Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

My Journey out of the Lefebvre Schism
Envoy Magazine ^ | Pete Vere, JCL/M (Canon Law)

Posted on 01/20/2003 6:03:26 AM PST by NYer

The article is far too long to post. Click here: Who Was Archbishop Lefebvre?

If you’re a Catholic who’s faithful to the Church’s teaching Magisterium, you’ve probably met up with followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s 1988 schism, known as the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). They’re filled with devotion to the Blessed Mother, extremely conservative with regard to most moral issues afflicting the Western world today, and quite reverent before the Blessed Sacrament during their old Latin liturgies. In short, on the surface, adherents to Archbishop Lefebvre’s schism appear to be devout Catholics

It’s easy to sympathize with these folks since most of them have joined the SSPX after being scandalized by contemporary abuses in doctrine and liturgy in some of our Catholic churches in North America. In fact, it was precisely because of such sympathies, as well as the beauty of the Tridentine Mass, that I found myself frequenting SSPX chapels about eight years ago. Like most SSPX adherents, at the time I thought that my separation from Rome was merely temporary.

I failed to realize, however, that at the root of every schism, as the present Code of Canon Law explains, “is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (Can. 751). Such ruptures from communion with the Church, the Catechism of the Catholic Church points out, “wound the unity of Christ’s Body” (CCC 817). For that reason, at the heart of my journey back to full communion with Rome lay many questions about the unity of the Church as an institution founded by Christ.

The Novus Ordo Missae: Intrinsically Evil?
A common argument now put forward by the SSPX is that the revised liturgy of Pope Paul VI is intrinsically evil, or at the least poses a proximate danger to the Catholic faith. This would mean that the post-Vatican II liturgy is in and of itself contrary to the law of God. How individual Lefebvrites approach this issue will often vary, but they typically insist that the new Mass contains heresy, blasphemy or ambiguity. In resolving this question, I came to the personal conclusion that Christ has a sense of humor, since the same text from Catholic Tradition the SSPX quotes in defense of this claim is the very text that refutes it.

A preliminary observation is in order. The Mass has not changed since Christ instituted this sacrament on the night before His crucifixion. In essence, there is neither an “old” Mass nor a “new” Mass, but only the Mass. In fact what changed after the Second Vatican Council was not the Mass, but the liturgy.

This means that while the “accidents” (to use a classical theological term) differ somewhat between the pre-Vatican II liturgy and the reformed liturgy of Pope Paul VI, their essence remains the same: the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ transubstantiated into the Eucharist. This central mystery of the Mass takes place regardless of whether the priest celebrates according to the liturgical books in use before the Second Vatican Council or according to the liturgical books revised by Pope Paul VI. In fact, both sets of liturgical books are usages of the same Roman liturgical rite.

When I was associated with the SSPX, to defend the claim that the reformed liturgy is intrinsically evil I used to quote the seventh canon on the Sacrifice of the Mass from the Council of Trent. This canon states: “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of Masses are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.”

Let’s look at this more closely. Since the definition of intrinsic evil is “something which in and of itself is evil,” we see from the Council of Trent that an approved liturgy of the Church cannot be such. For something that is intrinsically evil is naturally an incentive to impiety, while the Council of Trent declares dogmatically that the approved liturgical ceremonies of the Catholic Church cannot be incentives to impiety.

But wait a second: Wasn’t the revised liturgy of Pope Paul VI an approved liturgy of the Church? Of course! So according to the Tradition of the Church as dogmatically defined at the Ecumenical Council of Trent, I could only conclude that the reformed liturgy of Pope Paul VI cannot be an incentive to impiety. It necessarily follows, then, that neither could it be intrinsically evil. Thus in my defense of the schismatic position I stood refuted by the very Catholic Tradition from the Council of Trent that I was seeking to preserve through adherence to the SSPX schism.


TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events; Ecumenism; General Discusssion; History; Ministry/Outreach; Prayer; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholicchurch; lefebvre; sspx; vatican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-222 next last
The first argument I ever encountered by an SSPX apologist, in fact the very argument that led me into their schism, was a citation of Pope St. Pius V’s sixteenth-century papal bull Quo Primum Tempore. In a nutshell, the SSPX proponent claimed that St. Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Mass in perpetuity, meaning for all time. The SSPX claimed — and I found the claim convincing at the time — that every priest has the right to use the Roman Missal codified by St. Pius V in Quo Primum Tempore, and that this right cannot be taken away from him.


1 posted on 01/20/2003 6:03:26 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Thanks Registered

2 posted on 01/20/2003 6:08:16 AM PST by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .45MAN; AKA Elena; Angelus Errare; Aquinasfan; Aristophanes; ArrogantBustard; Askel5; Barnacle; ...
The Substance of Catholic Tradition
In my journey back to the Church, through the grace of God I’ve been led from the mere “accidents” of Catholic Tradition to the substance of Catholic Tradition. Although I enjoy the reformed liturgy of Pope Paul VI, which I now recognize as the normative liturgy of the Latin Church, I’m as firmly committed to preservation of the 1962 liturgical missal today as I was during my time in the Lefebvre movement. However, I realize that our liturgical tradition as Catholics cannot be preserved apart from John Paul II and all the other legitimate successors of St. Peter. For his voice is the voice of Catholic Tradition in the Church today — a Tradition that has been passed down to him by Christ and the Apostles.

 

3 posted on 01/20/2003 6:08:55 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
I realize that our liturgical tradition as Catholics cannot be preserved apart from John Paul II and all the other legitimate successors of St. Peter. For his voice is the voice of Catholic Tradition in the Church today — a Tradition that has been passed down to him by Christ and the Apostles.

Else He lied, right?

4 posted on 01/20/2003 6:15:19 AM PST by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Dear NYer,

Very nice post, but don't be surprised if we see ad hominem attacks on Mr. Vere.

sitetest

5 posted on 01/20/2003 6:33:03 AM PST by sitetest (No good deed goes unpunished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
What does this prove?
6 posted on 01/20/2003 6:35:06 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
Else He lied, right?

Yes ... Interesting that the author took up the study of Canon Law in searching for truth. Note also the following.

* * * * *
Traditional Rome vs. Modernist Rome
The question of Rome eventually weighed in on my conscience, as it should for anyone who leaves the Church. Given what Catholic Tradition consistently teaches concerning faithfulness to Rome, how could I justify my separation from the Roman Pontiff? In fact, even five years after reconciling myself to Rome, the question of communion with Rome and the local Bishop remains the catalyst for much of my theological and canonical exploration.

While I was with the SSPX, however, I accepted their solution to this problem. The SSPX claimed that the questionable behavior of the post-Vatican II popes had divided the faithful into two camps. One camp, the institutional Church, was faithful to contemporary Rome, which the SSPX claims has been infiltrated by modernists and liberals. In the other camp rests the SSPX, who naturally are faithful to Traditional Rome.

Nevertheless, I was unable to deceive my conscience. So I kept wondering whether Catholic Tradition actually sustained the argument that a Catholic could be faithful to Traditional Rome, without remaining faithful to temporal Rome.

“Our hearts are restless, O Lord, until they rest in You,” remarks St. Augustine at the opening of his Confessions. My heart was spiritually restless because it didn’t rest in full communion with Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church. Yet Christ also promises us in the Gospels that if we seek the truth, we will find it (see Matt. 7:7).

In my case, the truth lay in the back room of my parents’ basement. There I found an abandoned box full of old papal encyclicals left over from my father’s college days. At the bottom of this box was Pope Pius XII’s masterful papal encyclical Mystici Corporis.

Curious as to the content, I immediately opened this work to the following passage: “We think, how grievously they err who arbitrarily claim that the Church is something hidden and invisible, as they also do who look upon her as a mere human institution possessing a certain disciplinary code and external ritual, but lacking power to communicate supernatural life” (par. 64). This theological discovery from Catholic Tradition as expressed by the pre-Vatican II popes astounded me even more than my previous St. Anastasius discovery in Denzinger.

Here, from the Church’s Tradition, was the teaching that we cannot separate the Church into a mere spiritual communion as opposed to a mere human institution. In short, the Rome of Tradition and the Rome of Today were the same Rome. Everything suddenly made sense to me about Catholic ecclesiology. Just as at the Incarnation Christ was fully human and fully divine, without sacrificing either nature, so too must the Church, as Christ’s Mystical Body, be a perfect union of the visible and the invisible.

7 posted on 01/20/2003 6:38:04 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer
In resolving this question, I came to the personal conclusion that Christ has a sense of humor, since the same text from Catholic Tradition the SSPX quotes in defense of this claim is the very text that refutes it.

Bump.
8 posted on 01/20/2003 6:57:19 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
Popes may break with tradition as well as anybody else. When this happens, they must be resisted. The New Mass is Protestant. There is no getting around it. It supports the Protestant perspective on the Lord's Supper and opposes Trent. This is not Traditional, whether or not Envoy Magazine argues to the contrary.
9 posted on 01/20/2003 7:01:42 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer
bump for later
10 posted on 01/20/2003 7:02:38 AM PST by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Why should we argue ad hominem? Mr. Vere's opinion is not worth much. What is worth more than all the Veres and all the popes and all the bishops in the world--is the Faith. The Faith is what must be preserved in the face of the systematic modernist onslaught against traditional Catholic beliefs.

SSPX preserves the Catholic faith as it was believed and practiced before the Council and before the New Mass came into vogue, both of which gave modernism the illegitimate means whereby to wreck the Faith. SSPX is the Faith, no more and no less. It is the Faith that had been practiced for 2000 years. Why should the opinion of this individual matter against the enormousness of this reality?

Why do you suppose Rome is so frantic for a raprochement with SSPX? Do you think it is out of reasons of charity? It is for one reason and one reason only: because the Society preserves intact the existence of the Church before the very dogmas of the Church had been openly brought into question (the Real Presence, the Resurrection, the Divinity of Christ) and before Scripture itself has been openly opposed by Catholic churchmen in high office (the new perspective on the Jews).

So this guy who quit the SSPX is small beer. He is of no real importance, whatever he thinks. There are many reasons to leave SSPX, not least among them the perks one receives afterwards from people of the sort that publish Envoy. What is of importance, what is vitally important, is the Faith itself, which is what SSPX is all about.
11 posted on 01/20/2003 7:24:00 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Very nice post, but don't be surprised if we see ad hominem attacks on Mr. Vere.

Why so defensive ahead of time? Is it because you're uncomfortable with the fact that the author of this article is an ex-Satanist, whose mentor after he left the SSPX was a homosexual abuser slash liturgical deconstructor, and who now spends his time watching professional wrestling (whenever he's not busy attacking Catholic tradition)?

12 posted on 01/20/2003 7:31:59 AM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer
"Listen to what Dom Nau says of the Ordinary Magisterium:

"The infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, whether of the Universal Church or of the See of Rome, is not that of a judgment, nor that of an act to be considered in isolation, as if it could itself provide all the light necessary for it to be clearly seen. It is that of the guarantee bestowed on a doctrine by the simultaneous or continuous convergence of a plurality of affirmations or explanations; none of which could bring positive certitude if it were taken by itself alone. (Pope or Church, p.18)

"Consequently, there are some statements in the documents of Vatican II that belong to the Ordinary Magisterium, and that are infallibly true. These are the doctrinal statements that simply repeat what the Church has everywhere and always taught. However, there are many other statements that do not do this, and that do not belong to the Ordinary Magisterium, but rather to the Authentic Magisterium, which simply means that they authentically come from the Council or Pope who has authority in the Church. Under normal circumstances they would be accepted with reverence, but never as infallible. At the present time, it is clear that many of these are radical modernist novelties, such as religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality and the adaptation of the Church to the modern world. Since they are clearly in direct contradiction to infallible statements of the Solemn and Ordinary Magisterium, these novelties can and must be refused."

