An Open Letter to the Church Renouncing My Service on I.C.E.L.

Communicantes (Newsletter of the Society of St. Pius X in Canada) ^ | October 2002 | Rev. Fr. Stephen Somerville

[ultima ratio]

No, the perversions of the Bishop of Honolulu should have had nothing to do with the decision of Ratzinger's office. But they are instructive. Here you had a corrupt bishop prohibiting Catholic women from attending SSPX Masses and ceremonies. The women wanted to worship God devoutly, the bishop wanted to extend his power. The situation is actually emblematic of the entire modernist Church which rules corruptly and in defiance of Catholic Tradition. SSPX is the corrective to this disordered situation.

[Desdemona]

Karol Wojtlywa, did not serve in the anti-Nazi underground, as you say, though he was an actor in a prohibited troupe which gave solace to the population with plays which were patriotic and inspiring. But he never fought.

This needs some clean-up. You're both right. Yes, he was an actor in a theater group. Yes, he was in the anti-Nazi underground. Undergrounds, in any war (unless you're talking about eco-terrorists), which are more resistance oriented, do not see combat, but do fight in the war.

Please, double check facts.

[drstevej]

What did Aquinas mean in reference to the Eucharist when he said, "All I have written is straw?" I am not familiar with the quote. I presume the inference is that a philosophical explanation is inferior to an apprehension by faith. Or was he denying the philosophical explanation?

<>A little knowledge can be dangerous - witness me:).<>

A touch of humor and humility. Watch out! :0) True statement none the less.

[ultima ratio]

Your reading of Campos is ludicrous. Rome gave them the moon--and then some. It was Rome who succumbed. Campos gave up nothing, retracted nothing. In return for nothing, Rome lifted its phony excommunication and promised a considerable measure of independence--though for how long, remains to be seen. Rome is not known for keeping its word on these matters.

Which is why I still think it's a bad bargain. Because Rome has not yet renounced its revolution and desire to destroy the pre-conciliar Church. It believes it can use Campos to seduce the SSPX by blandishments and privileges without doing so. But the SSPX owes its allegiance before all else to the Catholic faith--not to the Vatican bureaucracy which assaults it.

[Polycarp]

The overwhelming number of Catholic respondents indicated belief in the Real Presence (something like 80% or so). The difficulty came when asked to choose what they believed from among an array of theological positions. Only 1/3 of respondents accurately chose the selection which described transubstantiation.

In my view, the study demonstrated two things: that Catholics overwhelmingly believe in the Real Presence - they have Catholic faith; that Catholics are poorly catechized, or perhaps that many Catholics have forgotten what they were once taught, and that there is need for on-going religious education for Catholics.

Thanks Sitetest.

DrSteveJ,

This is a perfect summary.

[ultima ratio]

In a sense everybody was "in the underground" in Poland if they did anything forbidden. My point was he did not engage in combat in an anti-Nazi unit such as the Resistance in France.

[Desdemona]

I have a question for you. Do you see ANYTHING good in the main body of the Church at this time?

Your posts are exceedingly negative and that is not helping your cause. Granted, there are some people here who have not been at their best in this debate, but, in a way of constructive criticism, your posts are sometimes over the top.

[RobbyS]

It does become tiresome when someone who claims to be Catholic pretends to the right to judge what he is not competant to judge. If I am a lawyer, I may SAY that Roe v. Wade is unconstititional, beased on MY reading of law. That does not mean MY reading is in any way authoitative. Only a court is authoritative. Now I know this is not simply a matter of legal authority, but one does not get anywhere simply by railing against competant authority. I agree w ith you about many particular criticism of the new mass. I think it simplistic to blame decline in faith in the Trusde Presence,for instance, simply on it. The basic problem is not the mass but the failure of priests and nuns and religion teachers to support the doctrine in a clear and unambiguous way.

[ultima ratio]

But it's the theological meaning behind the words which matter. If a high percentage of all Catholics think the Real Presence means Christ is only "spiritually" or virtually present, then that's still alarming. I wouldn't be so comforted by this, but see the survey as a wake-up call.

