Who were the priests celebrating the TLM after the changes of Vatican II, (with the introduction of the Novus Ordo mass) were implemented? They were priests of the SSPX, established by Abp Lefebvre. In 1988, The FSSP was established by twelve priests and twenty seminarians, all of whom had formerly belonged to Abp Lefebvre's SSPX. If not for Abp Lefebvre and his SSPX, would there have been any priests celebrating the TLM after Vatican II? If all priests had already had full freedom to celebrate the TLM even after Vatican II, then there would not have been a need for Summorum Pontificum. And indeed, sadly, there is still resistance to Summorum Pontificum to this very day. +
An excerpt from an article on The Remnant Newspaper site: "Quite honestly, friends, our patience with this has run out. The Mystical Body of Christ is being scourged and crowned before our eyes, her human element in a state of emergency such as the world has never witnessed in the past -- and yet faithful Catholics are still fretting that Archbishop Lefebvre might have gone too far in resisting the Modernist infiltrators. They say the SSPX is not in full communion with the Vatican of Pope Francis, to which I say: And? Pope Francis is not in full communion with the vast majority of his own predecessors. What are we to do with that!? If some among us cannot in good conscience support the SSPX, fine. I get it. This is not a simple question. But let us at least acknowledge the downright Luciferian circumstances which created this division in the first place. Lefebvre's choice was simple: Novelty, or Tradition. He chose Tradition, and suffered every imaginable insult for his trouble. But ever since then, the Vatican he resisted to the face has been in doctrinal, liturgical and moral chaos. Black is white, white is black, and the shepherds have abandoned the flock. Lefebvre just might have been onto something. Don't you think? I don't know how God is going to fix this mess, but if the current ecclesial crisis doesn't rise to the level of a state of emergency in the Church then 'state of emergency in the Church' is a meaningless possibility for which the Code of Canon Law should never have made allowances in the first place. And where does all this leave us? In a sort of limbo, admittedly, but with enough confusion at the top to justifying our decision to say our prayers, find a good priest and let God sort it all out. In the meantime, we need to stay together. The traditionalist priestly orders have strategic differences, yes; but they are doing the best they can to save souls and to help us all find our way through this darkest hour in human history. Thank God for every last one of them! Given the betrayal of Christ by the human element of the Church since Vatican II, it is more than merely probable that History will absolve those Catholics who regarded Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre as the Athanasius of the Church in their time. He disrupted the entire Modernist Revolution in the Church, which is why his enemies were legion. They're still out there, in fact, trying to use obedience and the letter of the law to condemn him posthumously for having defended to the death the very dogmas, Traditions and spirit of the law which they themselves were only too eager to abandon. But, they tell us, Lefebvre was "disobedient"! Do you smell a rat? Me, too! Today among the spiritual sons of Archbishop Lefebvre should be counted all traditionalist priests—inside the SSPX and out—who follow his lead in standing strong for the Latin Mass, the traditional teachings of the Church, the rights of God, the Queenship of Mary and the Kingship of Christ." +
Using the NYTimes for such a "conversation"....hmmmm! Cardinal Burke: ‘I’m Called the Enemy of the Pope, Which I Am Not’ A conversation with Cardinal Raymond Burke. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/09/opinion/cardinal-burke-douthat.html
The Tridentine Mass was never abrogated, and the rubrics were available to priests who chose to celebrate it as time went on. It is unknown at this time what would have happened if Archbishop Lefebvre had not been disobedient. Only God knows how it would have worked out, and only God knows how AL was judged.
I believe that what he meant by 'expressions of the texts' are simply 'phrases used in the text', rather than 'the interpretation of the texts'. (Bearing in mind that English is not his native language). http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...t-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ts/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
Yes, and this was what Pope Benedict XVI said when he issued Summorum Pontificum, but he had to issue that Motu Proprio precisely because priests throughout the world had been prevented from celebrating the TLM after Vatican II; being told that it was no longer allowed. +
As I said, who knows how things might have turned out if Archbishop L had not been disobedient? Perhaps things would have turned around. This is the Catholic sticking point: two wrongs don’t make a right. Ever, in Catholic teaching.
Sg, It's fine, I was just explaining why I also thought those questions were addressed to me specifically and of course, they would be best addressed by a cardinal. I still have not emailed Cardinal Burke but I am going to explain to him what I see happening in regard to how all of this confusion is affecting some of the laity. I am not going to ask him your questions specifically though and as someone else here suggested you might want to try and email him again because things are continuing to move in the wrong direction, iow, since the last time that you contacted him I am sure that things have gotten worse. I think that we all have to be careful that we don't twist the facts at times, that comment was not meant for you alone. In addition, the facts aren't always clear and this causes issues also, of course. I appreciate you taking the time to quote Bishop Schneider from that video. Hind sight is 20/20, I think that is why he is stated what he did. I'm hope that the ambiguity at the time was a concern for some but who would have suspected that it would have led to pagan idolatry in the Vatican garden and in a church in Rome during the synod. I have said it before on the forum and I'll say it again, Pope Francis is twisting certain things that occurred during the council to implement the changes that he wants made in the Church. I agree with Bishop Schneider that any ambiguity in the council was not a good thing after seeing what has occurred but again who would have thought that we would see blasphemy against the first commandment and supported by the pope himself. PS - I felt I knew somehow that the pagan idolatry was going to happen at the Vatican, like a message that I received or something. DeGaulle, Thank you for this, you are truly a blessing to the forum. I may get tarred and feathered by some here for the following but I will take that chance and put this out anyway. I have often wondered if I my parents brought me up in another faith if I would have had the wherewithal to convert and I have also have given a lot of thought to the commandment "Honor your father and your mother" in this respect. For this reason, I am usually in awe of someone who made the decision to convert to Catholicism before the were really living on their own. I realize that some parents do not object to their children converting to another faith but I know that my parents would have gone through the roof, of this I am certain. Of course, as an adult conversion is a bit easier especially if a person's parents are no longer living but most people still consider their parents opinions throughout their lives even if they don't agree with them especially anyone who follows "Honor your father and your mother". In any case, I know Our Lord is loving and he offers every chance for our salvation and I absolutely believe that the Catholic church is the one true Faith given to us by God but I often have wondered if purgatory has the purpose of enabling people this chance at salvation that their earthly live did not. This, of course, does not mean that I agree with Pope Francis that God willed all religions - this is another example of how he twists things quite a bit in the wrong direction. It also does not mean that I would suggest that we should not evangelize others in the Faith.
Oh, I forgot to address this part of Steven O' Reilly's article. I simply do not and can not believe that Pope Benedict XVI is doing this because of error in his judgement. There is more to it, than we know. He has a brilliant mind, which is still every bit as sharp as it used to be, as we have been given proof of, for example, in his fairly recent letter addressing the clerical sex abuse. +
This may not be well received, but guess who probably had a very good idea what that ambiguity would lead to? From Archbishop Lefebvre’s 'Open Letter to Confused Catholics': On the Error of Religious Indifferentism “This Anti-Modernist Oath is no longer required before becoming a priest or a bishop. If it were, there would be even fewer ordinations than there are. In effect, the concept of faith has been falsified and many people without any wrong intention let themselves be influenced by modernism. That is why they are ready to believe that all religions save. If each man’s faith is according to his conscience—if it is conscience that produces faith—then there is no reason to believe that one faith saves any better than another, so long as the conscience is directed towards God.” +
Sg, He believes that God encouraged him to resign or at the very least, that God agreed with his decision. I believe this too. People with brilliant minds often make mistakes too, for instance, sometimes over thinking things can lead to errors. When I wrote the above post, I was reminded of something that I read that Pope Benedict XVI stated and that was that we should not evangelize the Jews. I think that I may have actually heard him state this in a video but I'm not sure. In any case, I think that his feeling may be that scripture appears to state that (in Ezekiel) that God will act and they will know their God (the Lord). This is from memory. Recently, I have heard other clergymen state that we should evangelize the Jews and I agree with this, even if we know that their conversion will require a divine intervention I don't think that we should stop evangelizing them.
In 1988, The FSSP was established by twelve priests and twenty seminarians, all of whom had formerly belonged to Abp Lefebvre's SSPX. Well said. Thank you for this SgC
I believe this. But I also believe that Pope Benedict XVI has, as he aged, gained wisdom and insight, and has changed his views on some important issues. That is why he made statements such as "I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part upon the collapse of the liturgy..", even though he has acknowledged/ admitted that he was a 'Progressive' during Vatican II council. +
Bolivian President Evo Morales resigns amid election protests Bolivian President Evo Morales has resigned after nearly 14 years in power, amid turmoil following his disputed re-election last month. November 10/11, 2019 | https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-50370013 *** There will probably be an NCR article soon on the following.
Ths That is wonderful. They became canonically recognized. I pray that the numbers of the FSSP increase.
It is still possible that he is referring to people selectively using phrases out of context-it is still not clear that he is actually criticising the original text.
I know of at least one priest in the DC area who celebrated the TLM in his home after the NO became the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Fr Joseph Gedra He was not SSPX. Please remember, no matter how we feel about the TLM, it is not the Ordinary Form of the Mass.
I don’t think I understand what you mean by saying this. Yes, TLM is the extra-ordinary form. But Summorum Pontificum gave all priests a right to celebrate it, because it was never abrogated. If only every priest would celebrate the TLM! But there is so much resistance up to this very day. This reminds me, that in the video we were discussing, Bp Schneider also spoke unfavourably of Holy Communion in the hand. He pointed out that Pope Paul VI did not do enough to prevent it. +