Father Peter Scott, SSPX
13 posted on 01/20/2003 7:33:56 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Catholicguy; patent; BlackElk; Polycarp
Dear NYer,

LOL. I could work for the Psychic Hotline.


sitetest
14 posted on 01/20/2003 7:35:42 AM PST by sitetest (Let's see what else my crystal ball says...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Don't you think the fact that the author of the article is an ex-Satanist is relevant? Why is Envoy publishing such trash? Sounds like an act of desperation to me.
15 posted on 01/20/2003 7:46:54 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him”

Why does the pope desire reunion? As Catholics you are a part of the Body of Christ and your absence has left Him wounded. The Church desires all of her children to be safe at home whatever the reason they left.

16 posted on 01/20/2003 7:58:07 AM PST by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
Whether he was a satanist or not has nothing to do with the present. I think everyone has lost his way sometime or another but if he responded to the Grace of God, he became a new person. St. Augustine wasn't a very good example in his younger years and now we call him saint.

As to the present, do you have any links for this information?

17 posted on 01/20/2003 8:17:04 AM PST by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tiki
The Pope may desire reunion for the best of reasons. But the problem is Rome's modernism which departs radically from the old Faith. It is indisputable that central dogmas of Catholicism are routinely denied. This is a huge problem that only God apparently will be able to fix. Meanwhile SSPX has taken as its mission the preservation of the Faith as it had been practiced for two thousand years before the last council. It is what all Catholics once were--before the modernist heresies took hold.
18 posted on 01/20/2003 8:18:18 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: tiki
The problem is whether or not we've got a new religion in Rome. It's true Rome has the Pope. But Rome has also set about destroying or undermining its own past--apologizing for the Church's own history, openly contradicting the teachings of past popes, instituting brand new theologies, fabricating a wholly new protestantized Mass, re-defining the Sacraments, eliminating past devotions, reinterpreting Scripture to fit radically new doctrines, openly disobeying past councils.

It's hard to argue we don't have here a new religion. Yes, it's got traces of the old: the papacy is in place, the bishops control the dioceses, but the teachings are different and the rituals are brand new. Tradition has been systematically assaulted--in violation of the papal coronation oath.
19 posted on 01/20/2003 8:34:11 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tiki
As to the present, do you have any links for this information?

Here is a previous thread with links to Vere's own blog where he stated all these things in his own words:
Influential Priest-Canonist is Abuser

Post #9 has links to Vere's blog where he talks about Fr. Huel's (the priest-canonist abuser) decisive influence on his career, his interest in horror novels, drinking games and professional wrestling, and his teenage dabbling in Satanism. In post #96, "Theosis" who says he is a friend of Vere's and appears to have signed up on FR just to defend him, admits:

Actually Polycarp, HDMZ is correct in stating that Vere is an admitted former teenage satanist. This is often overlooked in his conversion story since he doesn't like to dwell on it. In fact, I was a little dissapointed that he barely gave more than a paragraph to it in his conversion story which was just published.

I can overlook the teenage Satanism, but what I find most troubling is the fact that Vere's acknowledged intellectual mentor was not only an admitted homosexual abuser, but was perhaps the foremost liturgical destructor who toured the US and Canada promoting his program of innovation under the banner of "creating a path by walking on it."

As to his current hobbies of drinking games, horror novels and professional wrestling, I find these things relevant only to the extent of questioning whether he truly has "matured" beyond his youthful indiscretions.

20 posted on 01/20/2003 9:59:00 AM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio; sitetest; Desdemona
SSPX preserves the Catholic faith as it was believed and practiced before the Council and before the New Mass came into vogue, both of which gave modernism the illegitimate means whereby to wreck the Faith.

“We think, how grievously they err who arbitrarily claim that the Church is something hidden and invisible, as they also do who look upon her as a mere human institution possessing a certain disciplinary code and external ritual, but lacking power to communicate supernatural life” (par. 64)

But we must not think that He rules only in a hidden or extraordinary manner. On the contrary, our Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth. . . . Since He was all-wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. . . . That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same (par. 40).
..... Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis

Can a Catholic be faithful to Traditional Rome, without remaining faithful to temporal Rome?

