The majority of Catholics, which itself is a huge number of people, have gone into schism not by joining traditionalist communities but by becoming Protestant or non-denominational. These are Catholics completely formed by the Post Vatican II Church and her Modern Vernacular Mass!
One of the reasons that Pope Francis has tried to crush those Catholics he insults with such epithets as “backwards” “mentally ill” and just plain ignorant, is that the TLM drives people to break Communion with the Pope and Vatican II.
We know, at least I do, that the percentage of Catholics who prefer the TLM and its patrimony are quite small even compared to the 5% to 12% of Catholics who bother to attend the Modern Mass on Sunday. They are far outnumbered by those Catholics who cease to go to any Catholic Mass.
But within traditionalist communities, only a small number would consider breaking Communion with the pope and joining the SSPX if the TLM was no longer offered by their diocese.
They might go to an SSPX Mass just as some might go to an Eastern Orthodox Liturgy but would still consider themselves Catholics in good standing with the Church, meaning they would not join these ecclesial communions only attend liturgy with them.
But all of that is a smoke screen to hide the true schism in the Church. As I mentioned in some places as little as 2% to 5% of Catholics actually attend any Catholic Mass.
In my neck of the woods, the problem, apart from those who attend no religious services, are those Catholics who have become Protestant. Most are attracted to the non-denominational cults.
In Savannah, the largest Protestant Church in the city is a non-denominational community called Compassion Church. It is a mega church. And it has a slew of Catholics who no longer identify as Catholics who are their members. Of course many Catholics have chosen more traditional forms of Protestantism, becoming Episcopalian (to include some of the Diocese of Savannah priests). Some have become Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptists. Some have joined the Pentecostal communions.
Yet, the blog, Where Peter is is worried more about the FSSP and SSPX and the traditional Latin Mass celebrated in normal parishes as the greatest threat to ecclesial communion with the pope and Vatican II.
And you know what I say to that? What the hell??????
Catholics who have chosen Protestant Communions have done so as a result of their experience in post-Vatican II parishes and the distorted celebrations of the Modern Vernacular Mass of Vatican II.
They far out number, far out number, did I say, far out number those Catholics who have gone into schism by joining break away traditionalist ecclesial communions. Far out number, did I say that?
34 comments:
Mr. Nut Nut will soon arrive with his list of non sequiturs and the Democrat masquerading as a Catholic priest will arrive with his “reasons” aka excuses for the massive breakdown in praxis following Vatican Disaster II
I'm sure it's because the Church is just like any other social club /s
Interestingly, the deep thinkers at WPI have recently decreed, declared, and promulgated what is "acceptable" for FSSP priests to do w/r/t Chrism Masses. Where they get the authority... I'm not sure, but I am sure that they would parrot Lumen Gentium 25 at you if asked.
Nick
Maybe the question should be to what degree have our recent popes broken communion with the tradition they vowed to uphold? If we're really honest about this, while Francis has been the most extreme case, just about every Pope since Pius XII has broken with the past to some degree or another. I'm not calling them bad people or bad popes, but the records speak for themselves.
Father McDonald said..."The majority of Catholics, which itself is a huge number of people, have gone into schism not by joining traditionalist communities but by becoming Protestant or non-denominational. These are Catholics completely formed by the Post Vatican II Church and her Modern Vernacular Mass!"
Father, during the 1960s, but prior to the promulgation of the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI, countless among the laity had abandoned the Church. Thousands of priests and religious had also vacated the True Church. Said folks had been "formed" by the TLM.
During the Protestant Revolt of the 16th Century, countless Catholics had abandoned the Church. Said folks had been "formed" by the TLM.
During the days of Arianism, countless Catholics, "formed" by the TLM, had embraced schism.
Archbishop Lefebvre, who, for example, had attached himself in unhesitating fashion to the TLM, embraced schism.
Just saying...
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald said..."One of the reasons that Pope Francis has tried to crush those Catholics he insults with such epithets as “backwards” “mentally ill” and just plain ignorant, is that the TLM drives people to break Communion with the Pope and Vatican II."
