CAN WE ATTEND THE INDULT MASS?

Society of Saint Pius X ^ | June 1993 | Father Van Es

[narses]

The Church hierarchy grudgingly admits the validity of the SSPX Mass and then says attendance thereto is a great evil. One American Bishop has ex-Communicated faithful for their attendance at an SSPX Mass, another threatens to. (The highest Canonical Court over-ruled the Bp. of Hawaii on that occasion, btw.)They are mirror images of each other on this point. On another thread I point out how Abp. Weakland accuses the Pope of allowing evil into the Church by means of the current Indult. The issue is not validity, it is charity and pride doing battle and souls are being lost. Pray for the Church, She is battered and bleeding just as Our Lord is on the Cross. Our sins, our pride, our lack of charity wound the Bride of Christ as terribly as they wound Our Lord.

[ultima ratio]

You misunderstand. These norms were set by Rome. Rome itself has warned that many Novus Ordo Masses are invalid due to the invalid preparation of hosts. The use of sugar, honey or other illicit ingrediants in the making of hosts would render the Mass itself invalid. This is why there is concern--many Novus Ordo priests are indifferent to this liturgical requirement. In point of fact, the Body of Christ would not actually be present if hosts were improperly prepared since the required "Matter" for Consecration would not be present. This is not a matter of discipline alone, it is a matter of theology.

[ultima ratio]

Cardinal Ratzinger himself has commented on the "exasperation" shown by Novus Ordo bishops toward the '62 Missal. He argued that this was due to the fact of the Council of Trent's rejection of the new Missal:

"It is only by grasping that it results from the practical disqualification of Trent, that one can understand the exasperation that accompanies the fight against the possibility of still celebrating the Mass according to the 1962 Missal."

In other words, the very Council that divided Catholic from Protestant, is still dividing us for pretty much the same reason. And in his recent study of the ancient liturgy, he also said the following:

"It is necessary to stop the ban of the liturgy that was in force until 1970. Currently, anyone who defends the validity of that liturgy or who practices it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ceases. The like has never been seen before in the Church's entire history. By adopting this attitude towards them, they despise the Church's entire past." (The Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 194.)

Is it any wonder that out of the depths of such rejection a reaction of equal force has set in among traditionalists? Why act so surprised?

[Desdemona]

Here, there is only one Latin Mass. At least that I know of. Those who do not care for the Old Rite are generally speaking theater people. That could be part of it. That just happens to be the circle where I hear the complaints. This city happens to be very performance oriented and the people want to be entertained, I think. But at the same time, we're very conservative and have it good in comparison.

Then there are the ones who don't believe in putting any effort into ANYTHING and that's part of their motivation, since it would mean translating Latin.

There is one church, St. Raymond's (where the current mayor is a parishoner) which is Lebonese, and they're thriving. It's a different rite. I'm not sure if there is an Anglican Rite here or not.

[narses]

See http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2001/reflections_on_liturgical_reform.html

for a glimpse of the thinking in opposition to the NO. Mind you the site is a orthodox, recognized Roman Catholic site run by those attached to the Tridentine Rite through the FSSP.

[Aloysius]

Evil .... that is the view held by the SSPX of the Novus Ordo mass.

There has been quite a bit of hysteria on this thread over the description by the SSPX web site, that the Novus Ordo Mass is evil.

Applying the term evil to a valid and sometimes well-intentioned Sacrament is inappropriate. It can, however, be argued that the Novus Ordo Mass, while not evil in and of itself, has contibuted to Catholic society embracing evil and sinful habits.

Let's face it. Regardless of the intentions of the architects of the Novus Ordo, that Mass has led to a watering down of the Faith, it has compromised the teachings of the Church, it has placed political correctness ahead of Tradition. We all know most Catholics rarely go to Confession, many are using artificial bith control, most recieve Communion in the hand, most don't fullfil their obligations to attend Mass on Holy Days, the majority of American Catholics voted for Bill Clinton - twice, etc. etc.

