Posted on 11/06/2006 12:47:09 PM PST by Teófilo
Folks, Shawn Tribe from the The New Liturgical Movement shares a translation of Cardinal Ricard's address to the concerns of the bishops of France, regarding the much-rumored Motu Propio authorizing a liberalization of the Tridentine Mass. This paragraph caught my eye:
This project is not part of a desire to criticize the Missal known as of “Paul VI” nor to proceed to a reform of the liturgical reform. The liturgical books written and promulgated following the Council are the form ordinary and thus usual to the Roman rite. This project's origin is rather in the desire of Benedict XVI to do all that is in his capacity to put an end to the Lefevbrist schism. He knows that the more the years pass, the more the relations distend [?] and the positions harden. In the face of the history of the great schisms, one can always wonder whether there were occasions for bringing back together. The Pope wishes to make his possible so that a hand is held out and that a reception is expressed, at least with those which are of goodwill and who express a deep desire of communion. For this reason it is necessary to include/understand this project of Motu Proprio.The Motu Propio is going to be selective, targeted, and limited to Tridentine Mass Catholics, fully in accordance with Second Vatican Council liturgical directives regarding full participation. The Pope is not going to turn back the clock on the Novus Ordo. This is not going to be a half-baked project that will further divide the Church instead of uniting it. Nor is the Pope going to leave the bishops with no say in the matter. It is high time to be realistic here.
On my own, I will say that I am brushing up on my Latin, in the case that I am called by my bishop, directly or through a pastor, to support any pastoral effort aimed at Tridentine Mass Catholics.
When and if it comes to fruition, the Motu Proprio will be a blessing for many. I hope that they receive it gratefully as such.
PING!
BTTT!
Contrary to the intentions that some attribute to him, Pope Benedict XVI does not intend to reconsider the course that the Second Vatican Council gave to the Church. He is solemnly committed in this regard. As of his election, he affirmed: “Rightly, the Pope John-Paul II indicated the Second Vatican Council is a “compass” according to which we can be directed in the vast ocean of the third Millenium (Apostolic cf Letter Novo Millennio ineunte, 57-58). And it also noted in his spiritual will: “I am convinced that a long time still it will be given to rising generation to draw from the richnesses that this Council of the 20th century lavished on us” (March 17, 2000). Consequently, for me also, while I prepare to achieve the service which is that of the Successor of Peter, I want to affirm with force my very firm will to continue the task of the implementation of the Second Vatican Council, in the steps of my predecessors and in a faithful continuity with the bi-millenial Tradition of the Church” (First message of His Holiness Benedict XVI at the end of the Mass to the Sistine Chapel, April 20, 2005). In his speech to the Roman Curia where he criticizes a false “spirit of the Council”, the Pope Benedict XVI declares: “Forty years after the Council, we can stress that the positive one [?] is larger and more alive than than it appeared in the agitation of the years following 1968. We see today that the good seed, while developing slowly, grows however, and thus grows also our deep gratitude for the work achieved by the Council” (Short speech of the Pope Benedict XVI
*Well, so much for the unCatholic idea Holy Mother Church will just ignore or repudiate an Ecumenical Council or abandon a recently approved Liturgy
So, what about the premature triumphalism of the schim and its supporters?
In the dead of winter which is the schism, false hope springs eternal. C'est la vie
...the Second Vatican Council, in the steps of my predecessors and in a faithful continuity with the bi-millenial Tradition of the Church”
*My, my...fellay will not be amused. But, don't expect him to change course. He has too much invested, he has staked too much, he has promised too much, he has publicly taken too many doctrinal stands to just quit those positions. Only a legitimate miracle can get him to change. And if he doesn't change he will continue to lead many to perdition.
Maybe someone in the schism will have the audacious and radical idea to pray to Johannes Paulus Magnus that Fellay will have a change of heart. Fellay needs the intercession of such a great Saint. That Johannes Paulus Magnus is the antithesis of a Saint the schism considers acceptable, all the more Grace will redound to them when, in their humility, they seek intercession from the very Pope they hate. Such humility will not go unrewarded.
