Posted on 02/04/2005 10:15:40 PM PST by narses
A schismatic ultra-conservative Catholic group, whose leader was excommunicated in 1988, has sent a letter to Australia's 1400 Catholic priests trying to recruit them.
The Society of Pius X, followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, rejects the 1960s Vatican II council that liberalised much Catholic practice and teaches that only the Latin (Tridentine) Mass is valid.
The eight-page letter, from Father Francois Laisney of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour in Hampton, invites priests to return to "the Traditional Mass, the Mass of all times, the Mass of the Saints", and offers a free kit to enable them to say the Latin Mass.
Kate Mannix, editor of the independent Catholic internet magazine OnlineCatholics, said yesterday it was significant that no Australian bishop had objected to the letter and the society was being quietly rehabilitated by forces opposed to Vatican II.
Swiss Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre formed the Society of Pius X to reject the "novelties" of Vatican II, which the recruiting letter identifies as collegiality (as opposed to hierarchical authority), ecumenism and religious liberty. He was excommunicated in 1988 for consecrating his own bishops.
Advertisement AdvertisementMs Mannix said most Australian bishops did not support the Latin Mass but did not want a row with Cardinal George Pell, who favoured conservative groups.
"There's been enormous concern about liturgical abuses (by liberal priests) in recent years, yet every time this organisation conducts a Mass it perpetuates liturgical abuse," she said.
Former priest and Catholic author Paul Collins said the concern about the society was its links with neo-fascist groups in Europe and South America.
"For example, they act as de facto chaplains for the Le Pen movement in France," Mr Collins said.
Now officials in Rome understood their fascist connections less and had more sympathy for their conservative view on liturgy. "The Vatican have been falling over themselves to get these people back into communion with Rome," he said.
In Australia the society remained small, with only a few thousand adherents and one church in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Perth.
Brian Lucas, secretary of the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference, said he was aware the society had sent the letter.
"The position of this small group is well known, and we look forward to the day when through dialogue and understanding there can be a reconciliation," he said.
Father Laisney, who is overseas, could not be contacted.
Oops looks like Lefebvre and traditionalists with like mind violated a really traditional teaching, Vatican I. Let's see what it says...
Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff
And so,
supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and
adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors
the Roman pontiffs and of
general councils,
we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] ,
which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that
the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
the prince of the apostles,
true vicar of Christ,
head of the whole church and
father and teacher of all christian people.
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to
tend,
rule and govern
the universal church.
All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.
Wherefore we teach and declare that,
by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
episcopal and
immediate.
Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] .
This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
"Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."
"and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world."
"This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation."
Pretty traditional, huh? Vatican I.
"But especially contradictory is a notion of tradition which opposes the universal magisterium of the church possessed by the bishop of Rome and the body of bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his church."
Ecclesia Dei Adflicta. Is it "traditional" to separate one's self, even if in "imperfect communion" from the center of unity, the Pope? Is this the traditional teaching of the Church. Vatican I pretty much verifies it is not.
"Ecclesia Dei Adflicta. Is it "traditional" to separate one's self, even if in "imperfect communion" from the center of unity, the Pope? Is this the traditional teaching of the Church. Vatican I pretty much verifies it is not."
You have an absolutely wrong way of looking at this. Who did the separating--the innocent men who were forced to oppose the Pontiff to defend the faith, or the Pope who wrongly interpreted their motives? It was a unilateral separation only and therefore totally invalid spiritually, legal only in the visible, physical Church.
It is as if a father were to reject a son who was innocent. If that son remained, in fact, attached to his father, even if the father should hate him, then the relation would remain valid spiritually on the son's part. The son no doubt must bide his time, waiting for the day when the father comes to his senses. But he still recognizes his father as his true father.
1. "According to your own personal opinion and evaluation of the situation."
Nonsense, not according to my opinion at all. It's according to the Pope's own canon law. Laws must mean what they say. They don't mean what they don't say. If canon law says the judgment concerning necessity abides in the subject violating a precept--then that's the case. It can't be changed after the fact because the Pope says so. It is sheer lunacy to suppose this is personal opinion. Why have PAPAL laws on the books if they don't mean what they say but can be dismissed with a wave of the papal hand?
