hosts he concecrates are never abused in any way.
Every Catholic should always be mindful of how the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is treated.
Inocencio
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Do you believe that? Or do you believe this?
It follows that these seperated Churches and Communities, though we believe tey suffer from defects have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.. For the Spirit Christ has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation……
That’s from the Second Vatican Council.
Do you believe that “We must update the Church to the new living conditions in the modern world making us acceptable to modern man.”
“A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master;
My point is that our teachers refused to teach and our masters refused to direct.
The Lord told us to judge by the fruits. And he didn’t mean the ones in Brokeback Mountain as Radcliff seems to believe.
Remain obedient to the pope his authority comes from God and not from us.
It is to that authority that we appeal. It is on that authority we rely to address the crisis.

Jim Roche April 7, 2006 at 11:43 pm

“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Is that right? Or is this right?
While rejecting atheism, root and branch, the Church sincerely professes that all men, believers and unbelievers alike, ought to work for the rightful betterment of the world in which all alike live. Such an ideal cannot be realized, however, apart from sincere and prudent dialogue
I think that if VII can be that cosy with Communism you don’t have much of a basis for attacking the SSPX. Except of course, as we have seen, a pre-VII basis which is telling in itself.

Inocencio April 8, 2006 at 7:44 am

Jim Roche,
It is very convenient for you to decide when God-given authority applies to you now but the consequence will be eternal.
“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
“It is to that authority that we appeal. It is on that authority we rely to address the crisis.”
If you deny the validity of Vatican II, which was approved by the God-given authority of the pope, then how can you accept any councils teachings which have their authority because a pope approved them?
If you deny the authority of the living pope please explain to me how you accept the authority of a dead one?
How you do not feel like a protestant or a pharisee is beyond me. You pick and chose what popes and councils you will accept as if they get their authority from your approval.
Like all of Sacred Scripture has to be reconciled because it cannot contradict itself. Every ecumenical council is a part of Catholic teaching because the Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit to all that Christ said. John 14:25-31
God have mercy on both our souls.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Jim Roche April 8, 2006 at 11:42 am

Inocencio
I notice you don’t address any of the contradictions I raised but simply repeat your usual mantra.
It is very convenient for you to decide when God-given authority applies to you now but the consequence will be eternal.
I do not decide for myself. I seek the guidence of Catholic Priests who teach the Catholic faith. It is indeed a crisis that where I live such men can only be found in the SSPX. But the crisis will end I am certain.
If you deny the authority of the living Pope please explain to me how you accept the authority of a dead one?
I accept the authority of the Pope. There have been Popes who made mistakes of course. They are not perfect and never claimed to be.
The only Popes I have any memory of are the current Pope and his predecessor. I think they will both be remembered as great Popes. John Paul tried to address the issues of concern to traditional Catholics and I believe Benedict XVI will actually resolve the issue.
How you do not feel like a protestant or a pharisee is beyond me.
Beyond you? To use the word protestant as an insult while accepting Vatican II is a position of utter confusion.
If you accept VII the protestants have by no means been deprived of significance or importance in the mystery of salvation
Yet you threaten me with hell for attending the Tridentine Mass!
Now I think I am repeating myself and I have said all I have to say on the subject for now and as the site is not a traditional one I won’t intrude further on its hospitality (at least on this thread)
Thanks to all who responded points I made. A happy and Holy Easter you you all.

bill912 April 8, 2006 at 12:04 pm

Jim Roche: I just re-read (twice) every one of Inocencios’s comments on this thread. In none of them did he threaten you with hell for attending the Tridentine Mass. How dare you post such a bald-faced lie?

Inocencio April 8, 2006 at 12:13 pm

Jim Roche,
I notice you don’t address any of the contradictions I raised but simply repeat your usual mantra.”
I repeat my answer.
Like all of Sacred Scripture has to be reconciled because it cannot contradict itself. Every ecumenical council is a part of Catholic teaching because the Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit to all that Christ said. John 14:25-31
I as a Catholic (Kata Holos = According to the WHOLE) accept all the Catholic Church has taught, teaches and will teach because it is guarenteed by God. If there appears to be a contridiction to my understanding I humbly submit myself to the teaching of my mother the Church for guidance always in obedience to her God-given authority. I am not a priest, bishop or the pope and do not pretend I have the authority of one. The Lord did not promise to guide me personally to all truth or give me the personal infallibility some groups think they have.
I do not threaten you with Hell for attending the Tridentine Mass or wanting the Tridentine Mass. I have attended the Tridentine Mass and know it is an important and beautiful part of our faith as all rites are. Hell is freely chosen by those who disobey and reject God’s revealed Truth and authority.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Tim J. April 8, 2006 at 12:58 pm

You know, before now (naively enough) I didn’t really have first hand experience of the depth of emotions on both sides of this issue.
We seem to be spinning our wheels. My perception of the whole situation has led me to think that there are certain realities that must be confronted;
1) The rejection of the authority of the Church can not be defended by faithful Catholics.
2) The teaching of Vatican II has been rejected by liturgical abusers on the one hand, and by schismatic traditionalists on the other.
3) It must acknowledged that both the Novus Ordo (properly practiced) and the Tridentine Mass (under proper authority) have a legitimate place in the liturgical life of the Church.
Dissenters on both the left and right have encouraged disobedience to legitimate authority. The schismatic trads do this by keeping the form of right worship, while rejecting the authority under which it must be practiced. The liturgical iconoclasts on the left reject the authority of the Church by ignoring it and introducing whatever novelty suits their fancy.
The Tridentine Mass must be practiced under proper authority, and the Novus Ordo must be purged of novelties and abuse.

Jim Roche April 8, 2006 at 1:22 pm

I think I’m entitled to one last contribution as I have been called a liar. Just to be clear this is what I took to be a threat of hell address directly to me
It is very convenient for you to decide when God-given authority applies to you now but the consequence will be eternal.
If that was not what was intended then I’m happy to stand corrected.
TimJ
The Tridentine Mass must be practiced under proper authority, and the Novus Ordo must be purged of novelties and abuse.
That should indeed be the objective. We should all reflect on where and how we can make the most positive contribution to that outcome. As I will always attend the Tridentine Mass it is on that I intend to concentrate my efforts.

J. R. Stoodley April 8, 2006 at 1:24 pm

What a sad commentary on the state of the Church all this is. Now we see the fruits of relativism and pride. Innocencio, God bless you, but that you would have to argue against someone who claims to be a traditional Catholic is tragic.
“The smoke of Satan has entered into even the highest levels of the Church”
That is more or less what Pope Paul VI said. Ironic that that should be perhaps the most famous single quote from the Pope who tried to be such a reformer.
I will propose that the smoke of Satan is not just liberalism, but all dissent and all this arguing and name calling that has infected the Church on all sides, that obscures true orthodoxy and seems to discredit the Catholic Church from the perspective of the world and other Christians.
“Divide and conquer” says the cliché. We are sure divided. Good thing Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. Otherwise I would be worried.

Tim J. April 8, 2006 at 1:42 pm

“That should indeed be the objective. We should all reflect on where and how we can make the most positive contribution to that outcome. As I will always attend the Tridentine Mass it is on that I intend to concentrate my efforts.”
We should strive to make ALL liturgies such that faithful Catholics of ANY stripe could attend in good conscience.

Inocencio April 8, 2006 at 4:43 pm

Jim Roche,
“It is very convenient for you to decide when God-given authority applies to you now but the consequence will be eternal.”
I stand by my comment because it was about being obedient and submitting to God-given authority. I did not even mention attendance at the Tridentine Rite. I clarified the context in my next comment.
“I do not threaten you with Hell for attending the Tridentine Mass or wanting the Tridentine Mass. I have attended the Tridentine Mass and know it is an important and beautiful part of our faith as all rites are. Hell is freely chosen by those who disobey and reject God’s revealed Truth and authority.”
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio April 8, 2006 at 5:00 pm

Tim J. and J.R. Stoodley,
I agree with both of your summaries. It is sad because it is so obvious how much all of us desire reverence at the Holy Mass and respect for legitimate authority.
Please pray for Pope Benedict XVI everyday that he may receive the grace to guide us faithfully and boldly.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Mary April 8, 2006 at 5:06 pm

There is no distinction between the hosts.
You’ve drawn one. You’ve said that it would be wrong to treat hosts consecrated at a Latin mass in a manner.
The distinction is between the way the hosts are treated.
If the hosts are identical, the treatment can not be logically objected to for one rather than the other. If you object to the treatment, you would object to the treatment. Yet you carefully state that you object to this treatment for hosts consecrated at a Latin mass.

Jim Roche April 9, 2006 at 12:39 am

OK, One for the road.
Mary,
At an NO Mass some people receive on the tongue and some in the hand. Some received kneeling some standing. Some receive from a Priest and some from the local newsagent’s wife.
The host does not change but how it is treated does even within the NO Mass.
In the Tridentine Mass there are rules about the treatment of hosts and hosts consecrated at that Mass should be treated according to those rules.
If I may offer an analogy John Lennon’s atheistic anthem Imagine is not suitable music for any Mass yet I have heard it used. A Traditional Priest can ensure it is not played at his Mass but he can’t stop Fr. Trendy down the road from using it.
That doesn’t mean he agrees with it just that he can’t stop it.
I believe all hosts should be treated in the way they are treated in the Tridentine Mass. The question is when can something be done about it.

John April 9, 2006 at 5:02 am

Especially, the last post illustrates the fruit of the Council (VC II) is dissent. That is a fact that must be elaborated before we can understand the present problem. It is no good demonizing either side of this debate.
If before the Council the enemies of the Church could make one suggestion on how to wreak havoc among us would surely have been: “Make a radical change in the Mass” [and, for good measure, impose it without adequate preparation of the faithful].

Mark April 9, 2006 at 6:34 am

The Holy Father in recent weeks has had talks about reconcilliation with SSPX. He has spoken at the consistory and twice withe the Curia. Several Catholic news agencies have reported reccomendations for Latin from the synod. Could This be a shift in the Fall from the NO back to the Tridentine? Could Pope Benedict do such a thing? Would our discussion next year be about Catholic refusing Latin in the Mass? What is the real rub in all of this?..Its about obedience! I recently watched a Christopher Reeve’s movie “The Monsignor”. Not The best image of a priest; however, One moment in the movie is significant. The older Cardinal gives a confused priest this advice, “The first rule of this Church my son is..We obey. Because obedience for us is fufillment.” Without obedience we become just as our seperated bretheren.Wandering without compass or a map.

bill912 April 9, 2006 at 7:29 am

Excellent point, Mark. I’m re-reading a biography of St. Pio of Pietrelcina. Obedience was his watchword.

Mary April 9, 2006 at 10:47 am

The question is when can something be done about it.
And if the answer is that nothing can be done about it, you can live with that for the Latin Rite hosts being consumed at a English language mass just as well as you can live with the hosts consecrated there being consumed there.
But you don’t hold that you can live with it. You hold that “it would be better to have no Indult than to allow the hosts concecrated at a Latin Mass to be treated the way hosts are treated at the NO Mass.”

Neal April 9, 2006 at 11:43 am

None of the items mentioned above are abuses or mistreatment of the hosts. The Church has said that Communion may be received in the hand or on the tongue, and that EMHCs may distribute Communion. Therefore, they are not abuses, no matter what you, or I, or Michelle, or anyone else may or may not think. If at some point receiving in the hand is prohibited, then, and only then, will it be an abuse. The same with EMHCs.
Real abuses must be dealt with, but something is an abuse, if and only if the Church has said it is, either by prohibiting it or requiring something else.

J. R. Stoodley April 9, 2006 at 2:33 pm

A traditionalism that draws one away from the love of God is an abuse of tradition.

John April 9, 2006 at 3:21 pm

Question:What exactly is a “Rad trad”-if you believe in the faith as handed down from the apostles untainted by the liberal reforms-then who is really Catholic?
One can easily look at the actions of “Santo Subito” in his “100 heretical action” list that someone sent to me, with his Assisi worshipping of Pagan idols on down the line and one has to question who really is schismatic, the ones praticing the faith as handed down from the Apostles and Saints or those who have reinvented Catholicism to suit their liberal Moderinistic agendas?

John April 9, 2006 at 3:26 pm

Mark-Obedience is a double edged sword. Are you saying that Cardinal Ottavini as well as others who were high ranking Council members who knew something was terribly wrong with the New Mass and the liturgical reforms, and Archbishop Lefebvre with all of their years and knowledge of the catholic faith were wrong for speaking out for what they felt was Uncatholic? No, these men should be honored for the stand they have, just like whistleblowers who see injustice and have the guts to stand up and say something even while others fall in line. Talk about obedience to the 12 million or so who died at the hands of the Nazis as these men were “obedient”
What is being sold off today as being Catholic just is not, and the bad fruit these reforms have produced are evident these past 40 or so years

Mark April 9, 2006 at 3:38 pm

I was recently on a voice chat program in Catholic sponser program. being RADTRAD seems to be the least of our problems. They were saying Epicopalians and Anglicans and assorted other groups were Catholic!.I am not a rad trad and I occasionally go to a Tridentine Mass (FSSP). What bothers me now is the continued move in ecumenism to embrace everyone and everything.I think before Vat2. Things were clearer and more defined. Just look at some of the things that are happening and being said in this blog!!! The abuses and disrespect to Jesus in the Eucharist! I love the Mass and I love my Church. I was a protestant for 25 years and Jesus led me back to The Church. I am however leaning strongly to the SSPX..If they were in communion..and not schismatic (which sems to be the idea from some Cardinals)I would consider a chapel down the street!

Mark April 9, 2006 at 3:39 pm

P.S..Can a Pope declare a council void or the NO invalid?

Mark April 9, 2006 at 4:10 pm

John..I just read your post. It seems that Bishop Levebvre stood up with others and resist changes and made their case. This is the point of a council of Bishops. To discuss. The Archbishop’s mistake and apparent disobedience was (As I understand it) was to consecrate additonal bishops when the Holy See said no. Was such defiance needed? I am sure its not the first time Rome had spoken and some well meaning Bishop rebelled. How can we say we are Catholic and be in union with Peter and disobey? The Church appears to be offering a hand and Bishop Fellay bites back saying “we have to Churches! and allowing the Mass is only the begining.”What have the Church Fathers said about disobedience? My only experience with SSPX was and Ignatian Retreat( which no one else offers) and two weeks living with a SSPX family for two weeks(I was the best man at his Baptist wedding which now says was sin!) I hate to appear naive or ignorant. Itry to do what is right. I comeback to the Church and see this stuff and wonder what has happened. I wish there was an answer. I try to find good Catholic teaching but it seems that I cannot find what i heard from JP2, Fr Groschell or Fr Corapi anywhere. Even in my own Diocese where Fr Corapi taught..the priests rebelled and threatened a strike if he didnt stop (at least this is the local story and most in my parish seem to validate this) What is a Catholic to do and where is he to go?..To the SSPX?..to FSSP or not at all? The Church was my last spirtual refuge. Now you tell me the smoke of Satan is here?..I bet I sound confused

J. R. Stoodley April 10, 2006 at 6:10 am

John,
Is comparing the Church to the Nazi regime or Enron traditional or orthodox? I hope I don’t sound like a traditionalist basher. I have many of the same concerns as those posted here, but know I must submit to legitimate authority. Also nothing but the bare basics of the Liturgy were passed down from the Apostles. Throughout its history the Church, especially the Latin Rite, has changed its Liturgy in an attempt to better express sacred mysteries of the Eucharist or make it more understandable to the people. You might find the most recent changes counterproductive, but don’t act like the Apostles established the Church just like it was in 1950 or 1920 and any further change is liberal Modernist reform.
Mark,
Cardinal Avery Dulles, when asked by Raymond Arroyo on EWTN if in a conflict between the Pope and the Second Vatican Council which would override the other, the Cardinal said he found it hard to imagine how such a situation would come about, since the Pope is the legitimate interpreter of the Council, but ultimately he would have to say the Council would take precidence.
It is important to note this was an off the cuff remark, but still it comes from a greatly respected and faithful theologian. Also it would certainly not apply to pastoral rather than doctrinal matters, and most of the material of Vatican II was pastoral. Many traditionalists have no problems with the two Dogmatic Constitutions of the Council. The Pope could change pastoral directives. I doubt it remotely possible that he could or would declare the NO invalid, but he could come out with another Missil, or even go back entirely to the “Latin Mass” aka “Traditional Mass” aka “Tridentine Mass”. Some have suggested Pope Benedict might try to combine the good points of the NO and the Traditional Mass into something better than either.
I would recommend you don’t concern yourself too much with not being able to find a faithful parish in your area. It is indeed difficult to find a parish or a priest that does not go the the left (like most in the Church) or the right (like SSPX) of true, orthodox Catholicism. Of course there is also some wiggle room in the Church for different spiritualities or opinions on some controversial issues like evolution or what language is better to use at Mass.
I would recommend you find as good a parish as you can in your area without going over to some schismatic group like SSPX or worse sedevacantists. And keep yourself centered and orthodox with resources like Papal writtings, the Vatican website, Catholic Answers, EWTN, and authors like G. K. Chesterton (pre-Vatican II) or Scott Hahn (post-Vatican II).
Whatever your perspective, the Church has certainly seen worse days than these (consider the time of St. Athanasius) and will probably see worse times in the future. The Church has always conquered these problems and emerged stronger for it.

J. R. Stoodley April 10, 2006 at 6:17 am

Above all, pray folks.

Mark April 10, 2006 at 7:10 am

Thanks J.R..that was helpful. I found a good confessor at a parish that is Tridentine (FSSP is in comunion) that is very helpful.I must admit is difficult at times to find a path through much of this.

John April 11, 2006 at 5:53 pm

Mark
Yes a Pope can declare a council null and void as it has happened twice in church history
As far as being confused, millions of catholic are as nothing ever has happened like this, except for the 4th century where it is actually the clergy who want to liberalize the church and are in control of the money and property and are not protecting the deposit of faith as handed down but instead retranslating it to suit whatever it is that they have in their modern agenda, aka Protestanism
We all must pray, but I for one will not expose my children to what is being sold off today as catholic with liberal lay ministers, altar girls, communion in the hand and a catechism as well as even Pre Cana being handed over to liberal lay persons who are confusing our children. My sister just had to pull my Godson out of his catechism class for being taught to doubt and question the validity of certain sacraments (and not for the changes made after Vatican II to the form and matter, but the actual validity of it whatsoever).

Inocencio April 11, 2006 at 8:50 pm

John,
Yes a Pope can declare a council null and void as it has happened twice in church history
Could you please name the pope(s) and two councils?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

J. R. Stoodley April 11, 2006 at 9:19 pm

The very early councils did not have authority on their own (the Eastern Orthodox would disagree on this) because the Pope did not call or attend them, but derived their authority by the approval of the Pope later. There were some councils that included things the Popes legitimately rejected, like the initial declaration of Constantinople as a Patriarchate in the council of Chalcedon, that the Pope Leo the Great rejected.
I also heard from a priest of a “council” that ended with the arguing sides getting so mad at each other it ended in a bloody massacre. Needless to say the Pope did not give approval to the teachings of that council. Sorry I don’t have names or dates for that one, just hearsay from a priest who learned about it in seminary.
Vatican II is different. It was presided over by the Popes of the time, and constantly recognized after that. It was thus clearly a valid Magisterial act.

Mary Alexander April 12, 2006 at 2:46 pm

Dear Michelle,
It always makes me a little sad to see those who attend the Latin Mass picked on. After all are they not our brothers and sisters in Christ? Oh, I forgot those are the Jews and Protestants.
1. Anyhow, do you have any idea how snooty you come off when you say, you plebians do not have the inside contacts that I have so you will just have to trust me and whatever I say though I can’t give any sensitive information out?
2. Liturgical perfection? No what we are talking about is liturgical obedience. You scream “obedience” but when you attend a Mass (I dislike the word liturgy b/c I think it trivializes the sacrifice of the Mass)where sacrilege occurs and Mass is said by a disobedient priest you are participating in that disobedience and condoning it.
3. What Catholic family can afford Haagen Daz? I don’t know any Catholic family that can afford it and we are happy to be able to afford the no name vanilla. That is a treat. But this is more evidence of a division between radtrads who have more than 2 children, their NFP boy and NFP girl.

Tim J. April 12, 2006 at 3:34 pm

Dear Mary Alexander,
It always makes me a little sad to see those who attend the Novus Ordo Mass picked on. After all are they not our brothers and sisters in Christ? Oh, I forgot those are the Jew Haters and Sedevacantists.
1. Anyhow, do you have any idea how snooty you come off when you say that REAL Catholic families have more than two children, and that eating a certain brand of ICE CREAM can be taken as a sign of weak faith?
2. Liturgical perfection? No what we are talking about is liturgical obedience. You scream “obedience” but if you attend a Mass where SCHISM occurs and Mass is said by a disobedient priest you are participating in that disobedience and condoning it.
3. What Catholic family can afford ice cream? I don’t know how any truly Catholic family can afford it. We are happy to be able to afford our daily bread and water. Oh, Lord, I thank you that I am not like other men…

bill912 April 12, 2006 at 4:54 pm

Well said, Tim

inarticulus April 12, 2006 at 11:59 pm

Hello Mr. Akins, and all. It seems like the attack on Traditional Catholics is a strawman attack, because most acknowledge the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo, such as SSPX, SSJ, Institute of Christ the King, and the Fraternity of Saint Peter. They are all classified as Traditional Catholics, and an acronym, like Trad, coming from people who don’t sympathise is like a protestant calling an irishman a “mick.” The Vatican has stated that people who go to any of the afore mentioned traditional masses fullful thier sunday obligation, and are not scismatic–this is AFTER mediator Dei was published! I personally go the the Novus Ordo, but I will go to a Tridentine Mass, if one ever comes to my area. Much of the Spite against traditionalism comes from people who have not had exposure to the arguments that Lefevbre puts forth, in “open letter to Confused Catholics.” –Or anything Written by Michael Davies. Lefevbre does a good job articulating the traditional Catholic perspective, showing that it is not about the MASS at all! The Mass is the Fruit of the mentality that made it. Lefebvre made his stand against what was happening, globally to seminaries, Masses, artwork, disciplines…Combined they seem to represent a “different faith” than the faith of our Forfathers…Traditional Catholisism is not a “movement.” it is a “STANCE.”

Tim J. April 13, 2006 at 5:55 am

Inarticulus-
“The Vatican has stated that people who go to any of the afore mentioned traditional masses fullful thier sunday obligation, and are not scismatic”
You’ll get no argument with that on this blog.
If you will read Michelle’s post and the comments, I think you will find that most have been careful to make this very distinction. I only wish there were an indult Mass within driving distance, but there is not.
The problem comes in precisely at the point of schism, which is how Michelle defined RadTradism. There are Trads (count me in!) and there are RadTrads. The term Trad is not perjorative.
“Lefevbre does a good job articulating the traditional Catholic perspective, showing that it is not about the MASS at all!”
This seems like a justification for the fact that even if the Latin Mass is restored, groups like the SSPX and other schismatics will probably always find some reason not to come back into the Big Catholic Tent under the Pope.

Tim J. April 13, 2006 at 6:48 am

Oops! I screwed up, inartuculus, and missed your reference to the SSPX as being non-scismatic.
I read through your post too quickly and thought that you were referring to approved indult Latin Masses as being non-scismatic, which is a no-brainer.
For you and others who maintain that the SSPX is not in schism… may I ask, then, what all the fuss is about, concerning bringing the SSPX back into union with Rome?
If the SSPX is not in schism, why would they need to “come back”? What, exactly, have the Vatican and the SSPX been negotiating?
It seems to me that what Rome has offered is probably something like this: Henceforth, We are prepared to officially recognize the validity of the liturgy, sacraments and ordinations of the SSPX, provided the SSPX submits to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and the Local Ordinary.
In other words, the SSPX takes its place in the Church Hierarchy and we all move on. This is a forward looking statement, that makes NO COMMENT on the current or past status of the liturgy, sacraments and ordinations of the SSPX. It simply ignores the question of whether past SSPX ordinations were valid.
What the SSPX (and other groups) seem to want is for Rome to say that the SSPX liturgies, sacraments and ordinations have been valid ALL ALONG, that excommunications of SSPX Bishops were IN ERROR, and furthermore, that the SSPX was right about the Mass and Vatican II was a mistake.
Ain’t never gonna happen. And those who wait for it only set themselves up for a life of bitterness and frustration.

bill912 April 13, 2006 at 6:52 am

“It simply ignores the question of whether past SSPX ordinations were valid.” They were valid; I think you meant licit, Tim.

Tim J. April 13, 2006 at 8:19 am

Yes, thanks for the distinction, bill912.
The orduinations were certainly valid, but not licit.

inarticulus April 13, 2006 at 10:37 pm

Hi Tim, you read me right the first time. The distinction there is that people who go to SSPX masses are in communion with the holy Catholic Church. They attend by force of thier own conscience…it would be a sin for many “rad trads” to attend a NO mass because to do so would condone how the NO came about;- politically ushered,written by protestants, visibly an acting out of all the warnings in “sillibus of errors and pachendi…(sorry to butcher the spelling).” –If the way you pray eventually become the way you believe…etc Don’t get upset at that. It would not be a cut on people who attend the NO mass, just as your lack of attendance at a protestant service is a force of conviction of principle, not a snub of other people.
Regarding the legal status of the 4 bishops and Lefebvre. I do not judge, even though the pope himself issued a “Decree.” The decree which came two days after the consecrations, if you read it carefully was carefully worded, with passive language, resting on the interpretation of a single cannon code. to paraphrase, the decree, as well as Mediator Dei, says, “based on Canon code XXXX, “I decree” (powerfull sounding) “that you have excommunicated yourself.” (with the exception of, “i decree”, this is very passive language.
There are two exceptions to the code that the the holy father was “basing” the decree on, which were not listed in the letter. There is a premise to all penalties, moreover, that in order to incure the penalty of excommunication, one has to commit a mortal sin. We know that there are 3 requirements for anyone to sin mortally–objectively bad–grave, Willingness, and knowledge. It can be argued, in the case of lefebvre that he acted in clean conscience, because of what HE PERCIEVED the reality to be. Thus, if he did not in truth sin mortally, then he is not in hell, and he was never excommunicated. You would have to prove that he sinned mortally, and you cant. period.

bill912 April 13, 2006 at 10:53 pm

“…the people who go to SSPX masses are in communion with the holy Catholic Church.” No more so than the Eastern Orthodox, and with far less excuse.

Inocencio April 14, 2006 at 6:27 am

inarticulus,
The pope is the supreme legislator of the Church. The pope publicly stated that the five named clerics “have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law”
Canon law specifically states that the pope and not you or I interpret the law. You may think it was passive but the fact remains the pope interpreted authentically by virtue of his office.
Can. 16 The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.
Can. 333 ß1 By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church, but also has pre‚eminent ordinary power over all particular Churches and their groupings. This reinforces and defends the proper, ordinary and immediate power which the Bishops have in the particular Churches entrusted to their care.
ß3 There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgment or a decree of the Roman Pontiff.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio April 14, 2006 at 6:39 am

inarticulus,
Going back over your post, I think you mean Ecclesia Dei which was issued by Pope Johh Paul II and not Mediator Dei which was issued by Pope Pius XII.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Tim J. April 14, 2006 at 8:27 am

“They attend by force of thier own conscience…”
People excuse lot of things by appealing to conscience, ot to their own perceptions of things.
Not a very compelling argument.