Is there anyone in the schism with such radical spiritual quality?
Doing a little tinkering here and there with the 1984 Indult will not bring Fellay & Co. back into the fold. The Lefebvrists will settle for nothing less than having the Holy See reject a valid Ecumenical Council, which, of course, makes no sense.
You and bornacatholic have repeatedly shown over and over again that you have no idea whatsoever about what your are speaking.
Cardinal Ricard can wish lots of things. The Pope is resolved. The Pope does not like "lobbying" and isn't influenced by media accounts depending upon which side of the fence they are coming from.
The shift we are about to see will be dramatic. The Pope has already shown with the FSSP, the ICR and the Institute of Good Shepherd that Vatican II is not the course from which we guide our ships. It is Vatican II "in light of Tradition." The true meaning of this has not been defined.
I have read lots of the more recent writings from Bishop Fellay, and nowhere do I see him denying that Vatican II is a legitimate Council. What he does deny is that it was dogmatic. He also denies that the documents themselves are clearly in line with tradition. I said "clearly."
The Holy Ghost protected the Church from promulgating de fide documents that contained heresy. That is the protection of the Holy Ghost.
The Institute of Good Shepherd has been assigned by the Holy See that task of doing theology on Vatican II "in light of Tradition."
Let's talk about the other 20 Councils, shall we? What do any of you know about them?
Good post. I have been very discouraged to see that Cdl Ricard's statements - which were essentially nothing but a preliminary warning of his opposition to the Pope's wishes - have been taken as an acknowledgement that it's all over and nothing will change.
He and the French bishops represent the Church about as much as the USCCB represents the Church, which is to say not at all; they are playing to their local audience, because they secretly wish to have "national churches" that have only the loosest affiliation with Rome. This despite the fact that under these same French bishops, the churches in France have emptied out as fast as people could run for the door; and in the US, church after church is closing for lack of priests and lack of people. Like any of us should really care what the French bishops say.
Good point. We don't get anywhere when insulting other people's intelligence.
*I always know what I am typing. You have yet to identify a single error in any of my posts. Please take the occasion of your generalised insult to show specifically where I have posted something factually incorrect. As for my predictions vis a vis the schism, I have yet to be proved wrong.
The shift we are about to see will be dramatic. The Pope has already shown with the FSSP, the ICR and the Institute of Good Shepherd that Vatican II is not the course from which we guide our ships. It is Vatican II "in light of Tradition." The true meaning of this has not been defined.
*So, the Pope lied?
I have read lots of the more recent writings from Bishop Fellay, and nowhere do I see him denying that Vatican II is a legitimate Council. What he does deny is that it was dogmatic. He also denies that the documents themselves are clearly in line with tradition. I said "clearly."
* I already pinged you with the relevant info re Fellay's rejection of Vat Two. I will post it again. PLease copy and paste this into a file so I won't have to keep repeating it. A writer for the Wanderer ought be better informed as to the actual ideology of the schism he succors.
In January, Cardinal Castrillon had incorrectly written that with some conditions I would accept Vatican II. Since I wanted him to know exactly what I think about the Council, I handed him Catholicism and Modernity, a booklet in French by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau in which he studies the Council and shows how the spirit of the Council is radically opposed to Catholicism. It is, we may say, a total demolition of the Council.
The Holy Ghost protected the Church from promulgating de fide documents that contained heresy. That is the protection of the Holy Ghost.
*Tautology. Every Ecumenical Council, by its nature, is infallible
The Institute of Good Shepherd has been assigned by the Holy See that task of doing theology on Vatican II "in light of Tradition."
Let's talk about the other 20 Councils, shall we? What do any of you know about them?
*Moi? Really, I don't know very much. I certainly do not know as much as the soi disant traditionalists or the schismatics.