[Zviadist]

Thanks for your reasoned replies on this thread. I certainly have much more affinity for honest protestants like yourself than for hate-spewing pseudo-Catholic modernists.

[drstevej]

Thanks for the clarification.

[Zviadist]

You have to remember that Latin changed over the centuries also.

Only its use in the vernacular. Not its ecclesiastic use.

[Zviadist]

You know, when you post pictures like that with a caption suggesting hula masses, something that picture is not of, so far as I can tell, one starts to wonder if Catholicguy is correct about your partiality, and your selective trust in ultima.

Do you deny the reality of hula "Masses"? Or does drstevej's mentioning it just embarass you and your positions? I have seen videos of these "Masses"; I know they exist. drstevej's posted pic was not much different from the video I saw. I have seen them. As well as hockey "Masses", limbo-dance "Masses", etc. Funny that you don't like it when others mention them. Even our friendly protestant guest here finds them absurd and deeply disturbing.

[Zviadist]

how well do you think pollsters can gauge belief in the Real Presence, when they can't even figure out who people will vote for?

Looks like you are making excuses for the result. It looks pretty simple to me, and I am not even a professional pollster: "Do you believe in the real Presence of Christ at Mass?" People answer yes or no. I think you are attempting to divert attention from the answers they did receive. And make excuses for the total failure of the post-Vatican II Church to raise the next generation of Catholics. Those are the real fruits: a non-Catholic Catholic Church.

[ultima ratio]

Do I see anything good in the Church today? That's like asking a Frenchman during WWII if he saw ANYTHING good in the Nazi occupation. We have an ecclesiastical occupation that is not only morally and administratively incompetent, but is committed to the liberal intention of destroying Tradition. It has already used its wrecking ball to smash traditional Catholic culture, the traditional Catholic liturgy, traditional Catholic devotions, traditional Catholic belief. You want me to be positive. How is this possible, given the extent of the crimes committed?

[Desdemona]

Do you deny the reality of hula "Masses"? Or does drstevej's mentioning it just embarass you and your positions? ... As well as hockey "Masses", limbo-dance "Masses", etc. ...Even our friendly protestant guest here finds them absurd and deeply disturbing.

Yes, they are disturbing. And, no, they are not acceptable. Here, we agree. In this group, across the board.

[drstevej]

To the extent this is a compliment, thanks. To the extent this is leverage to take a poke at the otherside, I'd prefer not to be your sharp stick.

Hope you understand.

[drstevej]

***Even our friendly protestant guest here finds them absurd and deeply disturbing.***

I also find it strange when I see a Protestant pastor on TV preaching to his church covered in mud and standing in a make-shift pig sty constructed on the stage in order to convey the story of the Prodigal.

And that's tame compared to some of the "Protestant"-whackos.

[ultima ratio]

Look, the old Mass is traditional. It is Catholic. It has evolved over two millenia under the aegis of the Holy Spirit. Up until thirty years ago it was the traditional Mass of the Catholic Church. The new Mass was INVENTED by a committee. It did NOT evolve, it has NO divine protection, it is deficient theologically and aesthetically--so much so that ever since its institution it has been the subject of criticism and talk of reform. Now I didn't dream this stuff up. One Mass is traditional, the other is not. Do I need a pope or a tribunal to tell me this? Or to tell me that Assisi is not traditional or that kissing the Koran is not traditional or that pouring libations in a Togo forest is not traditional?

It is infuriating to have somebody like yourself claim such nonsense. We have two thousand years of history, of saintly testimony, of councils, of papal encyclicals, even of living witnesses today, to guide us. We don't need a Vatican bureaucrat, or even the Pope himself, to decide what's traditional--especially when we see these are the very ones doing all they can to destroy everything traditional in sight. Such a perspective is ludicrous.