Are all these ills directly a result of the Novus Ordo? No. Has the Novus Ordo indirectly caused Catholics to act evil? Certainly! If you disagree with this conclusion, answer this - Many polls indicate that the vast majority of married Catholics in their child-bearing years are using artificial birth control. How often do you hear a sermon at a Novus Ordo mass condemn this evil as a grave sin? In the thousands of Novus Ordo masses I have attended, I have never heard it condemned once. NOT ONCE. When a priest stands in the pulpit with a fairly good idea that a very large number of his congregation are committing grave sins and he does NOTHING about it (many times he even condones it) he is leading people away from God. This alone is a huge failure of the new Church.

The Novus Ordo may not be evil, but it has certinly made the Evil One's job easier.

[Land of the Irish]

We quote here large excerpts from the interview granted by Mgr. Fellay during the symposium on the work of St.Pius X, held in Paris on 30th March 2003

Fr. Lorans: Two years ago, Monseigneur, you asked Rome for this right to the Mass. Is it therefore in this perspective that you consider the Mass, as not the patrimony of the Society, not our private hunting ground, is it, then, in this spirit that you ask, indeed implore, that every priest be granted the power to celebrate the Mass?

Bishop Fellay: Quite. It is impressive to see how many priests, and also lay people are grateful to us for our request. In the entire Church there is a thirst for tradition; it is not always well expressed, but it is real. We come across it everywhere and sometimes in surprising places. A missionary in Amazony told me this: he had been saying the New Mass up until then and one day the elders said to him: “don’t say this Mass, say the other one, because that’s where the mystery is.” That says everything. Or the lady in Singapore, whom Bishop Manat asked: “But what is the difference between the two Masses?” and after a few moments reflection, the young lady replied in one word: holiness. Or the priest in Kenya who had never seen the Mass of all time, who came to me and said: “I am the curate at the cathedral, and people say to me:
- Why do you no longer say the Mass like before? Please say it for us.
- I would be very happy to, but I don’t know it.
If you open a chapel here, you will empty the cathedral.”
At present there are two young priests, one of whom has never seen the true Mass, the other has seen me celebrate it once. These two priests have become apostles of the true Mass, which has caused quite a stir in the diocese.

These are no more than a few examples, but I could go on and tell you what is happening in the world, show you how much suffering and expectation there is in christendom, among the faithful as well as priests. Certainly the Mass is not everything, but it is capable of gathering everything else around itself. What we are seeking, in asking for the right of every priest to the Mass of all time, is this: that the Church have pity on herself, that she tear off this straitjacket that she allowed to be imposed on her at the time of the Council, which has caused her terrible suffering. We are convinced that this liberty of the Mass – a legal act to set down, in order to show that a right has been infringed upon, that the interdiction of this Mass is a grave injustice – this freedom of the Mass would open the floodgates of grace. That is the fundamental reason for our request.

[Land of the Irish]

"Does one of those camps house the sedevacanists?"

The SSPX does not knowingly minister to or support sedevacanists.

POPE JOHN PAUL II

The Society of Saint Pius X professes filial devotion and loyalty to Pope John Paul II, the Successor of Saint Peter and the Vicar of Christ.  The priests of the Society pray for His Holiness and the local Ordinary at every Mass they celebrate.
 

Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Joanne Paulo. Dominus conservet eum, et vivificet eum, et beatum faciat eum in terra, et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum ejus.

[NYer]

Those who attend the SSPX have a different awareness and thus would be culpable if they attended a Novus Ordo knowing what they know. However, exceptions to this are, in fact, made and are officially approved.

How arrogant! With all of your "awareness", you seem to have forgotten this.