According to Pope Pius XII ..... No!

21 posted on 01/20/2003 9:59:49 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Thanks! I have John Paul II as my Pope and no one else at present.
22 posted on 01/20/2003 10:03:45 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NYer
"Can a Catholic be faithful to Traditional Rome, without remaining faithful to temporal Rome? According to Pope Pius XII ..... No!"

But there was the assumption, made here by Pius XII, that the papacy supports Tradition as any pope is obliged to do. If the pope does not, if he supports novelty instead, then the faithful are forced to choose between the pope and the faith, between the novel teachings of this pope and the teachings of the preconciliar popes, including Pius XII himself.

In any case, SSPX does not deny the Pope is the head of the Church as you seem to suggest. This is why it prays for the Pope at all Masses and officially affirms his role as head of the Church. But it refuses to deny the faith by following the New Order he wishes to impose. The Faith after all is the reason for the papacy's very existence. Above all else the pope is pledged to protect the deposit of faith. If he does not do this, then we must place the faith first, even before the pope.
23 posted on 01/20/2003 10:18:20 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
"I have John Paul II as my Pope and no one else at present."

So do I. The implication that SSPX does not recognize the Pope as head of the Church is incorrect as any visit to its website will prove. But it is willing to say when he's wrong--whenever he departs from the true faith--while those who follow the Novus Ordo are not.
24 posted on 01/20/2003 10:25:53 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio; tiki; Maximilian; NYer; Catholicguy; sitetest; american colleen
It is indisputable that central dogmas of Catholicism are routinely denied.

Name them!

25 posted on 01/20/2003 10:38:18 AM PST by ThomasMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
whenever he departs from the true faith--while those who follow the Novus Ordo are not.

This kind of mantra causes as much division and dissidence as modernism.

26 posted on 01/20/2003 10:41:47 AM PST by ThomasMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: ThomasMore
Deal with it. It's the truth. Unfortunately, the New Mass subverts Catholic dogma. So does giving the red hat to a German heretic who publicly doubts the Resurrection and the Divinity of Christ. So does praying with witchdoctors and kissing the Koran. All of this is ugly stuff--but true. If you have a problem with it, you need to address your gripes to Rome. None of this is Traditional Catholicism.
28 posted on 01/20/2003 10:49:03 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: frozen section
That we need not evangelize Jews.

Sorry, fs, that's not a dogma! Try again?

29 posted on 01/20/2003 10:49:05 AM PST by ThomasMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ThomasMore
Easy. The Real Presence.
30 posted on 01/20/2003 10:50:45 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Deal with it.

Deal with what?

the New Mass subverts Catholic dogma.

Pure unadulterated opinion.

So does praying with witchdoctors

Was he praying to the Triune God or the pagan? You're sounding like a Pharisee.

31 posted on 01/20/2003 11:00:52 AM PST by ThomasMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Are you kidding me? There's a whole SECTION in the Cathecism about True Presence of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Read 1373-1381, titled "The presence of Christ by the power of His Word and the Holy Spirit." It cites St. Ambrose and the Council of Trent
32 posted on 01/20/2003 11:02:24 AM PST by Pyro7480 (+ Vive Jesus! (Live Jesus!) +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Easy. The Real Presence.

The Holy See has publicly "denied" the Real Presence? That's news to me.

33 posted on 01/20/2003 11:03:45 AM PST by ThomasMore (Anyone got a bridge I can sell. I got a live one!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Easy. The Real Presence.

