Criticizing Pope John Paul II

The Wanderer Press ^ | May 10, 2003 | JOHN YOUNG

[Theosis]

Oh puleeeze ultima... do you think I just fell off the SSPX wagon yesterday? Most of these were refuted long ago, (including by Fr. Gerald Murray personally in the Latin Mass Magazine). However, rather than reinvent the wheel, Shawn McElhinney, another former SSPX adherent for over ten years, did a good job gathering and providing the context.

[pascendi]

"Yawn!"

Argument by exhaustion? lol. Only slightly less effective than argument by authority.

"As for myself personally, I'm too busy frequenting our local indult, sending my tithes etc. etc. etc. ...to give your question much thought."

Well gee whiz, I'm not sspx either; I go to the local indult, even though an indult isn't needed. Are... you assuming something?

Please, answer my question? Thanks in advance.

[Theosis]

I go to the local indult, even though an indult isn't needed. Are... you assuming something?

Yes. It obviously is not our indult chapel since our elderly French priest would have sent you for remedial catechesis by now.

[ultima ratio]

* ("The state of necessity, as it is explained by jurists, is a state in which the necessary goods for natural or supernatural life are so threatened that one is morally compelled to break the law in order to save them." Is Tradition Excommunicated? p. 26 [APPENDIX II]

Sounds to me like precisely the situation faced by the Archbishop. Can you say with a straight face the "goods for natural or supernatural life" are not threatened by today's Church? Come on, even Vere in the Wanderer admits as much almost every time he lifts his pen.

[Theosis]

* ("The state of necessity, as it is explained by jurists, is a state in which the necessary goods for natural or supernatural life are so threatened that one is morally compelled to break the law in order to save them." Is Tradition Excommunicated? p. 26 [APPENDIX II]

You want me to accept the definition of the SSPX who are obviously biased in this case and who to my knowledge have no licensed canonists among their ranks? LOL! Get real; either tell me what document the SSPX are quoting or cough up a quote from a real Church document.

[ultima ratio]

Neither was I born yesterday--who, precisely, did a backflip besides Lara--(and why wouldn't they, once the Vatican knives were out)? Do you think the SSPX has many friends in the New Church who are ready to stand up to the Pope once he determines they must side with him? --I don't think so. It's a pretty one-sided fight--though the truth is powerful as well--and it's all on the side of the Society. Read the canons. They are operative only if a subject acts out of culpability or malice. The bottom line is that the Archbishop acted to defend the traditional faith. He deserves canonization, not opprobrium.

[pascendi]

"Yes. It obviously is not our indult chapel since our elderly French priest would have sent you for remedial catechesis by now."

Alright, let's run with that one then. Please answer:

1. What is it about anything I said is in error and
2. What is the correct and remedial position to take?

If you yawn, I'll just assume you can't answer... because see, now you are lapsing into the only traditionalism known to post-conciliars, which is traditional false accusation and ad hominen nonsense.

You are accusing me of having a position against the Church? Lay it out for me then; I'll hold you to it.

[ultima ratio]

You are making much of very little. Here is the law--pretty clearly written, I would say.
____________________________________________________________
"Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:

1° has not completed the sixteenth year of age;

2° was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance

3° acted under physical force, or under the impetus of a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or if foreseen could not avoid;

4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;
____________________________________________________________

Here is an even more relevant precept:
____________________________________________________________
Can. 1321 §1 No one can be punished for the commission of an external violation of a law or precept unless it is gravely imputable by reason of malice or of culpability.



____________________________________________________________

[NYer]

How do you reconcile Vere's opinion with the fact that Rome has said the faithful can attend the SSPX Masses to fullfil their Sunday obligation?

Thus, before a Catholic may legally approach a non-Catholic minister within a Western Church in which the sacraments are valid, he must meet the further requirements of certain circumstances defined in nn. 130 and 131 of the Eceumenical Directory.  These circumstances are danger of death or permission of the local ordinary in accordance with local or regional legislation (n. 130), and/or the person be unable to have recourse for the sacrament desired to a minister of his or the Catholic Church (n. 131).  Because the norm specifies Church in the universal sense, and not Church *sui iuris* (i.e., Latin Catholic Church, Ukrainian Catholic Church, Melkite Catholic Church) this norm cannot be interpreted in the sense that the Catholic is unable to approach a Catholic priest of his own liturgical rite.

With regards to the SSPX, this prohibition has been confirmed first by the Pontifical Commission ECCLESIA DEI in protocol N. 117/95 as follows:

2. The Masses [the SSPX] celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2).   The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called "Tridentine" Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.

Hence, we see that the Ecclesia Dei Commission, to whom has been delegated the power of authentic interpretation of Can. 844 §2 in this instance, does not consider the lack of opportunity to assist at a Tridentine Mass sufficient cause to receive the sacraments from a Lefebvrite cleric.  Thus in light of Canons. 16-17, as well as the Norms 130-132 of the Eceumenical Directory, one cannot invoke Can. 844 §2 in order to receive the sacraments from a Lefebvrite priest simply because a Tridentine Mass is lacking.

Furthermore, as the SSPX claim no jurisdiction, the Catholic Church is not certain at the present whether the SSPX constistutes a Church like the Eastern Orthodox or the Polish National Catholic Church, or whether the SSPX is simply a loose federation of acephalous (independent) priests and episcopal vagantes (wandering bishops) like the Old Catholic Movement in North America.  Thus where to classify the SSPX schism at the moment represents an internal dilemna for the Church, as noted by the Pontifical Commission for the Propagation of Christian Unity in Protocol Number 2336/94 as follows:

[Theosis]

The bottom line is that the Archbishop acted to defend the traditional faith.

That's funny, my traditional Gasparri catechism tells me that to be a Catholic one must submit to the Roman Pontiff.

He deserves canonization, not opprobrium

No, Bishop Rangel deserves canonization; Lefebvre deserves whatever his just reward is. For the sake of his immortal soul, I pray that he recanted of his schism in his dying breath.

[pascendi]

"...unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing"

Hey, that sounds like me. In a city of two million, I believe I have found perhaps three priests who seem to be in good standing, from what I can tell.

[Theosis]

You are making much of very little. Here is the law--pretty clearly written, I would say.Yes, when canons 16 and 17 are taken into account, namely, laws are interpreted according to the mind of legislator. Pope John Paul II's mind is pretty clear. Lefebvre should have known it since the Holy Father forewarned. It doesn't surprise me, however, that you would attempt to proof-text canon 1323. That's what Protestants do. Additionally, why don't you quote the actual canon?

[Theosis]

Furthermore, as the SSPX claim no jurisdiction...[snip]"

Unfortunately, here is where I must disagree with Vere. In my opinion, he was likely still operating under his SSPX bias when he wrote this. While the SSPX deny their bishops claim jurisdiction, I don't think anyone we can deny that defacto Williamson exercises jurisdiction in North America and Fellay, with election to Superior General, exercises it over the entire SSPX. As an aside, it was the latter that caused me to bail. Additionally, they consecrated Rangel a bishop to exercise jurisdiction over Campos. (Of course, Bishop Rangel, God bless his soul, died licitly exercising this jurisdiction.)

I've tried arguing this with Vere, but he sides with PCILT over the PCED when it comes to this issue. While I normally would agree with him that PCILT is the higher authority, I think in this case the PCED opinion should prevail because they are dicastery to whom the Holy Father has entrusted this particular issue.

[ultima ratio]

Laws may be interpreted according to the legislator--but they never were officially that I know of. The Pope made an announcement in passing in a letter granting an indult, that was all. Moreover, not even the pope may rescind the canon in question, based on divine law, proscribing punishing the innocent who act without culpability or malice. Such a recision would be overtly tyrannical and would transcend the limits of papal power and would be invalid.

But all this is splitting hairs. If the Pope would act to destroy Catholic tradition in this way, then he should be disobeyed. That is clear as a bell to anyone with an ounce of common sense. The Pope is not the Church, he is not the faith--he is the steward, one who is keeper of the keys of the kingdom, not the king nor the kingdom itself. He may not build his own church, inventing a new faith as he goes along. So you go along with Assisi I and II and the youth rallies and the fake canonizations and the elevations of apostates and the new Paschal theologies and the new protestantized Mass. I'll take my chances with Lefebvre who stuck to the old faith according to the lights of all the pontiffs and councils that went before the modernist revolution.

[Aloysius]

The Masses [the SSPX] celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2). The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called "Tridentine" Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.

...and Monsignor Perl of the same Pontifical Commission ECCLESIA DEI, in January 2003 stated with respect to attending SSPX Masses that "If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."

Do you have anything more recent than January of this year from Pontifical Commission ECCLESIA DEI which contradicts this?

If not, I must rely on the most recent communication from the Commission.

[ultima ratio]

"Additionally, why don't you quote the actual canon?"

I did. It is the actual canon.

[Theosis]

I did. It is the actual canon.

That's odd. I have my copy of the authoritative text as promulgated by the Roman Pontiff, and that is not what the canon says.

[Theosis]

Oh alright ultima, I will give you another clue since you obviously are having a hard time figuring out why what you quoted is not the authoritative text of the canon. Basically, Pope John Paul II didn't promulgate the code in English translation.

[ultima ratio]

I took what I cited from the online text. The entire '83 text is there.

[NYer]

The English translation of the Novus Ordo was produced by the liberal ICEL. Its justification for translating pro multis as "for all men" derives from the curious researches of a LIBERAL Scripture "scholar" whose name is Joachim Jeremias of the University of Gottingen [Germany].

Translation
Question from Paul Myers on 01-02-2003:

I understand changing some of the words to eliminate archaic english. But some changes in translation don't make sense. In the old missals the words at the Chalice Consecration ended with "For you and for many". In the new missals it reads "For you and for all men". Which translation is correct? I don't know enough about latin to know but it does seem to mean two different things.

Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 02-06-2003:

This issue was raised in 1970 with the Holy See, which responded:

Question: In certain vernacular versions of the text for consecrating the wine, the words "pro multis" are translated thus: English, "for all"; Spanish, "por todos"; Italian, "per tutti."

a. Is there a sufficient reason for introducing in this variant and if so, what is it?

b. Is the pertinent traditional teaching in the "Catechism of the Council of Trent" to be considered superseded?

c. Are all other versions of the biblical passage in question to be regarded as less accurate?

d. Did something inaccurate and needing correction or emendation in fact slip in when the approval was given for such a version?

Reply: The variant involved is fully justified:

a. According to exegetes the Aramaic word translated in Latin by "pro multis" has as its meaning "for all": the many for whom Christ died is without limit; it is equivalent to saying "Christ has died for all." The words of St. Augustine are apposite: "See what he gave and you will discover what he bought. The price is Christ's blood. What is it worth but the whole world? What, but all peoples? Those who say either that the price is so small that it has purchased only Africans are ungrateful for the price they cost; those who say that they are so important that it has been given for them alone are proud" ("Enarr." in Ps. 95, 5).

b. The teaching of the "Catechism" is in no way superseded: the distinction that Christ's death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid.

c.d. In the approval of this vernacular variant in the liturgical text nothing inaccurate has slipped in that requires correction or emendation. [Notitiae 6 (1970) 39-40, no. 28]