Traditionalism: True and False

---

To be a Catholic is to accept Tradition, both Divine and ecclesiastical. Divine or Sacred Tradition comes to us from the apostles and is built up, by way of dogmatic development, by the Magisterium (teaching office) of the Church, exercised by the Apostolic College (the bishops in union with the Pope) or the Pope personally. Sacred Tradition requires the adherence of divine and Catholic faith and only the Magisterium has the supernatural charism to authentically interpret its content.

Ecclesiastical traditions, on the other hand, are not part of the Catholic faith but of the way of life of the Church, as determined by legitimate authority, in various ages and places. There is an ecclesiastical tradition for each of the over 20 Rites and Churches which make up the communion of the Catholic Church (Roman, Byzantine, Maronite, Ruthenian etc.). The ecclesiastical tradition of the Roman Church (the Latin Rite) encompasses such matters as the ceremonies and prayers of the Mass and sacraments (in those things not determined by Sacred Tradition), the Liturgy of the Hours, penitential discipline (laws of fast and abstinence), forms of sacred art and sacred music, clerical discipline (such as celibacy) and many other matters and practices that are mutable and which can thus be changed by the supreme ecclesiastical authority.

We can also speak of pious traditions which arise from the popular piety of the People of God. They often have some foundation in Sacred Tradition or ecclesiastical tradition, without having the authority of the Church behind them. An example might be the practice of sprinkling some holy water when taking it from a font as an act of suffrage for the Poor Souls. As expressions of the personal faith of the believer they have great value.

So being traditional in any of these senses is good not bad, as long as our practices are rightly ordered. Pious traditions must be subject to ecclesiastical tradition, which in turn must be subject to Sacred Tradition. It all cases it is the Magisterium of the Church which decides what kind of tradition it is and what the implications for Catholic faith and practice are. Today there are many who describe themselves as traditional Catholics in that they adhere to the Magisterium, as well as to ecclesiastical and pious traditions which many others seem to be abandoning. Such piety is the piety of the saints and doctors of the Church.

False or exaggerated traditionalism. Unfortunately, some today arrogate judgement in these matters to themselves. This can be out of ignorance, certainly. Taught a certain way as a child it seems to such persons that ALL the practices of the faith are of equal gravity. No distinction is made between teachings and practices based in Sacred Tradition and those of ecclesiastical origin or from popular piety. Any change, no matter how minor, in the familiar practices from before Vatican II is seen as a mortal wound in the fabric of Catholicism. Generally all that is required is education in the true theological and historical facts of the case.

A spiritually more dangerous variety is the intellectualized traditionalism of those who have rejected Vatican II, or some portion of it (such as liturgical renewal or ecumenism). This rejection is rationalized as obedience to "Tradition" as they understand it. The bishops and even the Pope are seen as being unfaithful to the deposit of the faith (at least in practical matters), with only the traditionalist remnant upholding to true Catholicism. Pope John Paul II has referred to this error as Integralism. This name was first used earlier in the century by the popes to describe  certain super-orthodox persons who rejected any accommodation with intellectual movements outside the Church and who took it upon themselves to ferret out heresy and  heretics within it. Such traditionalism, however, is really a distrust of the Magisterium and its ability to authentically deal with, and occasionally incorporate, new intellectual currents and movements  into the Church's life. Only by guarding and holding fast to the Integral Faith is one safe, rather than by holding fast to the living Magisterium. Had this been the attitude of the Church through the centuries we would not have the neo-Platonism of Church Fathers such as St. Augustine or the Aristotelian approach of Doctors such as St. Thomas Aquinas, among others. Both these "views" belonged "to the world" before they belonged to the Church. But under the guidance of the Magisterium they were "baptized" and have been of great value to the Church.

It should be noted that in the area of liturgy the Holy See has recognized the legitimate aspirations of those who love the Rites of the Roman Church as they existed before the Second Vatican Council. This was manifested by the apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei granting the privilege of using the Missal of 1962 to those who desired it and who accepted the Vatican Council and the authority of the Holy See over the Liturgy. The Pontiff encouraged the bishops of the world to be generous in granting this privilege in their dioceses to those who wish it.