I follow Tradition. It is the Tradition of the Catholic Church as it has been known and practiced for two thousand years. I have two thousand years of popes and councils behind me. All you have is a couple of misguided popes and a single ambiguous pastoral council. Yet you opt for revolution against everything that went before, rather than for Sacred Tradition. Fine. Now watch as the mess unravels. This new thing of yours cannot possibly be blessed. It is being left to its own core devices--which are corrupt and heretical.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"Rome gave them the moon--and then some. It was Rome who succumbed."

Well, I suppose that wasn't enough, since the SSPX has decided that it was a bad deal for Campos, not Rome.

Here are some things that the Church did NOT give Campos, and for which the SSPX are holding out (excerpted from a letter by Mr. Fellay):

"That letter, published in the August 2001 issue of The Angelus, responded to Rome’s refusal to grant the conditions, namely that it be stated that all priests in the world have the right to celebrate the traditional Mass, and that the Society was never schismatic and never broke communion. In response to Cardinal Castrillon’s refusal to accept that we have the right to reject the errors of Vatican II, he explained the state of necessity that is the basis of our refusal of compromise. The response to those who attack the Society for working on a hidden agreement is that there have been no discussions since then, since there is no common ground to work from."

Read that carefully, ultima. The Church refused to recognize that the SSPX has the right to "reject the errors of Vatican II", refuses to acknowledge that the SSPX was never schismatic (I guess the argument that the Church doesn't see the SSPX as schismatic goes right out the window), refuses to grant to all priests the right to say the old Mass.

Here is part of the joint statement by Bishops Rangel and Guimaraes:

"We further remember the invitation of the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II: ‘All pastors and other faithful must have a new consciousness not only of the legitimacy but also of the riches that the diversity of charisms, traditions, spirituality and apostolate represent for the Church. This diversity also constitutes the beauty of unity in diversity: this is the symphony that, under the action of the Holy Ghost, the earthly Church elevates to heaven’ (Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta). It is thus with intense happiness that we communicate to all this gesture of kindness of the Holy Father, the Pope, wishing an ever-increasing union among Catholics –‘unity in diversity’ –as the Holy Father wishes, for the greater glory of God and honor of the Holy Church."

Mr. Fellay especially didn't like this "unity in diversity" bit. But Campos swallowed it.

Can the SSPX do likewise?

I guess Campos didn't get the moon, after all.

But in all truth, the Church asks very little of Campos or the SSPX. Only to submit truly to the Roman Pontiff. Only to fully acknowledge and accept the new Mass and the Council and its results. That is what Campos gave, and that is what sticks in the throat of the SSPX.

Campos reserved the right to offer "constructive criticism" of the new Mass, but "constructive criticism" is criticism given to assist in building up. One does not offer to assist to build up that which one believes ought to be torn down. One does not offer to assist to build up what one believes to be inherently bad.

Can the SSPX offer "constructive criticism" of the new Mass? This is to acknowledge not only the validity, but the intrinsic worthiness of the new Mass. Can the SSPX recognize the validity and worthiness of the new Mass, and help to take this good thing and make it better (possibly to the detriment of the desire of many to assist at the old Mass)?

Campos has truly submitted to papal authority. That means that the successors to Bishop Rangel must be approved by the Church.

Can the SSPX accept that once Mr. Fellay, Mr. Williamson, and others, pass on, that their successors must be approved by the pope? That was the root of the schism in the first place, after all. The pope was willing to approve of the consecration of a bishop to succeed Archbishop Lefebvre, but the pope reserved to himself the right to approve the number so consecrated, and the specific selection of the bishop or bishops to succeed Archbishop Lefebvre. And Archbishop Lefebvre refused, and drove off into schism.

If the SSPX can do these good works, then there is likely little that keeps it from full communion with the Holy Catholic Church. Would that the SSPX accept the arrangement offered Campos.

Perhaps, then, Rome really accepted little in return for what it gave.

But if the SSPX cannot do these things, then it seems to me that the Church didn't really give Campos the moon, and more, but rather, Campos gave the Church the moon, in return for the favor of being permitted to return to the One True Church of Jesus Christ.


sitetest