2. "Not according to the mind of the Church. Read Ecclesia Dei and Vatican I."
Ecclesia Dei can't supercede canon law. Both are documents purporting to express the opinion of the Pope. But canon law takes precedence over any judgments expressed in a letter. As for Vatican I--while it asserts the pope is supreme legislator, this does not mean he is not subject to divine law--on which canon law itself must be based. This is why canon law insists that those who are inculpable and act without malice must not be punished.
And remember also, the Ecclesia Dei letter claims to be interpreting the reason for a latae sententiae--or automatic--excommunication. Since disobeying a pope is not inherently evil--how could the Pope have known what the real motives were for the Archbishop's actions? Lefebvre himself claimed to have acted out of the highest motives. Had the Pontiff wished to find out the true motives, he might have convened a tribunal to settle the issue. From the Pope's perspective, however, this had the disadvantage of allowing the Archbishop the right to defend himself in a public hearing. So the Pope used a letter to condemn the Archbishop instead--without a shred of evidence.
3. No one is owed blind obedience except God. That's why God gave us the use of reason. I am not obliged to violate my own conscience in order to give the Pope a pass in an affair that casts him in an unfavorable light. I am convinced instead, by the preponderance of evidence, that John Paul acted wrongly and unjustly towards good and holy men who only resisted his command in order to preserve the faith.
It has already been shown for all to see that GB endless cut & pastie jobs do not "prove" anything, other then to try to lend credance to some purported argument by very tangental reasoning - at best.
This may come as a shock to you, but quotes from the various popes, saints, encyclicals, the Council of Trent, Canon Law, and the like can all be used to substantiate what is neither true, and may in fact be error. Such has been very skillfully done on here.
My arguments have used my Catholic training, logic, and right reason. If you have a disagreement with something, then debate it. Merely insulting me does not exactly show your intellectual prowness (?) in a good light.
It is readily apparant to me that we do not believe in the same things - or you support some agenda grossly at variance with my beliefs.
Indeed: "let them who have eyes to see, and ears to hear, see & hear".
"......slander as a psychological weapon.".......would be a very apt description of what you are trying to do here.
Now.....GO AWAY! I have nothing more to say to you, as there would seem to be little point in doing so.
"It is readily apparant to me that we do not believe in the same things - or you support some agenda grossly at variance with my beliefs."
You are so right. The sad thing is you think yours represent Catholicism.
"The sad thing is you think yours represent Catholicism"
You may keep your rude & pithy opinions to yourself, thank you very much.
My beliefs are the result of very solid training in Traditional Roman Catholicism.....pre-Vatican II. I solemnly reject the Second Vatican Council for a variety of reasons......the most important of which is that it was not a Dogmatic Council. Secondly, because the Church cannot reverse what it taught in a previous age - as this would call into question any/all other aspects of doctrine/dogma. For this reason, and for the horrific decline in the Church Universal, and damage to untold millions of souls, I must personally reject it.
I solemnly reject the NO mass for its gross textual and doctrical/ecclesiological deficiencies. It is my opinion that these deficiencies are sufficient to render its average perfomance suspect, at best.
I solemnly reject the "new religion" which is currently being subtly (and not so subtly) forced upon unsuspecting Catholics by liturgists, theologians, and many local clergy. Whether one wishes to use the term "SCamchurch", the heresy of modernism, or some other descriptive term is irrelevant to me. A rose by any other name............
For me there is no point in argueing over theological nuances as I watch the Church literally be destroyed, on purpose, from within, for the last 40 years. I have seen the destruction in the loss of countless souls to the Church, of the homosexualizing of the clergy, and of the seemingly demonicly inspired suppression of the truths of the faith.......gross disobedience to the Pope(s).....virtual destruction of the Petrine Office and its powers.