Like real Christian Catholic Traditionalists, I was Blessed with a healthy mistrust of my own competence. I was Blessed with a robust idea of obedience and loyalty to such things as the Pope, the Council, and the Mass. Like real Traditionalists, I defer to those who have actual training and experience in Theology and who hold positions of Teaching Authority in the Living Magisterium. IOW, Michael Davies aint my Pope. Jesus made Peter the head of the Church. Not davies, not lefevbrfe, not you. And an excomunicated bishop has NO authority and real Traditionalists do NOT folow excomunicated Bishops or make excuses for them.
The authentic Tradition I am aware of is rarely seen in Free Republic. What exists as "Tradition" in here is simply the protestant private judgement of the Neo-Pharisee.
Borna said: IOW, Michael Davies aint my Pope.
BCM said: No one ever claimed him to be. That is called a "straw man argument" Mr. tautology. By the way, the definition I gave regarding any ecumenical Council is completely and accurately theologically accurate, your obfuscation aside, Mr. Logic.
Let's see what our current Pope and others did have to say about Mr. Michael Davies, whose name you ridicule repeatedly, along with "Venerable" as our current Pope recently called him, Archbishop Lefebvre:
I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him as a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications especially about the Sacred Liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of St Peter and that the Faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St Peter. Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord’s mercy.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
(Translated from the original German)
9 November 2004
Dear Mr Chadwick,
I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 29 October 2004 informing me of the Solemn Requiem for the repose of the soul of Mr Michael Davies to be celebrated according to the typical edition of the Roman Missal of 1962 at Saint James’ Church ,Spanish Place, London on Saturday 20 November. I regret that my duties here in Rome prevent my attendance at that Mass. Nor is it possible for me at this time to send a representative.
Nonetheless I am pleased to associate myself and the officials of the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’ with the members of the Latin Mass Society, Una Voce International and all of those present for this solemn liturgical celebration in suffrage for the soul of His servant Michael whose attachment to the classical Roman liturgy is well known. May he know the reward of his labours. May Our Merciful Lord grant him eternal rest and consolation to his family and all those who mourn his passing. Lux aeterna luceat ei, Domine, cum sanctis tuis in aeternum quia pius es. Requiescat in pace!
With my blessing I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Dario Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos
17 November 2004
Dear Mr Chadwick,
I thank you for your letter of 29 October and wish to offer my condolences to you and to all members of the Latin Mass Society on the death of Mr Michael Davis. He visited me two years ago and I appreciated very much his commitment to our Catholic faith.
In spiritual union with you and others who will be at the Solemn Requiem for him on 20 November, I pray that the Lord Jesus to whom Michael was so sincerely devoted may give him eternal rest.
Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Francis Cardinal Arinze
13 November 2004
(Sigh) So, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, weren't.
If Bp. Fellay were operating within the bounds of dogma and Tradition, he would be inside the Church, not outside, setting conditions and making demands to get back in, or else.
-Theo
Go back to discussing the issues and quit making it personal - or both of you quit talking to or about each other personally altogether.
Which specific dogmas did they define?
Lumen Gentium No. 25 is a reiteration of Vatican I on the authority of the Pope.
Just because something is called a "dogmatic constitution," does not make the entirety of its contents dogmatic.
Where are the dogmas? Please point them out for me.
"If Bp. Fellay were operating within the bounds of dogma and Tradition, he would be inside the Church, not outside, setting conditions and making demands to get back in, or else."
http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360
Monsignor Lefebvre did not back off…
CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism.
In at least two other interviews after this one, Cardinal Hoyos reiterated that the SSPX is in the body of the Church, even if not in "perfect" communion canonically. This would NOT make them outside the Church. You are in error.
You cannot have it both ways. Either use the post-Conciliar ecclesiology or the pre-Conciliar ecclesiology. Doesn't the sacrament of baptism put one in the body of the Church, at least to the age of reason.
Whis is it? Outside or inside? Or perfect or imperfect communion?
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.