========
Father, are you sure that such is Pope Francis' position in regard to the TLM? Or, is his problem in regard to folks who have weaponized the TLM against Holy Mother Church?
His Holiness has made it clear that his concern is not with the TLM.
He had made that clear just last week when, as he had done in February 2022 A.D., Pope Francis exhorted the FSSP to continue to offer the TLM.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
You speak always about the past while I speak of today. Nice try at avoidance.
I knew Mr. Nut Nut could not resist posting more meaningless drivel.
Here is another example of the evil Fr. K Orwell supports by voting for the Party of Moloch:
"U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor ruled in favor of the Christian Employers Alliance, which had challenged the administration’s interpretation of federal discrimination law. Traynor, a Trump nominee, said the Christian groups were protected under religious liberty protections from being forced to provide “gender transition services.”
In contrast, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Health and Human Services — under Biden in 2021 — said they interpreted the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) as requiring employer health insurance plans to cover surgeries and other procedures related to so-called "gender transitions."
Father McDonald, I speak of today.
This very second, among those attached to the TLM, are folks who have left the Church for "Independent," as well as flat-out sedevacantist communities. Is the TLM responsible for that?
This very second, among those attached to the TLM, are folks who insist that it is their right as "traditionalists" to reject, as they see fit, the Magisterium. Is the TLM responsible for that?
Peter Kwasniewski has declared:
"While I am an adamant opponent of feminism, I am no less staunch an opponent of chauvinism wherever I see it — and I do see it reappearing in the traditional movement, along with other -isms (e.g., antisemitism, libertarianism, sedevacantism) that are incompatible with Catholic tradition."
"The revival of traditional liturgical practice has permitted the reappearance of some extreme points of view that deserve refutation."
Is the TLM responsible for the above-mentioned serious problems? No.
God's graces flow from the TLM. The same applies to the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
The notion that schism/acceptance of unorthodox teachings flows from Holy Mass is untenable.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I am glad you agree that the grounds for canceling the TLM are untenable. TC must be canceled. I am glad you now acknowledge that! Wow! Progress!
"The notion that schism/acceptance of unorthodox teachings flows from Holy Mass is untenable."
"I am glad you agree that the grounds for canceling the TLM are untenable. TC must be canceled. I am glad you now acknowledge that! Wow! Progress!"
Well done, Father. Well done.
Nick
Father McDonald said..."I am glad you agree that the grounds for canceling the TLM are untenable. TC must be canceled. I am glad you now acknowledge that! Wow! Progress!"
I said that?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT,
I believe it's called a "gaffe," in which (according to some definitions) the speaker accidentally, unintentionally reveals the truth of a matter.
Nick
Someone above, whose name I am hesitant to mention (since he loves to see us repeat it in our disagreements with him) lists every instance of Catholics falling away who were formed by the Traditional Mass, and closes his "case" by asserting:
"Archbishop Lefebvre, who, for example, had attached himself in unhesitating fashion to the TLM, embraced schism."
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
Countless bishops and cardinals have affirmed that there neither was nor is any "schism" with the SSPX and to keep telling this craven lie about this great man is disgusting.
I'll cut right to the chase and give Mr. Cut-and-paste some more C & P to meditate upon (I still maintain he doesn't care--he just likes to provoke--but this lie is getting very old).
Cardinal Castrillon, who was the Prefect for the Congregation of Clergy for nine years, said:
"They had moments when they were away, but technically they never made any complete schism or heresy. For example, they did not create a separate jurisdiction, because to create a jurisdiction outside the jurisdiction of the Church, that means you want to separate,"
He also said:
"One cannot say in correct and exact terms that there is a schism. There is, in the act of ordaining bishops without papal approval, a schismatic attitude. They are within the confines of the Church. The problem is just that there is a lack of a full, a more perfect—and as it was said during the meeting with Bishop Fellay—a more full communion, because communion exists."
Communion cannot exist where there is schism. This has about as much credibility as the shrill lie we hear about hundreds of thousands of unarmed protesters trying to commit "insurrection" in our nations capital three years ago. Yeah. Sure.
Further, if you take the number of Catholics "formed by the TLM who left" that are cited in the liar's diatribe, they pale compared to the number of Catholics who have stopped attending Mass since the introduction of Bugnini's Novelty in 1969. If any corporation had the kind of "success" the Church had since the introduction of the Novus Ordo, it would be out of business. Then again, recent reports that the Vatican is approaching bankruptcy offer little surprise to those of us with our eyes open.
In 1969, Cardinal Ottaviani expressed his concerns to Pope Paul VI in writing. Among his observations (our boy will like this--more cut and pastes!):
"From the outset therefore the new rite is launched as pluralistic and experimental, bound to time and place. Unity of worship, thus swept away for good and all, what will now become of the unity of faith that went with it, and which, we were always told, was to be defended without compromise?
"It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the Catholic conscience is bound forever. With the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, the loyal Catholic is thus faced with a most tragic alternative."
"By way of compensation the new Liturgy will be the delight of the various groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy, are wreaking havoc in the Church of God, poisoning her organism and undermining her unity of doctrine, worship, morals and discipline in a spiritual crisis without precedent."
And Ottaviani's words have proven true.
Meanwhile, our resident bloghog maintains that he is an attorney; That merits two observations: 1) He is certainly reinforcing the stereotype of attorneys as dishonest adn 2) He obviously has no clients, because he seems to be posting here all day and all night.
"...they pale compared to the number of Catholics who have stopped attending Mass since the introduction of Bugnini's Novelty...
It may well be true that a vast number of Catholics have abandoned the faith since the middle 1960's and early 1970's.
Before identifying a cause so unreservedly, it is worth remembering that correlation does not imply, let alone prove, causation.
There are dozens of omitted variables, societal changes and upheavals, that were part and parcel of that era. These include, but are not limited to, the rise of feminism and the rapid loss of trust in authority as a result of many factors including the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal. Also included should be the exodus from urban centers and the rise of suburbia, the explosion of technology, and the increasing wealth of Catholics in the middle and upper classes. Don't forget the turbulence of the Civil Rights movement, the forced retreat of European empires, and a host of other disruptions in most of Western society.
If the introduction of the NO in Catholic culture caused the exodus, what happened to other denominations who experienced the same thing?
Looking for a scapegoat is one of the oldest sins in the book. "Adam, why did you eat the forbidden fruit?" "The woman made me do it!" "Woman, why did you eat the forbidden fruit?" "Oh, the serpent tricked me."
It didn't work then and it doesn't work now.
The reason that is given for Pope Francis canceling SP is that those who want the Latin Mass were becoming semi-schismatic if not schismatic by rejecting Vatican II and the current papacy. They rigidly hold on to the Church of the past and break communion with the current and future Church.
Using this logic, we can say that those brought up in the Church since Vatican II as well as some before Vatican II have been formed in such a way by the modern Mass and its ethos and have then rejected Vatican II and the papacy altogether by joining Protestant sects and non-denominational cults because the modern Mass’s manner of celebration and doctrinal formation makes them believe that there isn’t any real difference and non-denominational cults and classic Protestantism is more to their tastes.
What’s true of the goose is true of the gander but in a steroidal way compared to the goose.
And yes, trying to imitate non-denominational worship by dragging in non-denominational worship and praise music prepares young Catholics to leave the Church and thus reject Vatican II and the papacy by going to the real thing, worship and praise non denominational sects.
To be sure we can look at all the "revolutions" of the 60's, the antiwar movement, the hippiedom, the sexutal revolution and the rest, but Catholics, to some degree weren't as vulnerable to all of this UNTIL 1969 when Pope Paul VI sent us a clear signal that the Catholic Church would "change with the times". It was almost like giving people an excuse to leave. If the once-stalwart unchangeable faith that reflected an unchangeable God can suddenly change something as central to its identity as the Mass, then--maybe none of it means anything anyway--at least that's how many people consciously or unconsciously imbibed the message.
