Free Republic

We traditionalists are in the right, but we are not schizmatics. Your problem is you can't tell the difference since you don't know what Catholicism is in the first place.

Something else needs to be said. I posted an article by Michael Davies yesterday on the abuse of ecclesiastical power on the part of Catholic auhorities. For some reason the article was pulled. But its main thrust needs to be mentioned over and over because too many Catholics have been trained from childhood--all too falsely--to be obedient to church superiors even when to do so would be morally culpable and offensive to the faith. It is one thing to be obedient, but it is another to enable evil men to continue to do evil. And it is important to be informed enough to tell the difference.

Here is what Michael Davies said in part:

The Abuse of Ecclesiastical Power

According to Catholic theologians and canon lawyers, a prelate can abuse his position in a number of ways, which include the imposition of unjust laws or failure to guard and transmit the deposit of Faith, either by remaining silent in the face of heresy or even by teaching heresy himself. A Catholic has the right to refuse obedience in the first case and a duty to oppose the prelate in the second. Their consensus regarding law in general is that the legislator should not simply refrain from demanding something that his subjects would find impossible to carry out, but that laws should not be too difficult or distressing for those subjected to them. St. Thomas explains that, for a law to be just, it must conform to the demands of reason and have an effect which is both good and for the benefit of those for whom it is intended. A law can cease to bind without revocation on the part of the legislator when it is clearly harmful, impossible, or irrational.1 This is particularly true if a prelate commands anything contrary to divine precept. (Praelato non est obediendum contra praeceptum divinum.) In support of this teaching St. Thomas cites Acts 5:29: "We ought to obey God rather than men." He teaches that not only would the prelate err in giving such an order but that anyone obeying him would sin just as certainly as if he disobeyed a divine command. ("...ipse peccaret praecipiens, et ei obediens, quasi contra praeceptum Domini agens...").2

Dealing with the question as to whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things he explains that: "Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things."3

Where a matter of faith is involved, resistance is not a right but a duty for the faithful Catholic...To sum up what has been demonstrated so far, normally subjects must be obedient to lawful authority in Church and State but they have the right to resist harsh and harmful laws which do not contribute to the common good. They must never compromise the Faith under the pretext of obedience. "When the shepherd becomes the wolf the flock must defend itself."

Few Catholics concerned to uphold orthodoxy within the Church during these troubled times would dispute this. Catholics in English-speaking countries do not normally have to contend with shepherds who have actually become wolves but with shepherds who permit wolves to ravage their flocks, shepherds who condemn any of the sheep who have the temerity to complain. Such bishops are not the exception, they have become the norm. Dietrich von Hildebrand denounces them with the burning indignation of an Old Testatment prophet:

"They either close their eyes and try, ostrich-style, to ignore the grievous abuses as well as appeals to their duty to intervene, or they fear to be attacked by the press or the mass-media and defamed as reactionary, narrow-minded, or medieval. They fear men more than God. The words of St. John Bosco apply to them: "The power of evil men lives on in the cowardice of the good."...One is forced to think of the hireling who abandons his flocks to the wolves when one reflects on the lethargy of so many bishops and superiors who, though still orthodox themselves, do not have the courage to intervene against the most flagrant heresies and abuses of all kinds in their dioceses or in their orders."4

Dr. von Hilderbrand is in perfect conformity with the authorities who have already been cited when he denies that the faithful have the duty of automatic obedience to their bishops in the present state of the Church. He shows with admirable clarity that the mark of a truly faithful Catholic can be a refusal to submit to heretical or compromising bishops.

"Should the faithful at the time of the Arian heresy, for instance, in which the majority of the bishops were Arians, have limited themselves to being nice and obedient to the ordinances of these bishops, instead of battling heresy? Is not fidelity to the true teaching of the Church to be given priority over submission to the bishop? Is it not precisely by virtue of their obedience to the revealed truths which they received from the Magisterium of the Church, that the faithful offer resistance?...

"The drivel of the heretics, both priests and laymen, is tolerated; the bishops tacitly acquiesce to the poisoning of the faithful. But they want to silence the faithful believers who take up the cause of orthodoxy, the very people who should by all rights be the joy of the bishops' hearts, their consolation, a source of strength for overcoming their own lethargy. Instead, these people are regarded as disturbers of the peace."5

"Is not fidelity to the true teaching of the Church to be given priority over submission to the bishop?" asks Dr. von Hildebrand. "Yes, it is," replies St. Thomas Aquinas together with every reputable theologian who has examined the subject. There can be very few faithful Catholics who would refuse to align themselves with St. Thomas and Dietrich von Hildebrand on this point - with one reservation. Many, if not most, would add the proviso: "Unless the bishop in question is the Bishop of Rome." Some are quite unwilling to admit, even to themselves, that an occasion could ever arise when a Catholic should justifiably refuse obedience to the Sovereign Pontiff. However sincere such people may be, they display a lamentable ignorance of Church history and Catholic theology.

Professor Marcel de Corte of the University of Liège can be ranked with Dr. von Hildebrand as one of the outstanding Catholic philosophers of our time. He has noted that the attitude of these Catholics towards the Pope is tantamount to the claim that he is inerrant, that his every decision, his every word, is divinely inspired, that he is, in fact, a divine oracle. Writing in the March 1977 issue of the Courrier de Rome he remarked:

"For them it is as if the person of the Pope were, as such, infallible, and as if all his words, all his directives, all his judgments in all matters, even those foreign to religion, could never be subject to error, though the whole history of the Church protests against that conviction which is close to idolatry.

"There have been Popes whose doctrine was near-heresy, Honorius and Liberius for example. There were others whose faith, hope and charity could hardly be perceived behind the disorders of their conduct. And there were some whose faults, stupidity, blunders, extravagances, and weaknesses in the government and administration of the Church were such that the divine organism entrusted to their care was more than once shaken. It is enough to read the twenty or so volumes of Ludwig von Pastor's History of the Popes to be convinced of that."

This may be true in part in the text. But the orientation of the New Mass is that of the community's action with the priest, not of the priest's action apart from the community. The New Mass makes the congregation essential; the Old Mass recognizes the congregation is not essential since only the Sacrifice matters, the Offering to the Father of the Son. The act of worship in the Old Mass is what is pleasing to the Father--hence the importance of Transubstantiation. We are left out of it. The locus of worship in the New Mass, on the other hand, is what's going on in the congregation, the celebration of its salvation. In this the Eucharist signifies our union as Christians--a virtual union, not the personal physical union of the individual with the Real Presence of Christ. This personal union with the Real Presence is Catholic, in accordance with the teaching of Trent; the virtual union of the congregation is according to the Paschal Meal theology which is Protestant. These modes of worship are worlds apart.

check traditio.com for the directory indicating where these Masses may be found.

The use of the vernacular was always only a small part of the objection to the new missal. The problems are multiple, but here is a brief summary of what they are.

1. The emphasis of the new Mass is on the memorial meal, not on a re-enactment of Calvary. This is a clear violation of Trent which prohibited this interpretation and is in keeping with Protestant theological understanding. To Protestants the liturgy is a memorial service. To Catholics the liturgy is a here-and-now sacrifice to the Father of the Son.

2. The new Mass changes the meaning of "sacrifice" to the Protestant theological understanding of a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Again, Trent specifically rejected this interpretation and insisted the Mass is a Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Son to the Father in expiation for our sins. This Catholic dimension is suppressed in the New Liturgy. Instead, there is a heavy emphasis on the Resurrection rather than on the Crucifixion. It is a celebration of our salvation primarily rather than an occasion for remembering our unworthiness as sinners who have need of the sacrifice of Jesus.

