The Crisis is so sad.

[Paul]

 

Note I said service, not Mass. It does not look like a Mass, it does not preach like a Mass, and the presbyter does not act like a Mass-priest, in most cases. The changes are, whatever one might say about their validity/licitness, virtually identical to the changes effected in the Mass by Luther and Cranmer when they apostatized and protestantized the liturgy in the areas under their control and influence.

 

If there is even a whiff of heterodoxy in the air, we are dispensed from any obligation to participate, given the very real danger to our souls and the souls of our dependents.

 

A "whiff of heterodoxy" dispenses us from the Sunday Mass obligation? Certainly if all that's available is a Mass where the priest dresses as a clown and the servers dance around the altar, we stay home. But in most places, there's some degree of reverence, at least during the consecration, and, regardless of whether we like the Novus Ordo Missae or not, it was approved by Rome in a way that the liturgies of Luther and Cranmer were not.

 

I don't have the SSPX near me, but if I did, I'd probably be attending their Mass since the local bishops refuse to grant an indult. But I do see an attitude among many here that if it comes out of Rome these days, it's to be ignored and disdained, and a refusal to consider that perhaps Vatican II, while intentionally ambiguous, can be interpreted in an orthodox manner, the novel interpretations having been ignored.

 

Again, don't concern yourself with legalities, concern yourself with keeping the faith. Are you going to keep your faith and become a saint at the SSPX, where the true faith is preached, all sacraments given, without qualms, in the old rite? Can you keep the faith at a sede chapel where the legitimate status of the Holy Father is (quite understandably) questioned? You can fulfill your duties to God and the faith at any of these, but of course there is one "correct" position. I believe that that position is the SSPX, but what I think is irrelevant, because the obligation to do the research and save your soul as an informed Catholic is principally yours, not mine.

 

Part of keeping the faith is obedience and submission to the Church and to her bishops and priests. That doesn't mean, of course, that every word out the Pope's mouth (or from his pen) is automatically infallible, but that we shouldn't treat him as a heretic until a later Pope declares him to be one. I don't think doing so is keeping the faith, even if we still believe everything the Church has always taught and use the same sacramental rites. Whether they're subjectively schismatic is for God to determine; objectively, the Catholic Church is visible.

[Vincentius]

But--and this is the $64,000 question--where has the Church taught something officially and formally that stands in contradiction of a previous teaching? I think it safe to say, given Christ's promise of Matt 16:18-19, that we simply cannot establish such a thing.

So, with that excessively long preamble, we come to my question, which it seems has already been answered: Has the Conciliar Church taught something officially, formally ("We hereby declare, decree, and define...") that contradicts the Truth of the Faith?

Not personally sinful actions, not meeting with Satanic priests and praying with them, which is objectively wrong, regardless of neo-Catholic spin, but something objectively false, in black and white, declared by the pope as of the Faith and to be believed by all?

Very simply to reply to the above: 

 

The document "Reflections on Covenant and Mission," states in no uncertain terms that “...campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.”

 

Matthew 18: 19 "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

 

20 "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ... "

 

I'm not sure that the Jews are exempted from Christ's command to convert all nations and to baptize so they can be heirs to the kingdom.

 

Doesn't the above quote from the document "Reflections" tacitly imply "We hereby declare, decree, and define..." without actually using the formula that declares a doctrine or teaching of the Church to be accepted by all the faithful.  Roma locuta..."Jews are not to be converted to the Catholic faith"...et causa finita est.

[lumengentleman]

Very simply to reply to the above:   

 

The document "Reflections on Covenant and Mission," states in no uncertain terms that ...

 

Very simple reply to this reply: the document in question was published by a sub-committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; it was not even "officially" published by the Conference itself, much less by a Vatican Congregation, much less as an infallible teaching of the Church (which is what MikeO was asking for).

[lumengentleman]

This is verses the idea that novelties can be introduced and the faith can be expressed in a new way, which was Blessed Pope John's intent.

 

A quote from Leo XIII.  First he identifies the error:

 

The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions ...

 

Then he gives the response:

 

The rule of life laid down for Catholics is not of such a nature that it cannot accommodate itself to the exigencies of various times and places ... But in regard to ways of living she has been accustomed to so yield that, the divine principle of morals being kept intact, she has never neglected to accommodate herself to the character and genius of the nations which she embraces. Who can doubt that she will act in this same spirit again if the salvation of souls requires it? In this matter the Church must be the judge, not private men who are often deceived by the appearance of right. (Testem Benevolentiae) 

 

In other words, the Church most certainly can accommodate herself to "the exigencies of various times and places," if She decides that this is necessary, but that decision lies with the Church, and not with private individuals; at Vatican II, it was certainly the Church who made this decision, and not private individuals.  There is nothing here in this concept that is in conflict with the Church's teaching.