Catholic Church attendance CONTINUES TO decline. Gallup reported in 2018:
From 2014 to 2017, an average of 39% of Catholics reported attending church in the past seven days. This is down from an average of 45% from 2005 to 2008 and represents a steep decline from 75% in 1955.
By contrast, the 45% of Protestants who reported attending church weekly from 2014 to 2017 is essentially unchanged from a decade ago and is largely consistent with the long-term trend.
When Benedict became pope, vocations took a dramatic rise. Now we're back to the Vatican II "success" rate of emptying seminaries--young men see a secularized pope who stands for nothing and they think "Why should I bother? Chances are, if I DID become a priest, my bishop--likely someone appointed by Francis--wouldn't support me and likely strip my faculties for teaching what has always been taught and holding up standard in my parish. Forget it."
There never NEEDED to be a Catholic decline. We were more immune to secular society when we functioned as we always did. It was when the Church went soft that everything else went south. Why were we more immune? Because the Church is the TRUE Church. It is miraculous. It offers what no other Church does. And too many Catholics and Catholic priests no longer have faith in the Catholic Church and what she has taught us for 2 millenia. No, in their minds, our faith is just another religion among many and we are just as vulnerable to societal trends.
And we are--when we embrace worldliness instead of what our practices as Catholic used to be. Conform to the world and become more worldly and more vulnerable.
Note what Ottaviani--one of the 20th Century Church's greatest cardinals--said: "the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the Catholic conscience is bound forever." For the modernist mamby-pamby Catholic, there is no forever. We've got to get with it, get real, get with what's happening now.
Well, take a look around at "what's happening now." You can have it.
For those interested in truth and reality:
On July 2, 1988 A.D., Pope (Saint) John Paul II declared that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre had "incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law."
The reason is that Archbishop Lefebvre had initiated the "unlawful episcopal ordination" of "priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta."
Pope (Saint) John Paul II stated: "In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated."
"Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act." (3)
Footnote (3) referenced Latin Church Canon 751: "Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
Pope Saint John Paul II declared: "The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition."
"Given at Rome, at St. Peter's. 2 July 1988, the tenth year of the pontificate."
==============
The day prior to that above, we have the following:
"DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.
"Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law."
"Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Pellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."
"Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act, has incurred excommunication as envisaged by canon 1364, paragraph 1."
"From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.
"Bernardinus Card. Gantin Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops"
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, fewer than two weeks following Archbishop Lefebvre's fall into schism, had reiterated that Archbishop Lefebvre had embraced the grave sin of schism:
Then-Cardinal Ratzinger declared:
"If once again we succeed in pointing out and living the fullness of the Catholic religion with regard to these points, we may hope that the schism of Lefebvre will not be of long duration."
"...the schism of Lefebvre..."
===========
In 2009 A.D., Pope Benedict XVI had testified to the validity of the excommunications that applied to Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, via the very lifting of said excommunications.
(Archbishop Lefebvre, as well as Antônio de Castro Mayer, had died 18 years earlier.)
Pax.
Mark Thomas
PART ONE:
Oh yeah, the VERY PREDICTABLE "defense" of citing the excommunication of Lefebvre and Benedict towing the "party line". Ho Hum. Yeah, the same Pope Benedict WHO LIFTED THOSE EXCOMMUNICATIONS EVEN THOUGHT THE SSPX HAD NOT CHANGED THEIR STANCE ON ANY ISSUE.
Pope Benedict was not only very intelligent, but also very clever. He had to find a way to make the square fit in the circle. The Novus Ordo wolves who surrounded him would NEVER allow him to reform the Church they way it needed, but he knew he had a responsibility to stop the demonization of the Mass that had formed the Catholic faith for centuries. Hence his creation of a "new" interpretation, to satisfy all parties: An "ordinary" and "extraordinary" form. Hence the idea of a "hermeneutic of continuity". Yet it's hard to find much continuity when 70% of the TLM is eliminated from the Novus Ordo. Maybe we should call it "the hermeneutic of 30 percent continuity".