There is, however, a false traditionalism which does not remain in communion with the Magisterium. Divine Revelation and the documents of the Church make it clear that only the Magisterium can ultimately judge these matters and that the salvation of the faithful does not depend on having to privately interpret the Sacred Tradition or govern oneself in ecclesiastical affairs.

Mt. 16:18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

Lk. 10:16
Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

First Vatican Council on Papal Primacy
We renew the definition of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, by which all the faithful of Christ must believe "that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and that the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church and faith, and teacher of all Christians; and that to him was handed down in blessed Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church, just as is also contained in the records of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons.

... the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by a duty of hierarchical submission and true obedience, not only in things pertaining to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as of the profession of the same faith is one flock under the one highest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation." [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Vatican Council I, DB1826-1827/DS3059-3060]

First Vatican Council on Papal Magisterium
To satisfy this pastoral duty [primacy], our predecessors always gave tireless attention that the saving doctrine of Christ be spread among all the peoples of the earth, and with equal care they watched that, wherever it was received, it was preserved sound and pure. Therefore, the bishops of the whole world, now individually, now gathered in Synods, following a long custom of the churches and the formula of the ancient rule, referred to this Holy See those dangers particularly which emerged in the affairs of faith, that there especially the damages to faith might be repaired where faith cannot experience a failure. The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according as the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecumenical Councils or by examining the opinion of the Church spread throughout the world; sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine Providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God's help they have recognized as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth. Indeed, all the venerable fathers have embraced their apostolic doctrine, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed it, knowing full well that the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren" [Luke 22:32]. [my emphasis]
So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell. [my emphasis, DB1836-1837/DS3069-3070]

1983 Code of Canon Law
Can. 331 The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he can always freely exercise. [canon 218 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law]

Can. 333
1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office, not only has power in the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groupings of churches by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.
2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.
3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff. [canons 218, 228 of the 1917 Code]

Whatever good, therefore, false traditionalism might seem to do in preserving the faith is undone by the attitude toward papal authority that it engenders by its overt and sometimes bitter criticism. This "fidelity" then becomes a "trap," one which seems to offer security but instead offers only the security of one's own judgment and one's own will. Instead Catholics are willed by Christ the security of a living connection with Him through His Vicar. The texts of Vatican I cited above show that the purpose of the Petrine office is precisely to maintain a unity of faith, discipline and hierarchical communion that reflects in the world the unity of the Kingdom founded by Christ. Those who misinterpret the faith as presented by the Second Vatican Council and the recent Popes, or who through a spirit of disobedience violate the liturgical or others norms of the Holy See, distance themselves from Peter (in some degree). This is true for those who "hold the faith" in their own way on the right, as well as for those who "progress" in their own way on the left.

On the other hand, as St. Thomas teaches concerning scandal, those who adhere to the good do not falter, nor are they scandalized into rebellion themselves by those who do stumble [ST q43, a5]. This good of the unity of faith, of the discipline of the sacraments and of hierarchical communion, is obtained by adhering steadfastly to the Pope and thus to remain "one flock under one highest shepherd" (Vatican I).

Unfortunately, we see that while in Christ's time Jesus Himself was the skandalon or stumbling stone upon which Israel was broken, today in the New Israel of the Church that "scandal" is given by Peter. We must therefore ask ourselves which character in the drama of the Passion are we: Judas (who betrayed our Lord), Peter (who relied on his own strength), John (who remained close out of love), Thomas (whose faith was shaken by doubts), Mary (whose total faithfulness and love merited her the highest participation in the mission of Her Son), the women (who sought to comfort the Shepherd), the priests and lawyers-theologians (who thought only of their own prerogatives), the soldiers (who were "only following orders"), or Pilate (whose human respect exceeded his respect for the truth). Something can be learned from all of them, but the principal lesson, I believe, is to have more loving adherence (piety),  rather than less (impiety), to the teaching, sanctifying and governing decisions of Christ's Vicar.

Finally, recalling the dream of St. John Bosco who foresaw our times, we know that those who remain in the barque of Peter with the Eucharistic and Marian Pope will be secure, whereas as those who act independently, even if on the winning side, risk being swamped. This may apply to men of good will in other religions, but it probably also applies to those in the Church who do not fully embrace the teaching and discipline of the Roman Pontiff, but want instead to decide for themselves the direction of the Church (i.e. be their own pilot). They do so at their own risk.

---

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

[ultima ratio]

One thing you should be aware of: the Magisterium has no binding authority if it departs from Tradition itself. There is only one true traditionalism: the faith which has been handed-down, not the one invented, not a liturgy made up yesterday by some modernist committee that decides it will have a revolution and ignores Trent.

You seem to think because you get goose bumps a Mass is therefore less offensive. But whether or not you get goose bumps, whether the priest is handsome or not, whether or not the choir sings well, whether or not the Mass is in Latin or the vernacular, are irrelevant if the text and rubrics reflect a Protestant, rather than a Catholic, theology in opposition to Trent. This is because the Novus Ordo is a communal meal liturgy closely modeled after the Lutheran and Methodist Lord's Supper worship service, not an unbloody sacrifice in expiation for our sins that has evolved over the centuries under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

So your problem is not with me, it's with the facts. Either the Novus Ordo is in line with Catholic tradition or it is not. It clearly is not. It is a radical break with tradition--as the most esteemed of our liturgists has admitted and which has been affirmed by Cardinal Ratzinger himself. This is at the root at the contemporary crisis in the Church--a failure of faith and identity on a huge scale. The Novus Ordo is the essence of modernism.

[tiki]

It seems that many choose what they believe from one source AND from how they interpret that source. Faith in God comes directly through God's Grace. God doesn't need a Magisterium, Bible or even a church to give us Grace. He gave us a Church, with a Magisterium, Tradition, a Bible to help us, a visible gift to guide us and teach us and we often use it to hinder ourselves and others.

Legalism, was and is just a red herring to accuse others of being less pious than oneself and in the case of this site, to let others know how ignorant they are. The Pharisees and the Saducees used legalisms to justify Christ's crucifixion. When Christ gives us the "greatest commandment" to love God fully and to love your neighbor as yourself, it is directly after dealing with legalisms.

He will not abandon the Church and even though there are some abuses, He will safeguard His Church. I trust in Jesus. I Trust the Father who sent His only Son to die for my sins and I trust the Holy Spirit He sent to guide us. His Mercy is unfathomable and His power is infinite.

I have been called to Christ's Church by the Holy Spirit. It wasn't an easy or uninformed decision but the Church didn't give me that Grace, God did. And yes, I will stick to the Catholic faith, I will cringe when there is an abuse, I'll raise my voice when I think it will make a difference and I'll try to live my life according to God's Word. But I will never leave the Church (and I consider attending a schismatic church, leaving) unless I receive a miraculous sign from God because the miracles leading up to my becoming a Catholic have been pretty overwhelming.

[NYer]

I'll raise my voice when I think it will make a difference and I'll try to live my life according to God's Word. But I will never leave the Church (and I consider attending a schismatic church, leaving) unless I receive a miraculous sign from God because the miracles leading up to my becoming a Catholic have been pretty overwhelming.

May our Lord continue to bless you, and the Holy Spirit guide you along this journey. You rightfully point out the arrogance and self-justification often found with zealots, who can't see the "big picture". God is merciful!

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

[narses]

Nowhere in this pronouncement by the schismatics is there a word of recognition of the goodness of the normative Mass of the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, the lack of goodwill from the former Catholics in no way exposes any lack of charity on the part of those who expose these people for their evil actions against the Bride of Christ.