 

Again there was no need for a "renewal" or a "new mass", and there was no need for a "new" evangelization.

 

What Leo XIII says above is applicable here as well, only, in reverse; if it is not up to private individuals to decide when the Church must accommodate herself to the "exigencies of various times and places," then it is also not up to private individuals (like you, like me) to decide when the Church must not do so.  The Church clearly felt that there was a need for "renewal"; it is not our place to contradict that decision.  We can certainly say (as Cardinal Ratzinger has repeatedly said) that the results of the reforms have not been positive, but that is different from saying that the Church was in error to even want to attempt a reform.

 

[fiatvoluntastua]

I don't have the SSPX near me, but if I did, I'd probably be attending their Mass since the local bishops refuse to grant an indult. But I do see an attitude among many here that if it comes out of Rome these days, it's to be ignored and disdained, and a refusal to consider that perhaps Vatican II, while intentionally ambiguous, can be interpreted in an orthodox manner, the novel interpretations having been ignored.

 

That might be true if we didn't have the Pope that wrote more then any other Pope giving an unorthodox explanation to VII. He certainly did not intend VII to be interpreted in the light of Tradition.  VII has some troubling spots, but it is a grain of sand compared to JPII's encyclicals and actions.  Leaving out the teachings of Paul VI and Benedict XVI (which also are important, of course, to understand VII), JPII alone makes it impossible to interpret VII in  light of tradition.

[DominusTecum]

 

A "whiff of heterodoxy" dispenses us from the Sunday Mass obligation? Certainly if all that's available is a Mass where the priest dresses as a clown and the servers dance around the altar, we stay home. But in most places, there's some degree of reverence, at least during the consecration, and, regardless of whether we like the Novus Ordo Missae or not, it was approved by Rome in a way that the liturgies of Luther and Cranmer were not.

 

I don't have the SSPX near me, but if I did, I'd probably be attending their Mass since the local bishops refuse to grant an indult. But I do see an attitude among many here that if it comes out of Rome these days, it's to be ignored and disdained, and a refusal to consider that perhaps Vatican II, while intentionally ambiguous, can be interpreted in an orthodox manner, the novel interpretations having been ignored.

 

Very true, Rome did approve the Novus Ordo. That aside, what Rome approved was a Novus Ordo Missae that was in Latin, ad orientam, and which followed the rubrics and was presumed to be a reverent, orthodox service. The pope did not directly promulgate the ICEL translations, or tell the faithful that they must under pain of sin attend a service that savors of heterodoxy.

 

Let us say that there was no official condemnation from Rome yet, it was, oh, 1520. The Mass is theoretically the TLM, but the local priests are infested with the Lutheran heresy, and they're arbitrarily changing a few rubrics here and there, but it's still pretty reverent. (As Lutheran services are today, I promise you that the LCMS "church" is more reverent than the local NO.) However, as said, a few rubrics are changed here and there, and the sermon has questionable things in it. Now, this is a danger to souls, because the people through these bad sermons are being fed stones instead of bread. Do they then have an obligation to attend this tainted Mass?

 

 

 

Part of keeping the faith is obedience and submission to the Church and to her bishops and priests. That doesn't mean, of course, that every word out the Pope's mouth (or from his pen) is automatically infallible, but that we shouldn't treat him as a heretic until a later Pope declares him to be one. I don't think doing so is keeping the faith, even if we still believe everything the Church has always taught and use the same sacramental rites. Whether they're subjectively schismatic is for God to determine; objectively, the Catholic Church is visible.

Very true, Paul. We are holy and obedient. We are to submit whenever it is not against the faith to do so, because the bishops and priests are our legitimate superiors. You've got an admiral, and he's given orders telling you to sail to Malta from Rome. Now, you and your compatriots, are just junior officers and crew, but your captain has other ideas, and tells you to sail to Majorca. Your obligation clearly lies with the Admiral, because He is a higher superior than the rebellious captain. In fact, you're under an obligation to resist the thieving captain, and if you don't, when the admiral comes with the rest of the fleet, and finds that you didn't do all in your power to resist the captain, he's not going to be pleased.

 

We should not declare the pope a heretic, as it is not our place to do so. We can objectively condemn his actions, if it is warranted. (Assisi, for example, or Koran-kissing, or the Balamand agreement, or any number of other things.) However, we should always attempt to give the benefit of the doubt, where this is possible.

[lumengentleman]

But the Code of Canon Law actually exonerates Lefebvre.  It states that no one is validly excommunicated who acts out of necessity or grave inconvenience ... If Msgr. Lefebvre was wrong, Canon Law is still on his side ... Even if there was no 'diabolic dissention', no state of emergency in the Church, then Lefebvre is still innocent, as he honestly thought there was.

 

There is nothing more oxymoronic than a Catholic who professes to be interested in preserving Tradition, but then doesn't flinch while summarily dismissing an authoritative decision of the Holy See.

 

First of all, consecrating a bishop without papal permission is a sacrilege.

 

it has been clearly and expressly laid down in the canons that it pertains to the one Apostolic See to judge whether a person is fit for the dignity and burden of the episcopacy, and that complete freedom in the nomination of bishops is the right of the Roman Pontiff.

 

...

 

Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious. (Ad Apostolorum Principis, 38, 41)

 

Second, the interpretation of Canon Law is not the private plaything of individuals, ordained or otherwise.  Canon 16 states:

 

The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting. (Canon 16)

 

 

Further, Canon 331 says:

 

The bishop of the Roman Church ... is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely. (Canon 331)

 

Thus, the Pope is the supreme legislator, and the supremely authentic interpreter of Canon Law.

 

In matters of dispute or doubt, recourse is to be had to the "mind of the legislator," i.e., the Pope:

 

Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator. (Canon 17)

 

Did Lefebvre know the "mind of the legislator"?  He most certainly did, because he received canonical warning weeks before the consecrations:

 

Since on June 15th, 1988 you stated that you intended to ordain four priests to the episcopate without having obtained the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff as required by canon 1013 of the Code of Canon Law, I myself convey to you this public canonical warning, confirming that if you should carry out your intention as stated above, you yourself and also the bishops ordained by you shall incur ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in accordance with canon 1382 (Cardinal Gantin, Congregation of Bishops, Monitum to Marcel Lefebvre, June 17, 1988)

 

It doesn't matter what Lefebvre thought about his own personal situation, whether he deemed the consecrations necessary or not.  Canon Law is not left open to such subjective relativism; Canon 1323 does not even apply here, because Lefebvre was not in doubt concerning the Pope's authentic interpretation of Canon Law on the issue.  He had been specifically warned, and thus acted with full knowledge.

 

And yes, the qualification does apply:

 

... a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls. (Canon 1323.4)

 

The act of consecrating a bishop without papal permission is, per Pius XII's declaration, a criminal and sacrilegious act - i.e., instrinsically evil.  It infringes upon the inviolable rights of the Roman Pontiff.

 

My hypothesis is: When Rome loses the Faith completely, I think that Ecône will become the seat of the True Church.

 

It sounds like you already hold this to be the case.  When the Supreme Pontiff rules that Lefebvre is excommunicated, and you just toss that out the window and maintain the contrary, you betray the fact that you already grant more jurisdictional authority to the SSPX than to the Pope himself.

 

Might as well just make the claim now: Econe is the True Church, and Rome has apostatized.

[Vincentius]

Very simply to reply to the above:   

 

The document "Reflections on Covenant and Mission," states in no uncertain terms that ...

 

Very simple reply to this reply: the document in question was published by a sub-committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; it was not even "officially" published by the Conference itself, much less by a Vatican Congregation, much less as an infallible teaching of the Church (which is what MikeO was asking for).

I'll admit -- that was a gargantuan hyperbole, tongue-in-cheek riposte that I thought would find nary an objection from the posters. 

 

Though a private theological opinion of a few bishops (not thoroughly sane in the cabeza), it did endeavor to speak for the Catholic Church (with the hope  it'd somehow get away with it), but it caused a huge scandal.  What did Rome do?  I don't remember the CDF refuting the heresy (I don't know what else to call this "crime") and chastising the recalcitrants, for that definitely was what comprised much of the USCCB.  It would appear that they are the true schismatics.  Fortunately it was withdrawn from the USCCB website (was it at former Cdl Ratzinger's direction?).

 

The trouble was that not a few websites of liberal Catholics carrried the Reflections as if it was official Church teaching.  Happily, one progressive prelate (Dulles), called Reflections "flawed."

 

But the damage was done.

 

[lumengentleman]

Take a look at a REAL excommunication:

http://www.chantcd.com/real_excomm.htm

 

Note the totally different tone, attitude, and language by JPII in 1988:

http://www.chantcd.com/ecclesia_dei.htm

 

 

Matthew, we've already been down this road before, but since you're apparently going to continue to advance these kinds of arguments, I guess I'm going to have to repeat myself as well.

 

The first example you give is an example of ferendae sententiae excommunication, and the latter is an example of latae sententiae excommunication; both are valid forms, and one is not of lesser weight than another.  Both result in the same penalty: separation from the Church.

 

Generally, a penalty is ferendae sententiae, so that it does not bind the guilty party until after it has been imposed; if the law or precept expressly establishes it, however, a penalty is latae sententiae, so that it is incurred ipso facto when the delict is committed. (Canon 1314)

 

John Paul II did not need to excommunicate Lefebvre the way Leo X had to do with Luther; Luther's excommunication was not in force until it was declared, but Lefebvre's excommunication was in force from the moment he committed the act.  All that the Pope needed to do in Lefebvre's case was to notify the public that Lefebvre had excommunicated himself.  And that's precisely what he did.

 

The excommunication was subsequently declared formally by Cardinal Gantin:

 

Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Archbishop Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See. (Congregation of Bishops, Decree of Excommunication, July 1, 1988)

 

I think any objective reader will have to admit that the language used here is as formal as it is in any other decree of excommunication.

 

Actually, the pope didn't excommunicate anyone in 1988.

 

Nope.  He didn't need to.  Lefebvre and his four bishops did it to themselves.

 

He truly believed that he was doing something necessary for souls and the Church herself. He would never have split from the Catholic Church.

 

Martin Luther said the same thing:

 

It may be well to recall that Luther, before he formally separated himself from obedience to Rome, and when he seemed to abhor such a course, declared, 'I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity.'" (Fr. Patrick O'Hare, The Facts About Luther [TAN Books, 1987], p. 356)

 

Thankfully, that's the not how the Church works.  She doesn't say "Oh, well, you know, you seem like you really have the best of intentions here, and you obviously don't want to create schism, so you just go right ahead and continue your course of action."  She considers, She analyzes, She renders judgment, and that judgment is binding.

 

Ever wonder what someone like Pius IX would think of Lefebvre's situation?  You don't need to wonder.  You can read it right here:

 

[The neo-schismatics] argue that the sentence of schism and excommunication pronounced against them by the Archbishop of Tyana, the Apostolic Delegate in Constantinople, was unjust, and consequently void of strength and influence. They have claimed also that they are unable to accept the sentence because the faithful might desert to the heretics if deprived of their ministration. These novel arguments were wholly unknown and unheard of by the ancient Fathers of the Church. For "the whole Church throughout the world knows that the See of the blessed Apostle Peter has the right of loosing again what any pontiffs have bound, since this See possesses the right of judging the whole Church, and no one may judge its judgment." The Jansenist heretics dared to teach such doctrines as that an excommunication pronounced by a lawful prelate could be ignored on a pretext of injustice. Each person should perform, as they said, his own particular duty despite an excommunication. Our predecessor of happy memory Clement XI in his constitution Unigenitus against the errors of Quesnell forbade and condemned statements of this kind. These statements were scarcely in any way different from some of John Wyclif's which had previously been condemned by the Council of Constance and Martin V. Through human weakness a person could be unjustly punished with censure by his prelate. But it is still necessary, as Our predecessor St. Gregory the Great warned, "for a bishop's subordinates to fear even an unjust condemnation and not to blame the judgment of the bishop rashly in case the fault which did not exist, since the condemnation was unjust, develops out of the pride of heated reproof." But if one should be afraid even of an unjust condemnation by one's bishop, what must be said of those men who have been condemned for rebelling against their bishop and this Apostolic See and tearing to pieces as they are now doing by a new schism the seamless garment of Christ, which is the Church? (Quartus Supra, 10)

 

Once again, the irony emerges of a professed defender of Tradition who actually contradicts Tradition in his attempted defense of the same.

[CampeadorShin]

Canon law defends the Archbishop's actions as necessary, therefore, he DID NOT excommunicate himself!

"When the Supreme Pontiff                  pronounces a sentence of excommunication which is unjust or null,                  it must not be accepted without, however, straying from the respect                  due to the Holy See."-St. Bellarmine