In typcial HALF TRUTH MT FASHION, our resident papolator redacted two words that appear in the decree: LATAE SENTENTIAE
Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Pellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act, has incurred excommunication as envisaged by canon 1364, paragraph 1.
While I admit I am no canon lawyer, "Latae Sententiae" essentially means that the accused has excommunicated themselves automatically. Pope John Paul, in his wisdom was very careful NOT to declare the excommunication "FERENDAE SENTENTIAE" which means that HE would have imposed the excommunication. Essentially he said, "They've excommunicated themselves" and issued the decree while being VERY careful not to actually excommunicate Lefebvre and his followers himself. That begs the question why. There are many possible answers, and most of them point to the suggestion that maybe his sympathies were closer to Lefebvre than most might think, but Pope John Paul had to function with the wolves in his curia and the wolves below them...the same wolves that are enjoying their day in the sun as we debate this.
John Paul was no fool. He was not a canon lawyer either, but surely he and his closest advisors also knew that Canon law provides a "loophole" that Lefebvre certainly could have fit through: "A person who violates a law out of necessity is not subject to a penalty".
The legacy of the Novus Ordo Mass is disobedience. It begins with what Cardinal Ottaviani noted was that we are "bound forever" to the Council of Trent. It violate Quo Primum. It violates the Constitution on the Liturgy from Vatican II, Sacerosanctum Concilium. And its promulgators and most ardent supporters have generally ENCOURAGED the disobedience that incrementally gained acceptance like female altar "servers", Communion in the hand, excessive Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and more. YET THESE SAME PRACTITIONERS OF DISOBEDIENCE SUDDENLY BECOME THE MOST DOCTRINAIRE AND SLAVISHLY DEVOTED TO THE POPE'S UTTERANCES WHEN IT COMES TO VIRTUALLY ANYTHING THAT WOULD STOP THE TLM. It's rather like watching the Democrats who played footsie with the Soviet Union for decades suddenly finding a new patriotic distrust of all things Russian, if it can help cripple Donald Trump. In short, it's a very selective obedience, and the obsession with the excommunications--LIFTED BY THE SAME CARDINAL WHO VERBALLY TOWED THE PARTY LINE AND CONDEMNED THEM--and the need to remind us of those lifted excommunications is an empty gambit by pick-and-choose Catholics who hate the TLM.
PART TWO:
Canon 751 explains that schism is "the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him." If an otherwise good son disobeys his father in good faith on one occasion because he in convinced his father is wrong, he has not denied his father's authority or "left the family". If a military officer, bound by conscience (which Vatican II enthusiasts INSIST REIGNS SUPREME) disobeys one order from his commanding officer, he is not resigning from the army. He is disobeying one order. Archbishop Lefebvre NEVER denied the primacy and authority of the Holy See, nor have his followers. In order for the charge of "schism" to be valid, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is an ocean of reasonable doubt regarding the very selective and very suspicious charges of "schism" against Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers. Especially when party-line-towing Cardinal Ratzinger who at one point, cried, "schism!" ALSO said, "From my current point of view, I have to agree with Archbishop Lefebvre in retrospect about having his own bishops. Today after the experience of ’15 years of Ecclesia Dei,’ it is clear that such a work as that of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X cannot simply be handed over to the diocesan bishops." The same Ratzinger who also called Lefebvre "one of the most important bishops of the 20th Century."
Any charge of "schism" is on shaky ground, at best. Those who insist upon it with dogmatic certitude tend to be the same people who disregard the schismatic climate created by their beloved Novus Ordo and its endless novelties that have decimated the Church since 1969.
Jerome Merwick ,
Well done. Benedicite!
Point of logical clarification. Fr. K says that "correlation does not imply, let alone prove, causation." While he's correct on the first part - correlation does not imply causation - he makes a logical misstep in the second, as he seems to hold that implication is somehow less than proof.
If A implies B then A proves B (a classic proof technique from mathematics). This is because A implying B means whenever A is true B is true as well, so the existence of A shows the existence of (proves) B. Note that under implication, if A is false then we know nothing of B's truth value based on A.