Try this then:

Il Giornale, 25 April, 2003
Lefebvrist Bishop tells the Pope: "Thank you for the latest encyclical"

Interview with Mgr. Bernard Fellay: "Our negotiations with the Vatican continue. We are showing openness on our part."

Signs of dialog between the traditionalists and the Holy See. On 24th of May Cardinal Castrillon will celebrate in Rome a mass in accordance with the old rite.

Andrea Tornielli

Bernard Fellay is an affable and distinguished prelate, who resides in Menzingen, Switzerland, and often travels around the world visiting the various traditionalist communities.

Consecrated bishop at the same time as three other priests without the authorization of the Vatican, by Mgr. Lefebvre in 1988, he was excommunicated in July of that year. He is at the top of the St. Pius X Fraternity, present in various countries of the world, and which gathers the disciples of this traditionalist bishop who did not want to accept the post-conciliar reforms.

In this interview Mgr. Fellay sums up the situation of the negotiations of the Lefebvrists with the Vatican. And he expresses positive judgment on the latest encyclical of John Paul II devoted to the Eucharist.

A newspaper wrote in the last days that on the 24th of May next your reconciliation with the Holy See would be announced. Is this true?

"The news is devoid of any basis. Or rather: I am not informed of it. And as I am the superior of Fraternity, I have to conclude it is false..." Is there any prospect for an agreement?

"The negotiations continue; they are not dead. They advance with prudence on both sides. I do not envisage, for the moment, the possibility of an immediate agreement. We need a slow process. But we have confidence in God, Who can change the plans of men. We believe in the Church; we believe in the Holy Ghost, Who can make what is not foreseeable today happen."

Did you see the encyclical of John Paul II on the Eucharist?

"Yes."

What is your judgment?

"I am much delighted by the fact that in this document essential truths on the Eucharist are confirmed, which are often put into question today.

My judgment is very positive; it was a necessary encyclical. It reaffirmed the sacrificial value of the mass, even if I note it lacks some clarification that would have been definitive, like for example specifying that the sacrifice of the mass is offered in reparation of our sins. In any event, I repeat, my judgment is positive: let us hope that it will be followed in an efficacious and full manner."

On the 24th of May Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos will celebrate a mass in the Roman basilica of Saint Mary Major according to the old rite.

How did you receive the news?

"It is also a positive signal: the Holy See shows goodwill toward us.

This celebration should signify that saying the mass according to the Tridentine rite does not constitute a problem. They are encouraging signs, and they are necessary for diminishing the oppositions of the progressives against the Mass of Saint Pius V."

You have continued to follow the preconciliar rite. Do you consider that the new mass would be invalid?

"No. We always said that the Mass of Paul VI is valid if the rules envisaged in the missal are respected. We must unfortunately say that on many occasions these rules are not respected, and in such case it may reach to a point of invalidity. I will give you an example:

If, for the consecration, a priest uses, instead of the wheaten host, a host made of rice or a biscuit, it makes the mass invalid. There are many abuses all over the world. In any event we never said that the mass of Paul VI was invalid and even less defined it as 'heretical.' However, we consider it harmful and dangerous for the faith, because it does not express clearly all that should be said in the mass."

[ninenot]

The extra ingredients--are we talking invalid or illicit?

[St.Chuck]

You make some excellent points. Your comparisions of some to Pharisees are appropriate. Canon law, papal encyclicals, even theological treatises are cited ad nauseum, but rare is the reference to not only the words of the Lord, but to the spirit of the law He, Himself speaks of.

[tiki]

In that same chapter, Jesus says to the Sadducees, "Do ye not there fore err, because you know not the scriptures nor the power of God?

I think they limit God in His power to heal His Church. God can find good people to work from within because only He can make them good. We can only try to discern what comes from God and act on it and pray that we don't mistake our own personalities and wants or needs with His will.