Since when? The Real Presence has always been taught in my memory.
34 posted on 01/20/2003 11:14:27 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio

The presence of Christ by the power of his word and the Holy Spirit

1373 "Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us," is present in many ways to his Church:[195] in his word, in his Church's prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name,"[196] in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned,[197] in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But "he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species."[198]

1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."[199] In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."[200] "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."[201]

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:
It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.[202]
And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:
Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed.... Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.[203]

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."[204]

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.[205]

1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."[206]

1379 The tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist in a worthy place so that it could be brought to the sick and those absent outside of Mass. As faith in the real presence of Christ in his Eucharist deepened, the Church became conscious of the meaning of silent adoration of the Lord present under the Eucharistic species. It is for this reason that the tabernacle should be located in an especially worthy place in the church and should be constructed in such a way that it emphasizes and manifests the truth of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

1380 It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present to his Church in this unique way. Since Christ was about to take his departure from his own in his visible form, he wanted to give us his sacramental presence; since he was about to offer himself on the cross to save us, he wanted us to have the memorial of the love with which he loved us "to the end,"[207] even to the giving of his life. In his Eucharistic presence he remains mysteriously in our midst as the one who loved us and gave himself up for us,[208] and he remains under signs that express and communicate this love:
The Church and the world have a great need for Eucharistic worship. Jesus awaits us in this sacrament of love. Let us not refuse the time to go to meet him in adoration, in contemplation full of faith, and open to making amends for the serious offenses and crimes of the world. Let our adoration never cease.[209]

1381 "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 ('This is my body which is given for you.'), St. Cyril says: 'Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'"[210]

Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more, See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.

Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived;
How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
What God's Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth himself speaks truly or there's nothing true.
[211]

195 Rom 8:34; cf. LG 48.

196 Mt 18:20.

197 Cf. Mt 25:31-46.

198 SC 7.

199 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III, 73, 3c.

200 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1651.

201 Paul VI, MF 39.

202 St. John Chrysostom, prod. Jud. 1:6: PG 49, 380.

203 St. Ambrose, De myst. 9, 50; 52: PL 16, 405-407.

204 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1642; cf. Mt 26:26 ff.; Mk 14:22 ff.; Lk 22:19 ff.; 1 Cor 11:24 ff.

205 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641.

206 Paul VI, MF 56.

207 Jn 13:1.

208 Cf. Gal 2:20.

209 John Paul II, Dominicae cenae, 3.

210 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III, 75, 1; cf. Paul VI, MF 18; St. Cyril of Alexandria, In Luc. 22, 19: PG 72, 912; cf. Paul VI, MF 18.

211 St. Thomas Aquinas (attr.), Adoro te devote; tr. Gerard Manley Hopkins.

35 posted on 01/20/2003 11:19:11 AM PST by Pyro7480 (+ Vive Jesus! (Live Jesus!) +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
But there was the assumption, made here by Pius XII, that the papacy supports Tradition as any pope is obliged to do.

Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head

"I realize that our liturgical tradition as Catholics cannot be preserved apart from John Paul II and all the other legitimate successors of St. Peter. For his voice is the voice of Catholic Tradition in the Church today — a Tradition that has been passed down to him by Christ and the Apostles."

Matthew 12:30
He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.

2 John 1:9-11
I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves [clergy] will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert " (Acts 20:29-31). "

And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds"
(2 Corinthians 11:12-15).

* * * * *

Lefebvre is dead. The organization he founded is in schism with the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on earth. Its adherents are out of communion with Christ. When do you imagine they will rejoin the fold.

36 posted on 01/20/2003 11:28:49 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
This is all very tiresome. Why do you suppose the bishops have prohibited kneeling for Communion? Why have they shunted aside the tabernacles? Why have they eliminated genuflections? Why have the words "Mysterium Fidei" been removed from the Consecration as a reference to Transubstantiation and placed AFTER the Consecration and made to refer to something else? Why is Communion now taken in the hands? Why is the focus exclusively on Christ's virtual presence in Scripture and in the assembly. Give me a break. The lovely perfumed language that you cite from the New Catechism and Vatican II is belied daily by every single Novus Ordo Mass that is ever celebrated. The dogma is deliberately being subverted in order to accommodate Protestant sensibilities--and every liturgist worth his salt knows it. There's no mystery here--it's blatant. So is the desire to suppress the sacrificial aspects of the Mass in favor of the memorial meal--another concession to Protestant theology in obvious violation of Trent.
37 posted on 01/20/2003 11:39:05 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
...the New Mass subverts Catholic dogma

"The Mass has not changed since Christ instituted this sacrament on the night before His crucifixion. In essence, there is neither an “old” Mass nor a “new” Mass, but only the Mass. In fact what changed after the Second Vatican Council was not the Mass, but the liturgy."

