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

Comments have been disabled for this post.
Sort: Newest | Oldest

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

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

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

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

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.

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

"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.

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,
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

"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.

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

"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

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

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

"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.

"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.

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.

"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

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

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

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.

Please, folks, it's "Canon Law". There's no artillery involved. ;-)

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

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...

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

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

"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.

"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.

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

"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: 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...

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?

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.

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

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.

"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".

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

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.

"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.

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

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

"...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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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."

Previous post:

Next post: