Skip to comments.Priests 'In Orgy' at Seminary
Posted on 07/12/2004 10:26:32 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
click here to read article
I've read this thread, narses. Its a load of wickedness being thrown about on all sides, by all sides. It is truly a sad thing to see. I hope the mods have mercy on us Catholics and pull this thread. Maybe then the article can be reposted and actually discussed.
God have Mercy on us all.
More lies. This is the secon thread this week you have tried to make an issue out of where I attend Mass.
HOW IS THAT RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD?
This is an old letter. It was superceded by a more recent Letter by Msgr. Camille Perl from Pontificia Commissio "Ecclesia Dei" dated January 18, 2003. It says in part:
Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was:
"1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X."
His second question was "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass" and we responded stating:
"2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."
His third question was: "Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass" to which we responded:
"3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified."
It appears that the Modernists here want two things: 1 - the banning of those who are Traditionalists, and 2 - the end of threads that demonstrate how ill the hierarchy has become. I have run out of cheeks to turn. When attacked personally for where I attend Mass, I will call the attacker on the carpet. Either the attacks stop or the abuse button will get regular use.
I can read Deacon. Concelebration with heretics is sufficient though, at least in my mind and conscience. BTW, when will you answer my question? What relevance has attendance at SSPX services to this thread?
Mud-rasslin'. Mud-rasslin' right here on the Roman Catholic bench!
It's not "wickedness." If we were to meet, tomorrow night, we'd all have a beer together.
What's there to say about about a bunch of gay priests and seminarians en flagrante delicto?
I don't care where you attend Mass. Drop it.
I don't see these 2 statements as contradictory. Look at these comparisons:
"The Bolshevik Revolution was not responsible for bringing Communist government to Russia. It was the infiltration of socialists that occurred before WWI."
Clearly we can see an earlier infiltration, but at the same time, the actual Bolshevik Revolution was the catalyst that caused the overthrow of the one (Christian) government and its replacement by a different (anti-Christian) government.
"The French Revolution was not responsible for the reign of terror, it was the earlier infiltration of France by people like Voltaire and Diderot and Rousseau."
Once again we see that it's true that there was a gradual corruption going on in France beforehand, but the actual revolution is what brought Robespierre and the other murderers to power. There had to be a cataclysmic explosion at one point. It's like a nuclear reaction reaching critical mass. It can perk along below critical mass for centuries without ever exploding.
By the way, Perl's comment that if someone attended with a desire to separate himself from the Pontiff, it would be a sin, is too ludicrous for words. If Perl really believes such drivel, it would be proof positive the Vatican is completely out of touch with reality. As it is, I don't think for a second Perl actually believes this. It is a mere sop to cover the Pope's unjust charge of schism. There is a need for Vatican bureaucrats to PRETEND there is this terrible urge some traditional Catholics have to separate themselves from the Pope. The truth is, HE has separated himself from us--and this is made clearer and clearer as each year goes by.
"I don't care where you attend Mass. Drop it."
Why have you asked then on thread after thread?
It IS wicked, a disgrace. Its no better than the "Priests 'In Orgy' at Seminary."
You have baited asnd harassed narses till he's beside himself, yet you think its just havin' a little fun. That IS wicked.
Watch Dioceses ready to go BANKRUPT allow the Indult. My Diocese will likely file in the fall or winter. Just about then, voila`, an Indult will appear.
So it is NOT morally illicit to participate in an SSPX if you are morally impeded from participating in a New Mass travesty. It is morally impossible for me to set foot in a New Mass church. I don't mind attending an indult Mass if it's available, but it's not necessary to have an indult, and it IS morally necessary for me to attend only the true Catholic Mass of all time.
In my obstinate self-righteousness, I have been unwilling to shut up and accept the good Deacons efforts to 'drop it'. My apologies. Hopefully we will here no more personal attacks on either side.
The Roman Rite is not some "rite of choice." It is the pre-eminent and normative rite in the Latin Church. It is the oldest rite and most directly descended from the apostles. It is the Rite which was guaranteed to all Roman Catholics for all futurity of time.
Clearly. Given a choice between a gay parish and the SSPX, what choice have you?
Hundreds, if not thousands, of Catholics in communist-controlled countries were murdered for defending their faith and yet, year after year, they continued their steadfast opposition, demonstrating peacefully in their town squares and being gunned down and beaten to death for their efforts. Do you REALLY contend that the power of the Pope's pen brought down Communism? The Pope didn't even hold an audience with Gorbachev until 3 DAYS BEFORE THE FALL. It was not his miracle. It was the culmination of years of faithful catholic nobody's and the courage of Reagan and Gorbachev that finally nailed the coffin lid on communism and liberated Catholics to freely practice their faith.
HH was one of the "catholic nobodies" for many decades in Communist Poland. I can understand your anger, but it is (imho) misplaced. Take nothing from the others, but grant HH credit where credit is due.