"...the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ transubstantiated into the Eucharist. This central mystery of the Mass takes place regardless of whether the priest celebrates according to the liturgical books in use before the Second Vatican Council or according to the liturgical books revised by Pope Paul VI. In fact, both sets of liturgical books are usages of the same Roman liturgical rite."

Which dogmas are violated?

38 posted on 01/20/2003 11:40:00 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
I don't know how to even start to respond to this. I can understand a lot of what you said here, and what you have said, but the rest... I don't know. What do you mean they have eliminated genuflections? Other than a very few exceptions, every priest I have observed during the Novus Ordo Mass has genuflected after repeating the Lord's Words at the Last Supper, and raising the consecrated Host and chalice. In regards to receiving Communion, I personally have been receiving Eucharist on the tongue for some time now. Reading an article someone had posted about St. Thomas Aquinas' teaching about the Eucharist and that only consecrated hands should handle it convinced me even more, since I have a great respect for this Doctor of the Church. I don't see any shift of focus away from the Eucharist and to Christ's virtual presence in the Scripture and on the assembly, other than the shift of the priest facing the congregation instead of the back wall of the sanctuary. Please give me a clear-cut example of dogma being subverted to cowtow to Protestantism. I think this is more due to bad religious instruction than anything else.
39 posted on 01/20/2003 11:48:58 AM PST by Pyro7480 (+ Vive Jesus! (Live Jesus!) +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Oh, really? Look again. Here is what my catechism says:

"103. For this reason the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's word and Christ's Body."

What is this but a conflation of Christ's virtual Presence with his Real Presence? And, in fact, this conflation is what characterizes the Novus Ordo, not adoration for the Real Presence. This is why all outward show of adoration is suppressed in favor of mere veneration.

The truth is, the Church had NEVER venerated Scripture as she venerated the Lord's Body. The Lord's Body was THE Mystery of Faith, the essence of the Eucharist and our participation in it. To think it was venerated in the same way is absurd. Yet that is now the posture of the Church. Even the common devotions of past ages--visits to the Blessed Sacrament, Benediction, exposure of the Sacred Host, Holy Hours, etc.--are discouraged. In 1992 a Gallup poll found that two-thirds of all Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence. Yet Rome has done nothing to reverse this trend of disbelief, just as it does nothing to reverse the decree of bishops prohibiting kneeling for Communion.

40 posted on 01/20/2003 11:49:47 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Why do you suppose the bishops have prohibited kneeling for Communion?

"Another fundamental right of the faithful, as noted in canon 213, is "the right to receive assistance by the sacred Pastors from the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the Sacraments". In view of the law that "sacred" ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them" (canon 843 § 1), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person's unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared. Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institution Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. "
... Congregation de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum Rome, July 1, 2002

41 posted on 01/20/2003 11:50:24 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ThomasMore
Does the Pope pray to the Triune God when he pours out a libation with Togo animists in their sacred forest?
42 posted on 01/20/2003 11:52:19 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Even with all these dire trends of the modernist age, I think many still desire the things you have just named. For example, a Perpetual Adoration Chapel was dedicated just FIVE YEARS AGO in the parish I grew up in, dedicated to the Divine Mercy. I make every effort to go there at least once a week. I grew up in a pretty traditionalist environment in this parish, where Forty Hours were celebrated, Benediction and Exposition were celebrated regularly, and Marian devotions were strong. While much of this left when our traditionalist priest left when I was about 10 years old, this experience was key to my faith development, and others who have experienced similar experiences are spreading these traditional devotion. Such things WILL not die, no matter how much the world changes. We should not despair.
43 posted on 01/20/2003 11:56:26 AM PST by Pyro7480 (+ Vive Jesus! (Live Jesus!) +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Unfortunately, the New Mass subverts Catholic dogma. So does giving the red hat to a German heretic who publicly doubts the Resurrection and the Divinity of Christ

Have you even given God a chance to act on this on His own time?

Here is a perfect example of a priest who didn't believe the truth and God took care of it.

Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk's doubt about Jesus' Real Presence in the Eucharist.

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.

The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back.

The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre.

Various ecclesiastical investigation ("Recognitions") were conducted since 1574.

In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs. These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.

The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.

The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.

In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.

The Flesh is a "HEART" complete in its essential structure.

The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).

In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.

In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.

The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

44 posted on 01/20/2003 11:56:42 AM PST by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio; Pyro7480; sitetest; Desdemona; Polycarp
Why is Communion now taken in the hands?

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his exquisite description of the Mass presented in his 'Catechetical Lectures,' dated around 350 A.D., provides these directions for receiving the Eucharist:

"In approaching, therefore, do not come up with your wrists apart or with your fingers spread, but make of your left hand a throne for the right, since you are about to receive into it a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it the 'Amen.' Then, after cautiously sanctifying your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake, being careful lest you lose anything of it. For whatever you might lose is clearly a loss to you from one of your own members. Tell me: if someone gavbe you some grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, lest you might lose something of them and thereby suffer a loss? Will you not, therefore, be much more careful in keeping watch over wht is more precious than gold and gens, so that not a particle of it may escape you?

"Then, after you have communicated yourself of the Body of Christ, come forward also to the cup of His Blood, not reaching out with your hands, but bowing; and in an attitude of worship and reverence say the 'Amen,' and sanctify yourself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ. And while the moisture of it still adheres to your lips, touch it with your hands and sanctify your eyes and forehead and the rest of your senses. Then, while awaiting the prayer, give thanks to God, who has deemed you worthy of such great Mysteries." (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Jurgens, Vol. I, p. 366)

45 posted on 01/20/2003 12:00:32 PM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ThomasMore
I never said the Holy See has "publicly" denied anything. They never do that. They change our religion in practice and punish those who don't go along. They do not discuss the changes. They never mention the Real Presence. If you ask the bishops why showing adoration by kneeling for Communion is prohibited, they will not answer that it's because they no longer believe in the Real Presence. They tell you it's to keep church traffic moving. They have torn out the communion rails, they have eliminated genuflections, they have ordered Communion in the hands, they have shunted-aside the tabernacles--and in every instance they will give some banal excuse. Taken individually, each excuse seems fairly plausible. But taken together they are an affront to the Catholic belief in the Real Presence. These people are very subtle, very sneaky. Yet if you examine the Novus Ordo line for line and rubric for rubric and compare it to the old Mass, you will comprehend better the shocking denials of traditional Catholic dogma in favor of the Protestant perspective.
46 posted on 01/20/2003 12:01:32 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Two dogmas are violated by the Novus Ordo. The dogma of the Real Presence and the dogma of Expiation for sins. Both are suppressed.
47 posted on 01/20/2003 12:05:14 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
I want to ask, what makes you think that by separating that you can deal with any errors in the Church?

I have no power to change anything unless God chooses to work through me. I can't assure my Salvation by being good and trying not to sin. I am helpless and fall short but thanks to the Grace of God, I have a chance at eternal Salvation. If God wanted it fixed, today, He would fix it, with or without me.

48 posted on 01/20/2003 12:06:43 PM PST by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
You know, I don't know where to start either. If you are not aware of the enormous difference between the new Mass-- which Klaus Gamber has called a tragic break with Tradition--and the old Mass, I can't briefly summarize it for you other than to say the New Mass is a serious threat to the Faith of any Catholic. I will do so, however, at a later time. I'm pretty much worn out, going at this since this morning--and neglecting so much else.
49 posted on 01/20/2003 12:12:24 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Give me a break. This letter from Rome doesn't reverse the prohibition by the bishops, it just asks that priests not refuse to give Communion to those who kneel. If Rome were truly upset that Catholics are now forbidden to adore the SECOND PERSON OF THE BLESSED TRINITY, it would reverse the decree. It did no such thing. It goes along with the modernist agenda. In fact, this letter proves my point.
50 posted on 01/20/2003 12:17:32 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-222 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson