Boycott Catholic-Pages.Com

So, wait -- is the only issue here that these people want to do the mass in some long dead tongue?

I think it is a little more far-reaching than just that issue. I don't really know much about it, but from what I've read, it does go deeper than just wanting to say mass in Latin.

Originally posted by Dave Ulchers
So, wait -- is the only issue here that these people want to do the mass in some long dead tongue?

Click to expand...

Originally posted by Avila
I think it is a little more far-reaching than just that issue. I don't really know much about it, but from what I've read, it does go deeper than just wanting to say mass in Latin.

Click to expand...

Yes it is more than just Latin. It is the Tridentine Mass instead of the Novus Ordo(New Order). You can have the NO in Latin. We had English responses being introduced into the Tridentine Mass before Vatican II.

And, Dave, the straying is more in the mind of the beholder.

Kotton

We're staying cool in here, right guys?

Peace be with you.

For those interested in understanding the issue, I'm copying bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer's letter to Pope Paul VI. You can read the doctinal study, which followed the letter at: http://www.sspx.org/B_DeCastroMayer/de_castro_mayers_ltr_paul_vi.htm

Most Holy Father,

After a close examination of the Novus Ordo Missae, which will enter into use on November 30 next, and after having prayed and reflected a great deal, I consider that it is my duty, as a Catholic priest and bishop, to lay before Your Holiness my anguish of conscience, and to formulate, with the piety and confidence that a son owes to the Vicar of Christ, the following request.

The Novus Ordo Missae shows, by its omissions, and by the changes that it has brought to the Ordinary of the Mass, as well as by a good number of the general rules that describe the understanding and nature of the new Missal in its essential points, that it does not express, as it ought to do the theology of the Holy Sacrifice as established by the Holy Council of Trent in its XXII session. The teaching of the simple catechism cannot overcome this fact. I attach below the reasons that, in my opinion, justify this conclusion.

The pastoral reasons that could, perhaps, be invoked, initially, in favor of the new structure of the Mass, cannot make us forget the doctrinal arguments that point in the opposite direction. Furthermore, they do not seem to be reasonable. The changes that prepared the Novus Ordo have not helped to bring about an increase in the Faith and the piety of the faithful. To the contrary, they remain very disturbed, with a confusion that the Novus Ordo has increased, for it has encouraged the idea that nothing is unchangeable in the Holy Church, not even the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Moreover, as I indicate in the attached reasons, the Novus Ordo not only fails to inspire fervor, but to the contrary, diminishes the Faith in central truths of the Catholic life, such as the Real Presence of Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament, the reality of the propitiatory Sacrifice, the hierarchical Priesthood.

I hereby accomplish an imperious duty in conscience by demanding, humbly and respectfully, that Your Holiness might deign, by a positive act that eliminates every doubt, to authorize us to continue using the Ordo Missae of Saint Pius V, whose effectiveness in bringing about the spread of Holy Church and an increase in the fervor of priests and faithful has been proven, as Your Holiness reminded us with so much unction.

I am convinced that Your Holiness’s fatherly kindness will bring to an end the perplexities that have risen in my heart of a priest and bishop.

Prostrate at Your Holiness’ feet, in humble obedience and filial piety, I implore you Apostolic Benediction.

+ Antonio de Castro Mayer
Bishop of Campos, Brazil

The simple fact of the matter with Marcel LeFebvre and his followers is this: Regardless of what misgivings one might have about what the Church is doing, that is still never a legitimate reason to defy the Holy See.

In the past, there were two men who had such misgivings, who had problems getting the Holy See to recognize their respective movements. The one man, despite failure, embraced the Church with all his heart nevetheless; his movement was recognized finally, and became one of the Church's strongest Orders. The other man decided to take matters into his own hands, and do it his way in spite of the Holy See; his movement is still around, but has splintered into more than 28,000 bickering denominations.

The first man, of course, was Francis of Assisi.

The second man was Martin Luther.

The moral of the story is, defiance and schism is never the answer.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Archbishop Lefebvre did not start a new movement, or cause a schism, he merely wanted to do what the Church had been doing before the Council. After the reforms of Vatican II, he was superior general of the Holy Ghost Fathers, a missionary order. The order wanted to update its constitutions to conform to the spirit of the council, against the wishes of the Archbishop. He knew the changes would destroy the order, so he resigned from his post, since he did not want to be the superior of the order during its demise. Afterwards he had hoped to go into retirement but soon a group of seminarians approached him looking for help. Their seminaries had become lax and started teaching heresy, so the Archbishop sent them to the University of Fribourg in Switzerland. However, that University began to change, so Archbishop Lefebvre opened his own seminary, in the diocese of Fribourg, with the approval of the bishop of the diocese in 1970. A year later the Society of St. Pius X was praised by Cardinal Wright. Natually the Society of St. Pius X's orthodoxy and traditional priestly formation were hated by the modernists, especially by the French bishops and it wasn't long before the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre were under attack. The Archbishops only "problem" was that he would not accept the errors of Vatican II, or the new protestantized Mass. In a way, the SSPX's suppression is very similar to the way conservative heterosexual men get weeded out of many seminaries. But anyway, we're never going to agree on any of this unless we at least agree on the cause of the crisis in the Church (Vatican II, the new rite of Mass, and the infiltration of the hierarchy by Freemasons).

You can find a short history of the SSPX here, including the attempts to suppress it:

http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q1_sspx.htm

http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q3_sspxsuppressed.htm

we're never going to agree on any of this unless we at least agree on the cause of the crisis in the Church (Vatican II, the new rite of Mass, and the infiltration of the hierarchy by Freemasons).

Click to expand...

I guess since you can't explain any of this, despite my repeated requests for information, then no, we are not going to agree.

Um, you made one request, and I posted Bishop de Castro Mayer's letter to the Pope, as well as a link to the doctrinal study on the new Mass he sent to the Pope. As far as the masonic infiltration goes, there was an interesting article on the subject in Inside the Vatican magazine. You can read the article here:

http://www.insidethevatican.com/backissues/96/05-96/abbot.html

For an intro into some of the problems of Vatican II, read this article on Archbishop Lefebvre and religious liberty.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Appendix_IV.htm

I read the pamphlet Alta Vendita, and don't even remember Archbishop Bugnini being mentioned in it. As a matter of fact, I just skimmed it and still couldn't find anything about him. Maybe you can tell me the page number?

In anycase, its irrelavent; TAN does not speak for the SSPX, so even if John Vennari wrote in the pamphlet that Bugnini was a staunch proponent of traditionalism I can assure you that no one in the SSPX ever made that claim. I've never heard any traditionalist or liberal for that matter make such a rediculous claim.

Same goes for the link I posted. Inside the Vatican is not affiliated with the SSPX at all... so attacking the credibility of the SSPX is rather pointless. I realize you don't want to accept the conclusions reached by the article, but if you want to dispute it, you're going to have to question the credibility of Inside the Vatican, and Abbot Boniface, who claims to have known Bugnini.

Joe

Wolsely,

How about voluntary submission to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and refusal to engage in open schism with the Holy See?

Click to expand...

I suppose you believe that if the Pope told you to rape a child, you'd have to do that as well, yes?

The Pope can no more order a man to tolerate religious indifferentism and Protestantism than he can order you to rape or kill someone. It's beyond the authority God gave him. As Vatican I defines it, the powers given to the Pope are to preserve and expound the Christian religion, not to add to it. The Post conciliar Popes don't seem to get that, and neither do their blind followers who insist on calling good "evil" and evil "good." A most horrible fate awaits such falsifiers of truth.

BTW, did anyone see where 26 priests and 28,000 laypeople belonging to one of Archbishop LeFebvre's schismatic groups in Brazil re-joined the Catholic Church last January? The so-called "Society of St. John Marie Vianney", devised by Archbishop LeFebvre and Bishop Antionio Castro back in the 1970's, went out of existance on January 18 this year; there are a few holdouts, but for all intents and purposes, this particular "sister" organization of LeFebvre's "Society of St. Pius X" is now back in the fold of Rome.

Click to expand...

The situation is more complicated than you're letting on. The laity weren't consulted, and the Bishop making the decision on their behalf (Rangel) is dying. I think he's simply too weak, and too frightened to continue. It's sad, that they betrayed the memory of their valiant and brave father, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer.

Augustine - Modernist Rome will betray them, eventually, as it did the FSSP

In anycase, its irrelavent; TAN does not speak for the SSPX, so even if John Vennari wrote in the pamphlet that Bugnini was a staunch proponent of traditionalism I can assure you that no one in the SSPX ever made that claim. I've never heard any traditionalist or liberal for that matter make such a rediculous claim.

Click to expand...

I've attended conferences with John Vennari and read enough of his works to HIGHLY doubt he would have claimed Bugnini was a "traditionalist". If anything it's well known that Pope Paul VI sent Bugnini into exile (to some obscure diocese in Iran...that is always a sign you've fallen out of favour in the Vatican) because he was convinced Bugnini was a Freemason, and had been double dealing behind his back.

Being something of a liberal himself, Pope Paul only realized too late that the utopian stupor he'd let himself get into, as well as his friendships, had betrayed him. It was he, not some crack pot, who said that "the smoke of satan has entered the sanctuary" during one of his public allocutions. I'm just sad that he didn't have the mettle, or the politically will (as everything is now politics in the Vatican) to rectify the situation.

Wolsely,

The simple fact of the matter with Marcel LeFebvre and his followers is this: Regardless of what misgivings one might have about what the Church is doing, that is still never a legitimate reason to defy the Holy See.

Click to expand...

What legal positivist universe do you live in? You seem to believe that the authority of the Pope is absolute and universal. That is not Catholic teaching. The Pope is subject to Divine Law, as are the human laws he puts into effect.

My question still goes out to you; if a Pope ordered you to commit a sin, would you be obliged?

In the past, there were two men who had such misgivings, who had problems getting the Holy See to recognize their respective movements. The one man, despite failure, embraced the Church with all his heart nevetheless; his movement was recognized finally, and became one of the Church's strongest Orders. The other man decided to take matters into his own hands, and do it his way in spite of the Holy See; his movement is still around, but has splintered into more than 28,000 bickering denominations.

Click to expand...

Mmm...there've been more than "two" men. The earliest on record was St.Paul who said in his own words "I resisted him to his face" (Galatians 2:11)

And why was this? Not because St.Peter was invoking his solemn teaching authority in a matter (in this the Popes cannot err); but because he was scandalizing the faithful, giving an example which confirmed HERESY. The heresy being "Judaizing", being picky over "clean" and "unclean" foods (thus, not eating with the "gentile" Christians).

In the same way, St.Athanasius ignored the Papal signed order which confirmed his excommnication. He probably mused "yes...excommunicated...excommunicated from the Arian sect!"

In the same way, Archbishop Lefebvre, motivated not by willfullness or a lack of obedience, but true obedience and charity, "resisted Peter to his face", because "Peter" (the conciliarist Popes, who have all been hand chosen liberals) is scandalizing the faithful, and at least giving leave to heresy, if not in fact implying it in his own teachings much of the time.

I am very sure that history is going to look back at this period as "the Arian crisis part II", and Archbishop Lefebvre as it's St.Athanasius.

That was very crude, Augustine, to use such dank language.

NYJ and Augustine,

Please consider this passage:

But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips (Colossians 3:8)

-Jason

Originally posted by Augustine
I've attended conferences with John Vennari and read enough of his works to HIGHLY doubt he would have claimed Bugnini was a "traditionalist".

Click to expand...

I read the booklet and it does not say Bugnini was a traditionalist. nyj probably confused Bugnini with someone else.

Joe

I don't think we should be arguing amongst ourselves.
I've read a lot over the years about the problems associated with the New Mass. There were tremendous changes and not all for the better. BUT..the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass.
I occasionally attend a Tridentine Mass at a Spanish Mission nearby and it is beautiful. And I'm old enough to remember as a child when the Tridentine was THE MASS.

I think we should stop all this in-fighting.

Annabel

I suppose you believe that if the Pope told you to rape a child, you'd have to do that as well, yes?

My question still goes out to you; if a Pope ordered you to commit a sin, would you be obliged?

Click to expand...

The simple answer to this, Augustine, is that Pope would not order anyone to commit a sin, and so your question is irrelevant; it's another question very much along the lines of "If God can do anything, He can make a rock so heavy He can't lift it, right?".

What legal positivist universe do you live in? You seem to believe that the authority of the Pope is absolute and universal.

Click to expand...

Is the authority of the Roman Pontiff universal over the entire Church? Yes, it is. Is it absolute? In matters of faith and morals, yes, it is.

That is not Catholic teaching.

Click to expand...

That's where you and the Catholic Church disagree. I'll let the two of you fight it out while I'm calling my bookie to place my bets on the Church winning.

The Pope is subject to Divine Law, as are the human laws he puts into effect.

Click to expand...

I never said he wasn't.

In the same way, Archbishop Lefebvre, motivated not by willfullness or a lack of obedience, but true obedience and charity, "resisted Peter to his face", because "Peter" (the conciliarist Popes, who have all been hand chosen liberals) is scandalizing the faithful, and at least giving leave to heresy, if not in fact implying it in his own teachings much of the time.

I am very sure that history is going to look back at this period as "the Arian crisis part II", and Archbishop Lefebvre as it's St.Athanasius.

Click to expand...

I'm beginning to suspect that I'm not the one living in the alternate universe.........