Mary April 14, 2006 at 9:53 am

it would be a sin for many “rad trads” to attend a NO mass because to do so would condone how the NO came about;- politically ushered,written by protestants, visibly an acting out of all the warnings in “sillibus of errors and pachendi..
One wonders why, under those rules, it is not a sin to attend a Mass at all. To do that would be to condone the Crucifixion, which is how the Mass came about.

Jim Roche April 14, 2006 at 10:44 am

TimJ
If the SSPX is not in schism, why would they need to “come back”? What, exactly, have the Vatican and the SSPX been negotiating?
The negotiations will be about putting and end to the irregular situation the SSPX is in.
It seems to me that what Rome has offered is probably something like this: Henceforth, We are prepared to officially recognize the validity of the liturgy, sacraments and ordinations of the SSPX, provided the SSPX submits to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and the Local Ordinary.
There is no question about the validity of any of those things.
What the SSPX (and other groups) seem to want is for Rome to say that the SSPX liturgies, sacraments and ordinations have been valid ALL ALONG, that excommunications of SSPX Bishops were IN ERROR, and furthermore, that the SSPX was right about the Mass and Vatican II was a mistake.
Not at all. Rome simply needs to lift the decrees of excommunication. The question about Vatican II appears to be what freedom the SSPX will have to criticise it.
Some seem to think Vatican II is above criticism while the wrong interpretations of it can be criticised.
But the wrong interpretations, if they are wrong, arise from the ambiguity of the documents themselves

Tim J. April 14, 2006 at 12:33 pm

“The negotiations will be about putting and end to the irregular situation the SSPX is in.”
“Irregular situation”? Schism? You say to-MAY-to, I say to-MAH-to…
“There is no question about the validity of any of those things.”
As was pointed out above, I should have said “licity” rather than validity. They are illicit.
“Rome simply needs to lift the decrees of excommunication.”.
Simple… Rome just needs to admit that the SSPX have been right all along…
Vatican II is not above criticism, but crticism and disobedience are two vastly different things. I can criticize someone in authority over me while remaining obedient.
A lot of the folks who left for the SSPX and other groups have been very badly needed in parish councils and catechetical programs. Their absence has only helped delay the “reform of the reform”.

Jim Roche April 14, 2006 at 3:26 pm

TimJ
Schism?
I asked this question elsewhere but maybe you can answer it. If the Post VII Church believes in the concept of schism then why doesn’t it pray for the schismatics? The traditional rite does.
Let us pray also for heretics and schismatics: that our Lord God would be pleased to rescue them from all their errors; and recall them to our holy mother the Catholic and Apostolic Church
I suspect the truth is that the VII Church sees the term as anachronistic and even insulting. It is only ever used these days against Traditional Catholics.
But we are then the people who are needed for parish councils and catechetical programs? To beg for the right to kneel at Communion perhaps? Or to have the gay activist propaganda removed from the Church? The SSPX have been more effective in bringing change from where they stand.
Without the SSPX would there have been an indult? No.
Simple… Rome just needs to admit that the SSPX have been right all along…
Then in 1965 Pope Paul VI lifted the anathemas and excommunications placed against the Orthodox in 1054. Did he by that admit they were right?
Clearly lifting the decrees would involve nobody admitting anything. It would just be a matter of finding a better way forward.

Anonymous April 14, 2006 at 3:47 pm

“If the Post VII Church believes in the concept of schism then why doesn’t it pray for the schismatics? The traditional rite does.”
From the General Intercessions today:
“Let us pray for all our brothers and sisters who share our faith in Jesus Christ, that God may gather and keep together in one Church all those who seek the truth with sincerity.
Almighty and eternal God, you keep together those you have united. Look kindly on all who follow Jesus your Son. We are all consecrated to you by our common baptism. Make us one in the fullness of faith, and keep us one in the fellowship of love. We ask this through Christ our Lord.”
The wording and expressions may be different, but the meaning and intention is the same – that all Christians will enter the Catholic Church to find the fulness of faith. And it’s the prayerful intention to which everyone in my parish (and every parish) said amen too this afternoon.

Ryan C April 14, 2006 at 3:47 pm

That last post was mine.

Inocencio April 14, 2006 at 4:04 pm

Jim Roche,
“There is no question about the validity of any of those things.”
Have you read some of the things the SSPX “bishops” having been saying? It seems to me at least that these statements go beyond criticism.
Bishop Fellay told his interviewer that SSPX leaders believe that they are fulfilling a crucial need for the Catholic Church, by “safeguarding what is first and foremost the patrimony of the universal Church.” He said that SSPX leaders are not deterred by the decrees of excommunication issued by the Vatican, “to which we never ascribed any canonical validity.”
SSPX Leader Hopes Vatican Will Take “First Step”
Tuesday, April 04, 2006 12:00:00 AM GMT

http://www.catholicexchange.com/e3news/index.asp?article_id=179940
“The question about Vatican II appears to be what freedom the SSPX will have to criticise it.”
“We are not opposed to agreements,” Bishop Fellay said. “But it has to be made possible.” To make a deal possible, he continued, Rome must change its stance, “because we will not budge; we want to remain Catholics.”
No Compromise with Vatican, SSPX Leader Says
Wednesday, February 08, 2006 12:00:00 AM GMT

http://www.catholicexchange.com/e3news/index.asp?article_id=178779
In his March message, Bishop Williamson said that Vatican officials have forsaken the traditional Catholic faith since Vatican II. Concentrating his criticism on the belief in religious freedom, the traditionalist leader said: “Whether they realize it or not, they are replacing the religion of God’s truth with the religion of man’s liberty, because religious liberty is the underpinning of their beliefs.”
The commitment to religious liberty, Bishop Williamson continued, “undermines all objective truth in order to set up the religion of man.” True Catholicism, he said, does not exalt religious freedom but “condemns the errors of the world.”
Vatican Has Replaced Faith, SSPX Bishop Charges
Friday, March 17, 2006 12:00:00 AM GMT

http://www.catholicexchange.com/e3news/index.asp?article_id=179566
We need to pray that our Blessed Lord’s Church will be One. John 17:20-21
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Jim Roche April 14, 2006 at 4:33 pm

Ryan C
The Prayer you post is a fine example of Novos Ordo ambiguity. It could be happily recited by any Protestant thinking it referred to his own religion.
You make a claim about the intention of the prayer. But there are other possible interpretations and I doubt your assertion that an amen to such a prayer implied an acceptance of your reading of it.
Do you really think that everyone in the Church believed that Christian unity means everyone else converting to Catholicism.
I’d like to believe it but I don’t.

inarticulus April 14, 2006 at 4:44 pm

Well, Bishop Williamson has never sugar coated anything. He is not troubled with sensitivities.
He leaves alot out of his statements, and alot to be misinterpreted, even though he was the dean of language at Cambridge, before becoming a priest. He probably wont ever be called to be pope, because, well, he intimidates/frightens even the most holy of traditional catholics. He comes directly from the 13th century, and that is not a bad thing, but he could say things a little more gently. He is often quoted in sound-bytes, in his defense, even though his sermon, might have been a half an hour long. At least he is honest, and in this day and age, not caring about what the liberals think, is a rare and beautiful thing. I do agree that he should count to ten before belting out another quotable.
But who am i?