In addition, if A doesn't imply B, then the truth value of A, either way, says nothing about B; absent any other information, the truth value of B is indeterminate.
And to complete things, the contrapositive in this case is true - causation implies (and thus proves) correlation.
Pedantically yours, Mike
Long before he had incurred excommunication for his having embraced schism, Archbishop Lefebvre had insisted on numerous occasions that he was not in communion with the Catholic Church.
During Pope Saint Paul VI's Pontificate, Archbishop Lefebvre declared that the Church governed by said Pope was not the Catholic Church. Said Church was the "Conciliar Church," according to Archbishop Lefebvre.
The "Conciliar Church" — the Holy Catholic Church — governed by Pope Saint Paul VI was a false "schismatic" Church, led by an apostate Pope (Pope Saint Paul VI), according to Archbishop Lefebvre.
Archbishop Lefebvre issued similar declarations about Pope Saint John Paul II.
Examples: Archbishop Lefebvre declared:
-- “That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been.”
-- “We refuse on the other hand, and have always refused, to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.”
-- It is a question of the radical incompatibility between the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church, the Mass of Paul VI being the symbol and the program of the Conciliar Church.”
-- “We believe that we can affirm, taking into consideration the internal and external critique on Vatican II...that the Council, turning its back on Tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, is a schismatic council."
-- “We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been."
-- "...the rite of Mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments...The priests coming out of the seminaries are bastard priests."
-- "The present acts of John Paul II and the national episcopates illustrates, year by year, this radical change in the conception of the Faith, the Church, the priesthood, the world, and salvation by grace.
-- "The rupture does not come from us, but from Paul VI and John Paul II who break with their predecessors."
-- "This denial of the whole past of the Church by these two popes and the bishops who imitate them is an inconceivable impiety for those who remain Catholic in fidelity to twenty centuries of the same Faith."
"Thus we consider as null everything inspired by this spirit of denial of the past: all the post-conciliar reforms, and all the acts of Rome accomplished in this impiety."
=========
In light of all of the above: It is clear as to why Archbishop Lefebvre scoffed at Pope Saint John Paul II's declaration that he (Archbishop Lefebvre) had committed the grave act of schism. Archbishop Lefebvre had made it clear years earlier that he had rejected communion with the Catholic Church.
On July 13, 1988 A.D., then-Cardinal Ratzinger confirmed that in regard to Archbishop Lefebvre: "The Catholic Church in union with the Pope is, according to him, the “Conciliar Church” which has broken with its own past."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
If I could live another 100 years, I would bet everything I own on the following:
1). Marcel Lefebvre will be recognized as a saint, or at least beatifed.
2). The Novus Ordo Mass will no longer exist, but there will be plenty of literature mockingly examining it as a curiosity of its troubled time.
3). Pope Francis will be regarded in the same vein as Rodrigo Borgia, and, very likely, declared an antipope.
You stick around--you'll see I'm right!
And by the way, I appreciate all the quotes from Lefebvre. Can anyone point out one that is actually wrong? I find them surprisingly accurate.
The horrific anti-Catholic declarations in question offered by Archbishop Lefebvre reveal the heart and mind of a man who had waged a spiritual war against God, as well as His Church.
Archbishop Lefebvre could have served Holy Mother Church in holy, productive fashion during the final years of his earthly life. Instead, he had mounted Satanic attacks against Popes Saint Paul VI, Saint John Paul II, then-Cardinal Ratzinger...
Archbishop Lefebvre today is a hero to many folks who attack the Council, Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI, as well as Vatican II Era holy Popes. He is held in high regard among certain folks here, and elsewhere, who wage war against the Council, Holy Mass, as well as Pope Francis.
Archbishop Lefebvre should have heeded the holy exhortations of Pope Saint John Paul II, as well then-Cardinal Ratzinger, to have submitted to Pope Saint John Paul II's God-given authority over the Church.
Instead, Archbishop Lefebvre had thrown in with schism, as well as excommunication.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
The "holy" Mass of Pope "Saint" Paul VI was coordinated and composed by a Freemason.
Enjoy your "legitimacy" while it lasts.
A certain person stated:
-- "There is an ocean of reasonable doubt regarding the very selective and very suspicious charges of "schism" against Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers."
(Preposterous. Who determined the above? Holy Mother Church ruled authoritatively that Archbishop Lefebvre had embraced schism.)
=======
-- Especially when party-line-towing Cardinal Ratzinger who at one point, cried, "schism!" ALSO said, "From my current point of view, I have to agree with Archbishop Lefebvre in retrospect about having his own bishops. Today after the experience of ’15 years of Ecclesia Dei,’ it is clear that such a work as that of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X cannot simply be handed over to the diocesan bishops."
"The same Ratzinger who also called Lefebvre "one of the most important bishops of the 20th Century."
======
LifeSiteNews:
-- As a cardinal, Pope Benedict reportedly called Marcel Lefebvre ‘the most important bishop of the 20th century’
Keyword: "Reportedly."
Fri Dec 3, 2021 - 2:43 pm EST
VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — In the summer of 2003, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, reportedly told two priests in a private audience that he considered Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the priestly Society of St. Pius X, to be “the most important bishop of the 20th century with regard to the universal Church.”
“From my current point of view, I have to agree with Archbishop Lefebvre in retrospect about having his own bishops. Today after the experience of ’15 years of Ecclesia Dei’, it is clear that such a work as that of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X cannot simply be handed over to the diocesan bishops.”
(Talk about a shaky report! Talk about a shaky source — LifeSiteNews. LifeSite is known for its forays into the unsavory world of fake news.)
Pax.
Mark Thomas
A certain person had "cut-and-pasted" the following supposed declaration from Cardinal Ratzinger:
"From my current point of view, I have to agree with Archbishop Lefebvre in retrospect about having his own bishops."
Even if he said that, what is earthshaking about that?
In 1988 A.D., long before that above-mentioned quote attributed to then-Cardinal Ratzinger, he agreed with Archbishop Lefebvre's request to ordain a bishop.
-- The Protocol Agreement of the Vatican and Archbishop Lefebvre
Signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on May 5, 1988.
"But, for practical and psychological reasons, the consecration of a bishop member of the society appears useful."
"This is why, in the context of the doctrinal and canonical solution of the reconciliation, we will suggest to the Holy Father that he name a bishop chosen in the society, proposed by Archbishop Lefebvre."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf:
Also, it is claimed that the SSPX has been in schism since 1988 because the illicit consecration of bishops by Archbp. Lefevbre was a “schismatic act” (cf. Ecclesia Dei adflicta 3). However, it takes more than “an act” to create a real schism.
It was obviously, manifestly, NOT Archbp. Lefevbre’s intention to set up a separate or rival Church, or to make himself or someone else an anti-Pope, or to create other aspects of a true schism. The SSPX priests quite openly have used the names of the Popes in the Roman Canon during Mass. They have recourse to diocesan tribunals in marriage and other matters. They follow the decrees of the Sacra Paenitentieria Apostolica in the matter of indulgences. They accept faculties for marriages etc. from local bishops. Recently, they communicated to their followers the dispensations and provisions given by local bishops in this time of Coronavirus lockdown. These are not the acts of schismatics.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider:
“Only a very narrow, legalistic view of the reality of the Church could lead one to believe the SSPX is schismatic and those who say that are putting the letter of the Canon Law above the importance, the primary importance of the fullness of the Catholic faith and of the traditional liturgy.”
– Cardinal Edward Cassidy*, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
“As far as your question is concerned, I would like to point out immediately that the Dicastery for ecumenism is not concerned with the Society of St Pius X. The situation of the members of that Society is an internal affair of the Catholic Church. The Society of St Pius X is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the sense that this Dicastery uses those terms. Certainly, the Mass and the sacraments administered by the priests of the Society of St Pius X are valid.”
Bishop Joseph Strickland:
“As Bishop Schneider has stated, the SSPX is not in schism. The SSPX continues to hold Tradition out for the Universal Church. The Eucharist of the SSPX is held as valid by the Catholic Church. We must turn to Jesus’ Eucharistic face.”
In “Moral Theology” a 1945 textbook, Father Heribert Jone, OFM Cap writes:
“A schismatic is someone who, as a matter of principle, does not want to be subject to the pope..., but someone who simply refuses to obey the pope is not schismatic, even if it is for a long time."
St. Augustine of Hippo:
“Often, too, divine providence permits even good men to be driven from the congregation of Christ by the turbulent seditions of carnal men. When for the sake of the peace of the Church they patiently endure that insult or injury, and attempt no novelties in the way of heresy or schism, they will teach men how God is to be served with a true disposition and with great and sincere charity. The intention of such men is to return when the tumult has subsided. But if that is not permitted because the storm continues or because a fiercer one might be stirred up by their return, they hold fast to their purpose to look to the good even of those responsible for the tumults and commotions that drove them out. They form no separate conventicles of their own, but defend to the death and assist by their testimony the faith which they know is preached in the Catholic Church.”
Mark Thomas Prefect for the Society of Smug Sanctimony
“It doesn’t matter that His Super, Super, Holier-Than-Any-Previous-Pope-Holiness Francis has expanded the faculties of the SSPX. They are in schism, because I don’t like them. The subject is closed!”
Admit M. Thomas,
You're just jealous because we can cut and paste better than you!
Pax
Jerome
Jerome Merwick said..."Mark Thomas Prefect for the Society of Smug Sanctimony
“It doesn’t matter that His Super, Super, Holier-Than-Any-Previous-Pope-Holiness Francis has expanded the faculties of the SSPX. They are in schism, because I don’t like them. The subject is closed!”
=======
Mister Merwick, I wish to inform you that not once in this thread...not once...have I declared that the Society of Saint Pius X is in schism. Not once.
Therefore, why have you insisted otherwise?
I repeated simply the Catholic Church's declaration that "Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."
The Church included Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, then-Bishop emeritus of Campos, in regard to the above-mentioned list.
I have not proceeded beyond that which Holy Mother Church declared in regard to the case in question.
Therefore, Mister Merwick, why bear false witness against me?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"... fewer than two weeks following Archbishop Lefebvre's fall into schism, had reiterated that Archbishop Lefebvre had embraced the grave sin of schism"
Maybe not the exact words, but pretty darned close. And you go on and on and on and on.
MT, you are a royal pain in the _ss. Father McDonald politely puts up with you. The rest of us groan as you cut and paste your way and utterly dominate every conversation here with your pabulum-puking papolatry and pretentions of piety, virtue-signaling your delusions of some gnostic understanding that all the rest of us have somehow missed about this horrid train wreck of a papacy. And you just hog the space here with multiple responses to your own self. While I have a certain level of compassion for mental illness, that doesn't mean we all have to tiptoe around so you can don't have to face your own delusional farce. Your angry response proves one thing: you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
Your indignation seems to indicate that I've struck a nerve. It's been my experience that people don't get mad when you lie about them. They get mad when you tell the truth about them.
You want to call me an insult-artist? Fine. I can own that.
You insult everyone's intelligence here on a daily basis. We're all sick of it.
Now go back to your holier-than-thou dicastery of dithering and polish your pope statuettes.
I'm finished with you. VERY finished.
Mister Merwick's nasty, embarrassing, little temper tantrum aimed at me demonstrates the validity of the saying...when somebody resorts to nastiness/name-calling, then it is clear that he, or she, has lost the argument.
Mister Merwick has lied throughout this thread as he claimed that I have labeled the SSPX "schismatic." Not once have I said that the SSPX is in schism. Mister Merwick, having been caught in his lie, does not possess the Catholic decency to acknowledge that he has borne false witness against me.
Oh, well.
Mister Merwick, despite your lie in question, as well as having spewed venom at me, I hope that you, as well as your family, enjoy many years of peace and good health.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas,
You've been schooled. Take it like a man.
Post a Comment