3. The New Mass does all it can to emphasize the virtual presence of Christ and to suppress any awareness of the Real Presence following the Consecration. Genuflections have been reduced. Kneeling for Communion has been eliminated. In many places kneelers have been removed from the pews, the tabernacle is no longer central, Communion is taken in the hands, communion rails have been ripped out. The focus is chiefly on ourselves as a congregation in the Protestant fashion, rather than on the individual encountering a personal Christ as a Real Presence. This focus on ourselves is emphasized by the priest's now facing the congregation rather than East, which is a symbolic facing towards the Father. Equal emphasis is given to Christ's virtual presence in Scripture as well as to his virtual presence in the congregation--in the Protestant way. Almost no attention is given to the worship due to Christ when he is really and truly present on the altar. This reality, in fact, is deliberately ignored and undermined, though it is the central fact of traditional Catholic theology. This is why Holy Hour devotions are springing up everywhere--in the effort by good Catholics to compensate for this suppression of our awareness.

4. The uniqueness of the priesthood has been compromised by the muliplicity of ministers in the sanctuary. Ordinary laypersons now handle the sacred vessels, the text repeats that the priest's sacrifice (of praise and thanksgiving only) is "our" sacrifice, with everything done according to the Protestant understanding that the Priest is just another minister, that it is the congregation of the baptized who offer the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, along with the priest who becomes a mere presider and not someone who makes a genuine and real sacrifice of propitiation of the Son to the Father. Again, this violates Trent.

5. In the New Mass Communion is the apex of the Mass, the sharing of a memorial meal in fellowship. In the old Mass it is the act of Consecration--the fact of Transubstantiation--which is the apex of the Mass. The emphasis in the New Mass once again is on ourselves; the emphasis in the Traditional Mass is on adoration of the Real Presence prior to His immolation to the Father. Again, the traditional Mass focuses on offering the Father the reality of the Son in expiation for our sins. The new Mass suppresses this Catholic understanding.

"A validly promulgated liturgy..."

Actually I took your post to mean the New Mass itself was valid, not that it was "validly promulgated." In fact it was invalidly promulgated, lacking any papal signature whatsoever, the General Instructions carrying only the signatures of a few cura cardinals--insufficient for any official liturgical change of that magnitude in the Church. A later published document on the new liturgy included decrees by Paul VI which carried his signature, but the decrees only covered Eucharistic Prayer changes, not the new liturgy itself. A still later explanation of this published Constitution again lacked the papal signature, having been signed by a cardinal. These are curious facts. Was Paul VI fearful of an official promulgation? No one can say. Curious also is the fact that the traditional Mass was never officially abrogated. History will look on the whole debacle as a strange aberration from Catholic Tradition and the immediate cause for the loss of faith of tens--some claim hundreds--of millions of Catholics.

Just for the record, we say the Rosary after supper daily at my house. I have nothing against the Rosary.

Maybe I posted it for the same reason you posted the image of a wild-eyed lady. Think about it.

"A validly promulgated liturgy which, celebrated according to the rubrics, confects a valid sacrament. Do you deny it?"

No, it's valid. But it still protestantizes the faith, which is why even Lutherans use it. As Bishop Fellay put it recently, "Rome says it's a soup, eat it. We say, sure it's a soup, but it's a poison soup. We don't wish to eat it."

That was not why I posted that quote.

Obviously nothing is wrong with praying. We just shouldn't be doing it on a public forum. I have no problem with posting this story either. Nor with any discussion about the efficacy of the Rosary. But neither should we exclude subjects more controversial.

Matthew VI:5.--And when you pray, be not like the hypocrites, who affect to pray standing in the assemblies, and at the corners of the streets, that men may observe them. Indeed, I say to you, they have received their reward. But you, when you would pray, retire to your closet; and having shut the door, pray to your Father; and your Father, to whom, though he is unseen himself, nothing is secret, will recompense you.

Not as successful as you might think. The most obedient members of the Church are also those who are most conservative. They can be pushed only so far. They are gradually figuring things out. When the shepherd becomes the wolf, the sheep must do what they can to protect the flock. Obedience in such an event is no longer obligatory.

I have never engaged in personal insults. I have deliberately and consistently kept cool when others have attacked me. Check those who have sparred with me and with other traditionalists. Review the posts of the thread you pulled previous to the Michael Davies piece. You will see the rudeness and insults are coming from one direction only. I kept my cool when called heretic or schismatic and worse.

In any case, I have just posted a Michael Davies article that was scholarly and fair-minded. I offered NO comments whatsoever, I just posted the article, a well-respected piece that could not possibly be considered offensive since it dealt with an important matter seriously and politely. Yet it was pulled.

It would seem the mere fact that such an article might attract intellectually stimulating discussion should be a reason to keep it posted, since that is the reason for the forum in the first place--as long as that discussion remains reasonable. What should be banned instead are those individuals who use such posts as the pretext to hurl insults.

"Celebrate a small victory and let that encourage people towards a still better wording."

Nonsense. The Novus Ordo was designed to destroy the traditional Catholic faith whether in the original or in its bad translation. The focus remains on the memorial meal aspect condemned by Trent, not on propitiatory sacrifice nor on Transubstantiation. There is nothing to celebrate. It remains a protestantizing liturgy.

Are posts such as this what we Catholics have been reduced to discussing? Is all controversy banned, even if it is well-reasoned and scholarly and fair-minded?

Allen misjudges the nature of the debate. It's not between a good and bad translation; it's between the ancient and the new liturgies. That debate is only growing. Reverting to a better translation of the Novus Ordo still leaves us with the Novus Ordo; it also leaves us with the same modernists who invented the Novus Ordo in the first place.

Here is what's really going on in the conflict within the Church. Modernists ignore the dogmas of the Catholic faith--and take real issue with them. This is why they push the Novus Ordo and despise the Tridentine Mass which emphasizes the dogmas of Transubstantiation and Propitiatory sacrifice. They have suppressed the Marian dogmas and feel no qualms about questioning the Gospel miracles or even the Resurrection of Jesus. Some even question the Incarnation and the divinity of Christ.

But there is no wish by modernists to oppose any of these dogmas openly and directly. To do so would not only lead to a mass exodus from the Church, but it would weaken the dogmatic underpinnings of their own clerical authority. In addition such an honest and open approach would destroy the only distinction left between Catholics and Protestants--which is the rigid hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church and the intense adherence of faithful Catholics to the pope who is at the apex of the hierarchic pyramid.

Rather than pursue a doctrinal confrontation, therefore, Modernists choose to create facts on the ground by subterfuge and deception. They have successfully destroyed traditional catechesis, substituting social programs instead; they have substituted a protestantizing liturgy for the ancient Mass and have made it the primary vehicle for spreading the new theology; they have changed the office of the priesthood by emphasizing the priesthood of all the baptized; and they have aggressively pursued an exaggerated ecumenicism which is indifferentist and syncretist in nature, pushing for a "civilization of love" in lieu of a union based on commonly held beliefs.

Sooner or later the New Theology must fail. Why? Because it cannot keep the faithful in line once the dogmatic underpinnings of tradition have been eliminated. With tradition goes also any impetus by the faithful to obey the hierarchy. If Catholics no longer must believe in the Real Presence, then sure as God made green apples they likewise will feel no obligation to obey their bishops or pope. Doing away with the one while trying to keep their own authority intact would be like the bishops' trying to square a circle--it can't be done.

You mean the Pope mentioned the posters here at Freerepublic? No wonder you think he's godlike. Not only can he probe the inner workings of men's consciences without any objective evidence whatsoever, but he can channel his thoughts to you.

"UR: If and when you become pope (how unlikely is that!), you will be able to substitute your self-serving rationalizations for the judgments of John Paul II."

It's the other way around. You're the one excommunicating people and calling people schismatics. I'm arguing principles and canon law. Your argument is loonier--the Pope is always right no matter what. It's apparently a dogma of faith with you--and it's false. No Catholic is obliged to believe the Pope was right when he wrote that Motu Proprio. It was not infallible and it made no sense, given the facts behind the consecrations.