inarticulus April 14, 2006 at 4:54 pm

Inocencio: thank you. I did brain-fart, with the mediator Dei, thing.
I also was not aware of the arguement you posted about the pope as the only person who can interpret cannon law.
Were you aware of the two exceptions to the law in question…that a bishop will not incur the penalty if he thinks, culpably, or inculpably that there is a dire need–an emergency? This is the arguement LEfebvre quoted… Since there was not a hearing afterwards, this is why, to this day there is such interest.
Also is everyone aware that Castrillion de Hoyos, in an interview called the scism into question?–he said that the bishops were in communion with the church, -that he wants “more” communion…
…with a scism, you are cut off…If you are in communion, you are not cut off. This statement from De Hoyos is in the last few months…I don’t know where to find it at this time, but I’ll get back to you…

Ryan C April 14, 2006 at 5:09 pm

“The Prayer you post is a fine example of Novos Ordo ambiguity. It could be happily recited by any Protestant thinking it referred to his own religion.”
The prayer has to be taken in its context, where it follows prayers for the Pope (who we state God choose to be bishop) and all the clergy, and preceeds the prayer that the Jewish people also come to the fullness of faith. It immediately follows the prayer for those about to receive Baptism, were we thank God for bringing them into His Church. The prayer speaks about the consecration of baptism and it’s ability to forgive sins. I therefore don’t see how the General Intercessions are in any way ambigous about their Catholicity, or how they could be imagined to occur just as smoothly in a Protestant context.
“Do you really think that everyone in the Church believed that Christian unity means everyone else converting to Catholicism.
I’d like to believe it but I don’t.”
Considering the many letters I received from people in my parish congratulating me for entering the Catholic Church after I was confirmed, and considering the strong RCIA program I went through, and considering that Father gives homilies stressing our difference from Protestants as Catholics, and considering that we had a prayer drive last year for Catholics who had fallen away from the Church, I have no reason to suspect that the people in the church did not know what they were praying for today – that is, for Christians to be incorporated into the Catholic Church.
Certainly there are people in the Church who don’t understand the proper aim of the call to unity. But that should not be extended to mean that the Post VII Church as a whole doesn’t realize the importance of evangelization and unity.
As I mentioned in the other thread, the fact that I and many thousands last year and this year were led to conversion by Catholics attests to the fact that the Church is still serious about bring people back into the Catholic Church.

Inocencio April 14, 2006 at 5:11 pm

inarticulus,
“Were you aware of the two exceptions to the law in question…that a bishop will not incur the penalty if he thinks, culpably, or inculpably that there is a dire need–an emergency?”
I have read that “explanation” before. Wouldn’t that pretty much allow any bishop or anyone to disobey when they felt a dire need to do so? Shouldn’t we believe our Blessed Lord Himself when He promised “the gates of hell will not prevail against My Church”.
Is it your understanding that Cardinal Castrillion de Hoyos has more authority than an apostolic letter of the Supreme Pontiff given motu proprio?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Tim J. April 14, 2006 at 6:56 pm

“The SSPX have been more effective in bringing change from where they stand.
Without the SSPX would there have been an indult? No.”
It may make you feel better to believe that, but I don’t. The Church has always found the way forward, and always will. To imagine that the Church is lost without the SSPX sounds like hubris to me.

Inquisitor Generalis April 14, 2006 at 6:59 pm

“Have you read some of the things the SSPX “bishops” having been saying? It seems to me at least that these statements go beyond criticism.”
Now you’re being idiotic. The SSPX bishops are, in fact, real, valid bishops. So there’s no need to put the word “bishops” in quotes.

Inocencio April 14, 2006 at 7:11 pm

Funny that when Inquisitor Generalis accuses me of being idiotic I somehow feel as though I just received a compliment.
If that is all you have to say Inquisitor Generalis, thank you.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio April 14, 2006 at 7:17 pm

inarticulus,
Have you read the Protocol Agreement that Archbishop Lefebvre signed with then Cardinal Ratzinger?
The Protocol Agreement of the Vatican and Archbishop Lefebvre
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5158
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

inarticulus April 14, 2006 at 7:26 pm

Hi Inocencio
“I have read that “explanation” before. Wouldn’t that pretty much allow any bishop or anyone to disobey when they felt a dire need to do so?”
I see youre point, but aren’t you really being critical of those cannon law exceptions? Did not the pope either write them in, or approve of them? The law actually states Culpably or inculbably believes…” so I do believe that the law is subjective and it is intended that way.
Archbishop LEfevbre argued that point…and per the code, even if he is wrong, as long as he truly believed, between him and God, that it was necessary, than he was not excommunicated, objectively. If that were the case, the popes statement, is a fallible opinion. -This is possible because the pope did not speak EX Cathedra on this matter, as far as i understand.
The fact that De Hoyos called it into question, is significant because he is the head of the Eclesia Dei commission, and very close to the pope. I doubt that he would make a public statement like that before talking out the matter with his Holiness, over tea.
Regarding the Gates of Hell. You are right there. There are many Gates in Jeruselem, each pointing toward a different group of people. Those people all do business in Jeruselem, making it a very eclectic place. The Church is exactly the same way, –there are many gates to the walls of the Church, through which “Hellians” can enter. They can hang around but they cant overcome. This subject reminds me of the ambiguous statement Pope Paul VI made, shortly after Vatican II–”Through some fisher, the smoke of satan has entered the church.” No one knows what that really means, unfortunately.
The gates of Hell will not prevail, because Christ promised.
But for the sake of argument, is it not possible, since “God’s ways are not our ways,” that this fine line, that the archbishop walked, is one of the meens by which, The gates of hell will not prevail? Is it possible…

Inocencio April 14, 2006 at 8:17 pm

inarticulus,
“I see youre point, but aren’t you really being critical of those cannon law exceptions? Did not the pope either write them in, or approve of them?”
I am not being critical of those points and the pope did approve of them and authentically interpreted them when he issued Ecclesia Dei. As the Supreme Legislator he gave his decree and no recourse is allowed against his judgement or decree.
I understand Cardinal Castrillion is in a postition of trying to reconcile the SSPX. I hope and pray he is successful. But Cardinals say many things and unless they have the pope’s signature it is not definitive.
In a recent situation the nuncio of Italy circulated a letter to the Italian Bishops Conference that “the Holy Father thinks that a change in the office of the presidency is in order.” And yet when the letter was published in two newspapers Pope Benedict XVI did the exact opposite of what was claimed in the letter and confirmed cardinal Camillo Ruini as president of the IBC.
Can Pope Benedict lift the excommunications? Yes, of course. Whatever Pope Benedict XVI decides I will gladly accept but until then Pope John Paul II decree stands, since there is no recourse.
Do I believe it was necessary for Archbishop Lefevbre to be directly disobedient to the Pope for the Church to survive the gates of hell? No.
Our Blessed Lord gave us an example of obedience, of picking up our cross and following Him. Example after example of obedience to authority. How can any of us pretend to follow His example by ignoring His Bride, the Church, that He gave Himself up for that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
We are not needed to protect His Church “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” built on the Rock. We are called to obedience to His established sacred authority.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Neal April 14, 2006 at 8:30 pm

Please, folks, it’s “Canon Law”. There’s no artillery involved. ;-)

inarticulus April 14, 2006 at 8:32 pm

Whelp Inocencio. I guess you’ve beaten me. I could argue that, if a pope tell you to do something that you know in your heart would be wrong, that the proper thing to do is disobey, but they you will tell me something to the effect of: The pope can do no wrong.
And since I agree with you in principal on all of your points regarding the virtue of obedience…I really don;t have a comeback.
Thank you for your kindness.
I stil believe that traditional catholics are good catholics, and It’s disapointing to see half-ass novus-ordo catholics, bash traditional catholics over the head with “obedience” when Traditional catholics spend most of thier sunday, driving to and from mass, accross state lines, while the same novus-ordo critics, roll out of bed, drive to the local flying saucer, in thier shorts and T, did not go to confession, and still take communion, etc…
I don’t imply that you, personally are half-ass, of course…I myself go to the Novus ordo, and it is a pretty good mass.–we have good priests, here in Livermore.
But while you slap the nearest traditional, please remember to uphold the highest regard to the Blessed Sacrament, as that is what Traditional Catholisism is, at heart.

Inocencio April 14, 2006 at 9:18 pm

inarticulus,
I never said the pope could do know wrong, nor do I believe that. I tried to clearly explain that we are subject to him because of the Sacred Authority of Christ.
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”-Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302:
What ever a pope does wrong he will answer to God for, but not to us.
I asked if you had read the Protocol Agreement of the Vatican and Archbishop Lefebvre because it not only worked out a solution agreeable to the Archbishop but he signed it. I personally don’t understand what “dire need” suddenly existed that he went back on his agreement and directly disobeyed the pope.
People who I love are “traditionalist” and I would never “slap them” but I can’t understand their thinking that they somehow have an authority above the pope or that they are more Catholic than the pope.
My main prayer at Holy Mass is that our Blessed Lord’s Church may be one, please join me in that prayer.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

inarticulus April 14, 2006 at 9:38 pm

Rt has been a while since I read the protocol, but if you read Archbishop Lefebvre, he explains that the protocol had archbishop agreeing to comply, as well as the pope agreeing to give Archbhishp the successor-bishop of LEfevbre’s choice…It’s been ten years, but I believe that the latter promise of PJP was broken, or made to appear to Lefebvre that the pope had no intention of keeping that. Moreover, Lefevbre signed Vatican II, with hesitance, and good will, but later came to believe, based on circumstances of the day, and direct quotes from others involved that they had deliberately left words, undefined, such as “liberty” etc, so that they could interpret them later, according to themselves.
He was innitially trusting in both instances, and later retracted the agreements, out of honesty. Remember that he had been retired for a while…he didn’t want to do any of this. He served under 4 popes, great ones, as the head of the Holy Ghost Fathers in Africa. While one can accuse him of breaching an agreement, formally, after, in both instances, he percieved the agreement to have already been undermined, in deed

Inocencio April 14, 2006 at 9:59 pm

“The explanation which Msgr. Lefebvre has given, for the retraction of his agreement, is revealing. He declared that he has finally understood that the agreement he signed aimed only at integrating his foundation into the “Conciliar Church.” The Catholic Church in union with the Pope is, according to him, the “Conciliar Church” which has broken with its own past. It seems indeed that he is no longer able to see that we are dealing with the Catholic Church in the totality of its Tradition, and that Vatican II belongs to that.”-Cardinal Ratzinger’s Remarks Regarding the Lefebvre Schism full text here:
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3032
Take care and God bless and Good nigth,
Inocencio
J+M+J

inarticulus April 14, 2006 at 10:04 pm

inocencio…So far you’ve had the strongest position on the matter that I’ve met in years..
I agree that “slap” was bad imagery.
I have met some nut-cases in the traditional catholic circles–it’s like a small town…we all know eachother..I kid you not. But, with the exception of my crazy grandma (I’m an X-gen)I’ve met no “Trad” who thinks he is more catholic than the pope. Nor do they think themselves authorities…This is why people always think Trads are other-protestants…hypocrytically, most catholics, love and “concelebrate” with protestants, but get really riled up about trads.
Last i heard no trads are bombing novus ordo churches, like protestants have been for a hundred years. Most trads, with the exceptio of Sede-vacantists, will take a bullet for the pope. I met several trads, who have adoringly kissed the hand of JPII and it was the highlight of thier life…
Consider it a broken heart, and how do most people respond when they have thier heart broken. They see that the Novus ordo mass is valid, but there-in, they say, is the tragedy! Our Lord is being Condescended to be Equal!–even Dissed! How!–they say can I possibly, in good conscience, partake in that…
They do not hold it against people who go to the, but the “spirit of revolution” that caused the novus-ordo to be the way it is today. We only have the actions of each side of this argument to look at…For my part, I see a whole lot of good fruits coming from SSPX, and a whole lot of Bad Fruits, coming from the “spirit of Vatican II….”
I was born in 1970. I survived “Renew”.
I also went to The local Seminary in Oxnard CA…St. Johns…That place was a disco-tech.
I was literally “too catholic” for them because I actually believed in the Catholic Faith. If you ever tried to go to the seminary in the last twenty years you would understand…there was no place to go. All of them…All of them are bad. They are Bad.Bad.Bad.

Inquisitor Generalis April 15, 2006 at 9:16 am

“Funny that when Inquisitor Generalis accuses me of being idiotic I somehow feel as though I just received a compliment.”
Typical modernist… it’s all based on how you “feel.”
“If that is all you have to say Inquisitor Generalis, thank you.”
That wasn’t all I said in the post to which you refer, and you know it.

MIchael April 15, 2006 at 10:21 am

“The pope is the supreme legislator of the Church. The pope publicly stated that the five named clerics ‘have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law’”.
Here is the decree of excommunication and of course the wording is everything:
“Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.”
In other words the bishops were decreed to have excommunicated themselves. No formal juridical act of excommuncation by the Pope ever occurred. There was no trial. Since it was simply a recognition of latae sententiae excommunication, there is no infallibility attached to it. Further the mitigating factors of Canons 1323 and 1324 relating to culpable error can mitigate a latae sententiae excommunication. The Pope himself is obligated to obey canon law and is not made, by virtue of his position, the law unto himself, and even Canon law recognizes the principle of innocent until proven guilty. There is no automatic presumption of guilt, even when the Pope is involved.

inarticulus April 15, 2006 at 11:27 am

Michael—well said

bill912 April 15, 2006 at 12:29 pm

Hey, Inocencio, now you’re a Modernist! (“And I am the Czar of all the Russians!” Chekov: “Star Trek: I, Mudd).

bill912 April 15, 2006 at 12:49 pm

Correction: Above quote is from “Who Mourns For Adonais?” (The next round of Rumulan ale is on me).