So go ahead........post links, paste quotes, call me all manner of names. Join the club.......take a number & wait in lin to fire volleys at me. But I will not let go, nor give up. And I am pleased to suffer a little for Christ. And already have.
"My beliefs are the result of very solid training in Traditional Roman Catholicism.....pre-Vatican II."
Good. Here is some GREAT pre-Vatican II teaching.
From Vatican I
Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff
And so,
supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and
adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors
the Roman pontiffs and of
general councils,
we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] ,
which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that
the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
the prince of the apostles,
true vicar of Christ,
head of the whole church and
father and teacher of all christian people.
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to
tend,
rule and govern
the universal church.
All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.
Wherefore we teach and declare that,
by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
episcopal and
immediate.
Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] .
This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
Another pre-Vatican II teaching. How traditional.
Pope St. Pius X emphasized this in a speech on May 10, 1909, when he said "Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her... But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone." (Eph. 2:20)
.......and your point is...........?
Vatican I stressed "true" obedience. I think it's important to bring that out. Not "absolute" obedience or "servile" obedience.
Secondly, honestly, does anyone think after reading piles of Pope St. Pius X's writings that he wouldn't absolutely be horrified with the Vatican of today vs. the Vatican that he ran? St. Pius X certainly wasn't referring to today's traditionalists. He was referring to the intellectual predecessors of today's Curia.
You do exactly what gbcdoj does--quote a pope who is turning over in his grave over what is happening to the Church today. He would have been the first to have warned the faithful to be wary of the present-day leadership. That statement you've just posted, therefore, makes complete sense only in another world--one in which the hierarchy itself was absolutely faithful to Tradition. It is ridiculous to apply these same words to the present, as if those who are leading a revolution had the same right to be respected for their novelties and deceptions as their preconciliar predecessors had for their faithfulness to the truth.
Here is a better quote:
"If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic faith, do not follow him." --Pius IX.
"St. Pius X certainly wasn't referring to today's traditionalists."
No, you are probably right. His writings were limited only to those people who agreed with his version of obedience. They were limited to those of his time. Wait a minute...
That is called "historicism" CONDEMNED in the Syllabus of Errors by Pius IX. But then again, those condemned statements are also only products of their time as well.
No, they don't apply to those of you at all. Only to everyone else. You don't have to obey. Only everyone else has to agree with, and obey you. Yeah, that's Catholic teaching.
Wait until I teach my daughter that tonight with the Baltimore Catechism. She'll be so happy that she doesn't have to obey her mother or me any more.
WOW!!! This is quite innovative. Historicism in Pius X's writings. Never thought of that.
"If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic faith, do not follow him." --Pius IX.
So, back to this question. What specific doctrine has the current, or any of the past four popes taught that you must obey that is contrary to the Catholic Faith?
Remember this discussion, which went on for eons, and you refuse to answer, then finally admitted, there was none. Finally.
So what does this quote apply to? Does it somehow negate Pius X's quote? But Pius X came after Pius IX.
Care to flesh out that answer a little more? I don't know what you are talking about.
But I can guess that if you tell your daughter to do something that is wrong or stupid or not to question you, then she'd better do it. When you've given her mother the wrong medicine, then she is wrong when she disobeys and tells you that you are wrong and tries to stop you. "Well, Mom's dead but at least I'm obedient!" (I'm not referring to you of course, I used the scenario from "It's a Wonderful Life" when George stops Mr. Gower from poisoning the sick kid)
Your Catholic training was seriously deficient if you were taught that the sacred Order of the Diaconate was a minor order and not a Sacrament. For instance: Cardinal Journet was one of the great Thomistic theologians before the Council. Msgr. Lefebvre, himself, spoke of him with praise (quotes from SSPXAsia website): "Cardinal Journet was a deep thinker, Professor at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland, and a great theologian", "Cardinal Journet, one of the outstanding theologians of this century...". He writes in his great treatise on the Church, The Church of the Word Incarnate:
Three of these are of divine institution: the episcopate, the presbyterate, and the diaconate ... The last of these three divinely instituted powers, the diaconate, contains in an eminent manner other lower powers, which gradually made their appearance in the course of time, as the divine cultus developed. The subdiaconate was instituted, and the various Minor Orders ... Bishops, priests, deacons—such, in the line of order, in virtue of divine institution, already clearly indicated in the earliest magisterium of the Church, are the degrees of the hierarchy. We must now consider for a moment each degree in particular.
All you've done to prove your case is claim "Catholic training". That doesn't prove anything. Pius XII clearly settled the case for the sacramental nature of the Diaconate with the dogmatic, ex cathedra definition in Sacramentum Ordinis:
Since these things are so, invoking divine light by Our supreme apostolic authority and certain knowledge We declare, and, according as there is need, decree, and determine that the matter of sacred orders of the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate, and this alone, is the imposition of the hands; but that form, and likewise alone, is the words which determine the application of this matter, by which the sacramental effects are signified with but one meaning, namely, the power of orders, and grace of the Holy Spirit, and which as such are accepted and applied by the Church.
"sacred orders of the diaconate ... sacramental effects are signified with but one meaning, namely, the power of orders..." How could he be more clear?
The Council of Florence also is clear on this matter:
Among these sacraments there are three, baptism, confirmation, and orders, which imprint an indelible sign on the soul, that is, a certain character distinctive from the others. Hence they should not be repeated ... The sixth sacrament is that of order, the matter of which is that through whose transmission the order is conferred: just as the priesthood is transmitted through the offering of the chalice with wine and of the paten with bread; the diaconate, however, by the giving of the book of the Gospels ... (Council of Florence, Decree for the Armenians, Nov. 22, 1439, in Denzinger-Deferrari 695, 701)
To say that the Diaconate is not a sacrament or a sacred order goes against the express teaching of the Council of Florence and of Pope Pius XII. To say that an ordained deacon has no character imprinted on his soul is contrary to the Council of Florence. You haven't produced anything to prove otherwise, but just insist that we take your word for it, as if you were some sort of infallible oracle greater than three ecumenical Councils (Florence, Trent, and Vatican II) and Pope Pius XII, to whom we could add Urban II (Denz. 356): "Moreover we call sacred orders the diaconate and the priesthood".
JPII directly discourages by his governance, Catholic Piety, the papacy, EENS, the respect due sacred things, and a whole host of other scandals. He's the Pope. A very very bad Pope. He may be a really nice guy. But he's a bad Pope. He's known about the pedophiles but he's done nothing about it. Nothing. Absolutely Nothing.
JPII did not even command LeFebvre directly Not to consecrate bishops. He pleaded, cajoled and did the usual diplomatic dance. But there is no explicit command from JPII.
The question really is, How can you be disobedient to a papal "deadbeat Dad?" He's never around when you need him. He's usually not in his right mind. Yep. He's still your father. But he's also a deadbeat. You can't count on him to lead. And you never could. He was given time and power and failed to use it. He abandoned the defense of the faith and his flock. He's pushed so many into heresy with his vague and overlycomplicated "reflections" on what "might" be possible in the Church that he leaves no room for real doctrine as known and understood from before Augustine's time to Pius XII's time.
Ut Unum Sint leaves open the inference that JPII is "open to a new situation" regarding papal primacy. What in the world does that mean? That is "UNDEFINING" something. The exact opposite of what a Pope is supposed to do. His doctrine is exclusively undefining and undermining what was previously understood and accepted. This is a scandal among the other pile of scandals. This is malfeasance in High office and a direct assault on the Unity of the Church. Just as his false opinion that Christ's prayer was not fulfilled is prevalent throughout the encyclical.
When he stops the political blather,and starts defining things and doing his job as Pope, he'll get the obedience you crave and he obviously hates having given him.
So in other words he has never commanded you to believe anything that is De Fide against the Catholic Faith.
Case closed. Next?
So in other words I've never disobeyed him. Case closed.
And, just because he has never announced himself to be a manifest heretic, doesn't mean he hasn't been a lousy, and I mean LOUSY Pope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.