According to the sedevacantists, Traditionalists and mainstream theologians, some interpretations of V2 DO directly contradict previous Church doctrine. The very vagueness of the schemas and commentaries assure that. Further, it was a PASTORAL not DOGMATIC Council and therefore open to question by those of good faith.
Msr. Perl's more recent words are far less critical than his earlier words. Why would you presume to be more critical than Rome?
I don't see any connection with the point I made which was that the Roman Rite was guaranteed to all Catholics in perpetuity. Nothing to do with Vatican II, at least not for those who claim that Vatican II did not intend the New Mass.
As far as your question, however, clearly Vatican II contradicted previous Church doctrine in any number of areas.
I am getting close to bed time. I am going to depend on others to supply the cites, but rest assured, both Rome and the SSPX have softened their rhetoric much over the last five years. The fact is that the SSPX is Catholic, Rome knows this and wants their active help in doing battle with the Modernist threat. Sadly, the French and German Bishoprics have stood firmly against either a Universal Indult or the acceptance of the SSPX into active ministry via a Personal Prelature. This scandal weakens badly the German position.
this crisis, like the bubonic plague, has origins beyond the immediate vector. VII is sort of a Trojan Horse, supposedly a gift for a new springtime in the church, was infected with modernism which dates at least from the early 20th century. Couple modernism with infiltration by Communists and maybe others...
If VII were interpreted like its texts say, with respect for Tradition and ad orientem, who knows what would have happened.
See post 154, UR cited the new letter.
Well said Piers. Buono Noche.
No you wouldn't.
I understand, but V2 was not a Revolution. It never called for the ABUSES that have been perpetrated in it's name. It did call, for example, for Latin to be RETAINED in the Mass. The evil done was NOT the Council but the evil bastards who subverted the Church hierarchy pre and post Council.
Say, have you got an e-mail address for Thorondir?
He gave me one, but somewhere in among the four computers I use I misplaced it.
Although I'm used to you not making any sense, I honestly don't know what you mean by this comment.
You do tend to get weird at times, so I'm not sure I care to know what you mean.
You asked "how can this be"? I asked the same thing here. Perhaps the answer is APOSTACY?
No, Perl is wrong when his opinion is in conflict with every Catholic's guaranteed right to the ancient Mass of the Church by right of immemorial custom. Here is Michael Davies and Neri Capponi (Dr. of Canon Law) on the issue:
The Bull Quo Primum was the first written legislation in the Roman Rite governing the celebration of Mass. Until 1570 the celebration of Mass was governed by what is known as customary law, ex consuetudine. The method of celebrating Mass in a particular country, district, or even city was protected or regulated by "immemorial custom." There was no rigid uniformity in the Roman Rite apart from the use of the Roman Canon, and clear differences occurred in many places. The way Mass was celebrated either in Rome, Lyons or Salisbury was evidently different, but not different enough to constitute distinct rites of Mass, as is the case with the Ambrosian Rite in Milan or the Mozarabic Rite in Toledo.
The correct name to be given these variations is "use." Thus in England and Wales there were the Uses of Salisbury, Hereford, York and Bangor. Some religious orders such a; the Dominicans had the their own variations of the Roman Missal.
Respect for established customs and traditions has always been a primary characteristic of what Dietrich von Hildebrand termed the sensus catholicus, which might best be translated as "the Catholic instinct." The true Catholic attitude was well expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas when he quoted the dictum: "It is absurd and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed that we have received from the fathers of old" (Summa Theologica. I-II , Q.96, Art.4). St. Pius V manifested an authentic Catholic respect for tradition in Quo Primum, allowing missals which had been used continuously for a period of 200 or more years to be retained.
The Missal of Si. Pius V did no more than codify the rite of Mass that had been in use in Rome for centuries with very little change. The ordinary of the Mass in the first printed edition of the Roman Missal in 1474 is identical to that found in the Missal of 1570. As with all the other missals in use throughout the Roman Rite, the Roman Missal had been regulated by customary law until the written legislation of Quo Primum, and it certainly constituted an immemorial custom.
This raises the interesting question as to the status of an immemorial custom that becomes regulated by written law. It is the consensus of canonists that if an immemorial custom becomes regulated by written law, the latter does not take the place of custom but is added to it in such a way that the subject matter becomes controlled both by the preceding customary law and by the subsequent written law, but with no abrogation of the customary law which still continues to regulate the matter in question. Thus, at least until 1969, every priest of the Roman Rite was entitled to use the Missal of St. Pius V for two reasons: (1) because it constituted an immemorial custom; (2) in virtue of the perpetual indult contained in the Bull.
This raises a further question as to the status of an immemorial custom if the written law that had come to regulate it should lapse, which is the situation of the traditional Mass if Quo Primum has indeed been obrogated. It is our view that it would revert to its original status of an immemorial custom, and be protected by custom unless the legislator abrogated it by specific mention. Neither Pope Paul VI nor Pope John Paul II has made any such specific mention. We conclude that at least by virtue of established custom all celebrants should be free to use the Missal of St. Pius V, and all the faithful to take part in it.
"Vat. II is no more to blame for the immorality of Catholics than the Council of Carthage."
Vat II was not the first cause of the process, nor was it the last. It was, however, a major event and milestone in the process. It was the signal that the modernists were now in the driver's seat rather than operating as the disloyal opposition. It facilitated and provided excuses and cover for many abuses, and simply allowed the legitimization of other abuses.
Was it the only cause? No.
Was it the first cause? No.
Was it the culminating battle? No.
Was it a major victory for Satan and the Modernist Heresy? Most definitely.
bingo, and even if the Ordinary left one so-so parish open, if you knew that the Ordinary was a material heretic and schismatic, I don't see how its sinful to go to sspx, which is only technically schismatic at worst and has got everything else important right. That would be one orthodox way to combat the crisis. If another wanted to go to to the so-so wishy-washy parish and fight the good fight from there, bravo for him too. Why is this so hard for some people?
Narses is always beside himself.
I asked one question, Brian. He turned it into the Inquisition.
And, I was havin' a little fun. In fact, I was havin' LOTS of fun!
Who's the girl in the chapel veil in the picture you posted?
So much for the apologies. If questioning my faith was "havin' a little fun" or worse "havin' LOTS of fun", can you tell me why I should NOT have seen that "fun" as an attack? A personal attack against the rules? Especially since it is thread after thread?
"Who's the girl in the chapel veil in the picture you posted?"
How is that any more relvant than where a Catholic attends Mass? What perverse motive impels your attacks Deacon?
Who do you thin will win the ALL-Star game tomorrow night?
Clemens looks sharp and Blalock tearing it up for your rangers. It got to 85 here today. How hot did it get in Dallas? lol, let's not talk about the Emperor's New Clothes!
I have no idea who they are. Those pics came off of online sites that sell chapel veils.
I don't have a daughter. What are you talking about?
First let's look at the reality on the ground before we worry about the ideology behind it. In actual practice, Vatican II has been a major revolution, comparable to the French or the Russian revolutions in its global impact. An institution that plays a major role in the lives of 1 billion Catholics, and which has a strong secondary effect on the remaining 5 billion humans on the planet, turned its entire belief system and its system of governance entirely upside down. This has changed everything. And the effects are continuing to ripple outwards. In the Catholic Church of today, nothing is the same as it was in 1962.
Secondarily we can look at the ideology behind this revolution. Did it happen by accident, as you seem to believe, or was it planned and executed by certain people who knew exactly what they were doing? It's impossible to know with 100% certainty. But all the evidence points towards an engineered coup.
During the first month of the first session, the liberals executed a trademark play. They introduced a motion to scrap all the prepared programs [schema] that the Vatican had spent 3 - 4 years preparing, and to replace them with new outlines that would be created by newly-formed committees. When Cardinal Ottaviani, the head of the Roman Curia, rose to protest, they turned off his microphone. Soon the revolution was in full swing, and it was clear to the bandwagon-jumpers which way to jump -- get on board the revolution or get left behind with old, practically-blind Cardinal Ottaviani. If you wanted to be on the key committees, if you wanted to have a position of power, if you wanted to be appointed and promoted, you had to get with the program.
Was it merely a coincidence that Weakland was named to the Consilium or that Bishop Hallinan (the founder of the group that would later become "Bernadin's boys") would lead the liturgical revolution in the United States?
No, this was a revolution -- it was the best of times, it was the worst of times. If you were a young Michael Novak who wanted excitement and "sex every day, or even more often," it was the best of times. If you supported the ancien regime, the traditional Catholic faith, it was the worst of times.
It did call, for example, for Latin to be RETAINED in the Mass.
I don't think of you as the kind of person who would be fooled by that kind of language. That was just "wallpaper." At the same time, Sacrosanctum Concilium also called for a total re-writing of the Mass. The vernacular was to be used for all parts that pertained to the people (are there any parts that don't?). All "accretions" were to be removed. The Mass was to be made relevant to the people and inculturated. It was a carte blanche license to destroy the Roman Rite and replace it with a protestant service, as we have seen only too well. Sure, they always toss in a couple of traditional-sounding phrases. Those might have fooled a few people back in 1962, they even fooled Archbishop Lefebvre back then, but this is more than 40 years later. We should know better by now.
I apologize for everything I ever said to you, since everything I post to you gets your nose out of joint.
So please accept my humble apologies.
Do you want me to open a vein?
As I recall, Abp. Lefevre has said that V2, except for a very few documents (out of thousands) was fine, in itself. It was the vagueness that made it dangerous and only because the infection was so deep and prominent.
Let's try anew. Apology accepted.
Blalock didn't do as well in the home run derby tonight as I'd hoped, but this is the first time the Rangers have 5 players on the team.
I'll watch the game, if only to see if there's a Clemens-Piazza face off.