Inocencio April 15, 2006 at 1:50 pm

“Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.
Yes, Michael, the wording is important. The pope declared as the Supreme Legislator the result of their actions.
As pointed out before their is no recourse to judgement or decree of the Roman Pontiff. You assume an authority you do not have. If you think you have that authority please provide the documentation for us to read. Because so far all you have given us is your statement that the pope cannot declare that a person has excommunicated himself by appealing to the law that only the pope has the authority to interpret. And you seem to think you speak infalliably regarding these matters. Not that the pope has to make an ex catherdral statement. As the Supreme Legislator he authentically interprets the law not you.
In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience – which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy – constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last…
I am not a canon lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one. The pope is the head of the Church we are subject to his God-given authority whether we want to be or not.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio April 15, 2006 at 2:12 pm

Bill912,
Have a joyful and blessed Easter!
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Michael April 15, 2006 at 2:28 pm

“As pointed out before their is no recourse to judgement or decree of the Roman Pontiff. You assume an authority you do not have.”
No I do not. An observation that the Pope observed that a latæ sententiæ of excommunication has been incurred is not the same as making myself Pope. It is simply not drawing conclusions beyond what has actually occurred. When I say that there has never been a ferendæ sententiæ of excommunication, that is simply a fact. I am not even offering the interpretation that that means that the excommunications should be taken lightly. However, there is clearly roo, under canon law, which also binds the Pope, to recognize culpable ignorance as a mitigating factor in this case.

Inocencio April 15, 2006 at 2:45 pm

Michael,
You assume that the pope did not authentically interpret canon law when publicly acknowledging the excommunication of the five named clerics.
Are you saying that we can simply ignore Ecclesia Dei because you have said so?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio April 15, 2006 at 3:03 pm

Anyone else following along might be interested in Dr. Ed Peters most recent thoughts on the subject and this article in the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Reconciling “Traditionalists”
http://www.canonlaw.info/2006/02/reconciling-traditionalists.html
Excommunication
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
A blessed and joyful Easter to all!
J+M+J

Michael April 15, 2006 at 3:07 pm

“You assume that the pope did not authentically interpret canon law when publicly acknowledging the excommunication of the five named clerics.
Are you saying that we can simply ignore Ecclesia Dei because you have said so?”
Please do not put words into my mouth. If the Pope wanted to convene a tribunal to deal with said Bishops don’t you think he could do that? That he has not should tell you he is keeping the door open. I do not claim to have authority to resolve the issue, but I am also loathe to condemn others.

Inocencio April 15, 2006 at 4:53 pm

Michael,
Ok, then in your opinion and your own words are the five named clerics excommunicated or not?
He could have convened a tribunal or made a judgement after giving said bishop a canonical warning and making that decree publicly known so others would avoid going into schism.
In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.
I accept the pope’s decree that they are excommunicated and that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

bill912 April 15, 2006 at 5:53 pm

I’ve been trying to follow Michael’s reasoning. The title of a Steely Dan album came to mind: “Pretzel Logic”. It all seems to be a convoluted way of saying: “The disobedience happening before your eyes isn’t really disobedience.”
Happy Easter, Inocencio.

Johanim July 23, 2006 at 12:19 pm

Am I detecting more than just a little cocky arrogance by people entrenched in the post vat 2 liturgical, echumenical and concilar Catholic church? Is it that the novus ordinarians are so feared of a return to Orthodoxy that they are comfortable with ephets like neo-trads, schismatic,heretic SSPXer/SSPV, Sedevacantist as if these Catholics were a dirty word (right or wrong). The degree of Christs charity displayed by post vatican 2 catholics is obvious in it’s absence Adorers of the Bugnini Novus Ordo missae sound a little paranoid and insecure. You who are SO enthrauled by the Pauline novus ordo liturgy and the fruits of Vatican 2 such as mass apostacy from the Latin Rite Catholic Church after vat 2,sacraligious liturgy’s either condoned or ignorded by various prelates worldwide,entrenched disbelief or mis-belief in Transubstantiation, Hypostatic Union etc. etc. The demographics of the last few years are telling in and of themselves. Latin (Tridentine) liturgy’s either by SSPX,Indult,sedevacantist or independant priests are filled to capacity, same can be said for “Traditionalist” Seminaries, Convents, Monasteries where candidates are turned away simply for lack of space. Is it nostalgia????? most of the Catholics attending the Ancient liturgy are between 18 and 45?????There is a wave of the future in Christs Church and I suspect it is not the Pauline/Bugnin Liturgy. Shalom/Pacem

John August 8, 2006 at 7:51 am

First and foremost I personally have many “mea Culpas” for lack of charity and/or patients with the post vatican 2 church and the overall weakening, confusion & apostasy of faith by millions of Catholics of the Latin rite since the conclusion of that council. That being said I have a need to repeat my disgust with the continued arrogance of many “usually ill informed” lay and religious Catholic who follow the gospel according to the revisions that followed Vatican 2. I really am tired of labels like trad rad,schismatic, heretic, neo-conservative, sedevacantist, apostate etc. etc. etc.Yes folks whether you agree with Sedevacantists (which I personally have problems) none the less they are NOT to be ignored, shunned and falsely labelled as the Novus Ordinarians of post vatican 2 vintage did to most Orthodox Catholics like the Society of St. Pius X and yes even Indult Catholics who for years were regarded as being on the fringe by so-called mainstream novus ordo missae folks. The days of insult and ignorance vis a vis “Traditionalist” Roman Catholics” by the post vat two crowd needs to be eliminated. The intolerance of the post Vatican 2 Prelates, priests, religious and laity alike needs to Stop.A simple truth is that the ancient liturgy is returning to the heart of the Catholic faith and it is primarily Catholic Youth that seek it. P.S note of interest, even the Novus Ordo liturgy performed on EWTN is slowly but surely becoming more Orthodox as time go’s by” Shalom—-John

johannim September 3, 2007 at 12:56 pm

If you need to experience the putrification of the post vatican 2 catholic church & it’s liturgy simply go to any “service” in the domains of roger mahoney of los angeles or tod brown of orange california and the diocese of the majority of good ole boys in the new and improved catholic church of John 23,paul 6, john paul 1 & john paul 2 the great???????????????. Better yet attend a mass in france, belgium, england, ireland, germany or austria (you will be the only one in attendance with the presiding presbyter.) There is hope though, you could go to the roll on the floor pentecostal mess at steubenville. But the most delightful masonic masses I’ve encountered must go , again to roger mahoney and the delights of watching vestal virgins aka “dancing nuns” around a marble dinner table hummin cum by ya and recieving the sacred dorito . Just might be time to wake up and realize what & who has taken over and occupied the Catholic church of the Latin rite in the last 40 year. Time to stop kissing the arses of protestant heretics & the BLOODY koran for that matter or greek/russia schismatics and sundry liberal aka cultural marxists passing them selves off as latin rite Catholics. AND IT’S ALL BEEN DONE IN THE NAME OF OBEDIENCE

Johannim September 3, 2007 at 12:59 pm

OBEDIENCE TO WHO AND TO WHAT??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Previous post:

Next post: