Author Topic: April 15 Deadline - Benedicts Plan for the Society  (Read 1003 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline stevusmagnus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3728
  • Reputation: +824/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • h
April 15 Deadline - Benedicts Plan for the Society
« on: April 10, 2012, 05:14:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Good read. The article starts off with some basic background, but still makes some good points. Draws a great parallel between ABL's convo with Cardinal Ratzinger in '87 and points out how Rome is now following the exact same script on a larger scale, putting the pressure on with media spin.

    The meat is in the section "What Does Rome Want?" Exposes BXVI's plot to assimilate the Society and make the Trad Mass as we know it disappear! Chilling thought. April 15th may be for all the marbles...

    http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0415-dupuy-ides-of-april-sspx-rome.htm

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5309
    • Reputation: +4384/-1637
    • Gender: Male
    April 15 Deadline - Benedicts Plan for the Society
    « Reply #1 on: April 10, 2012, 08:04:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Not a bad summary of the situation.

    Had I written the article, I might have made a few more observations, such as:

    1) Neither Rome, nor Bishop Fellay, seems concerned with removing the unjust and invalid excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre which justice demands.  Apparently Luther can be rehabilitated, but for Archbishop Lefebvre, anathema sit!

    2) BXVI has basically wanted to direct the "reform of the reform" to arrive at the 1965 Missal (which is an abomination), but would have done so over a period of 10 years, gradually.  How is he any different than Cranmer, per Michael Davies' "Cranmer's Godly Order?"  Both are destroyers and deceivers.

    3) And finally the obvious: Any agreement without doctrinal unity is superficial.  We are of different religions laying claim to the title Catholic.  But once a deal is struck, what precedent can be cited by proponents of "reconciliation" that tradition without concession and compromise can be maintained.  Has a deal with the devil ever worked out for the better?
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    April 15 Deadline - Benedicts Plan for the Society
    « Reply #2 on: April 10, 2012, 08:21:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Seraphim, I agree. However, I believe that Bishop Fellay somehow thinks the decree lifted the excom on ABL! I read that somewhere.

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    April 15 Deadline - Benedicts Plan for the Society
    « Reply #3 on: April 10, 2012, 08:36:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0415-dupuy-ides-of-april-sspx-rome.htm

    Quote
    What Does Rome Want?

    Catholics on the right and on the left have often asked why this Pope wants the Society regularized to such a great degree. After all, most conciliar bishops were content with leaving the Society to their leper status “outside” the Church and to continue ignoring them as irrelevant, while pushing the Vatican II revolution forward.

    The narrative we hear in mainstream Catholic circles is that, although the Pope was more liberal in his Vatican II days, he has developed into a staunch conservative.  It is said that he wants the Traditional Mass back into the Church and hates liturgical abuses in the Novus Ordo. Therefore, the Society could help further these goals by spreading the Traditional Mass and acting as a conduit towards more rubrical orthodoxy in both forms of the Roman Rite.  Indeed there is evidence this is very true. However, isn’t it fair to ask if the Pope’s reasons in achieving these goals are the same as the Society’s? Is the Pope a traditionalist in the mold of Archbishop Lefebvre? Or could the Pontiff’s vision for the future of the Church be at odds with the Society’s vision?

    A clue to the answer might be found in the Pope’s vision for the Mass. On May 14, 2011 CNS News reported the following regarding statements of Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity:

    Pope Benedict XVI's easing of restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite, is just the first step in a "reform of the reform" in liturgy, the Vatican's top ecumenist said.

    The pope's long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a "common rite" that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms...10

    This statement came as a shock to many traditionalists. Why would the Pope want to combine the Traditional Mass into a new “hybrid Mass” with the Novus Ordo? Wasn’t one “New Mass” enough? A possible answer may be found in the candid words of Cardinal Ratzinger himself back in 1999.

     In September of 2010, “Fr. Matias Auge CMF, a veteran professor of liturgy in Rome, former consultant to the Congregation for Divine Worship and disciple of the reformers of the 1960's, published an exchange of letters that he had with then-Cardinal Ratzinger on the topic of the reform of the sacred liturgy.”11 In his February 18, 1999 letter to Fr. Auge, Cardinal Ratzinger states:

    …a considerable number of the Catholic faithful, especially those of French, English, and German nationality and language remain strongly attached to the old liturgy, and the Pope does not intend to repeat what happened in 1970 when the new liturgy was imposed in an extremely abrupt way, with a transition time of only six months, whereas the prestigious Liturgical Institute in Trier had rightly proposed a transition time of ten years (if I am not mistaken) for such an undertaking, one that touches in a vital way the heart of the Faith.

    Here two very important points are admitted. First, that the imposition of the Novus Ordo Mass on the Church touched, “in a vital way the heart of the Faith.” This confirms the traditionalist claim that the changes in the Mass did not represent a superficial or external change, as Paul VI tried to argue many times as the New Mass was first being implemented. Rather, these changes affect the Faith itself.

    The second admission is that the imposition of the Novus Ordo upon the faithful in a mere six months was a great mistake. Cardinal Ratzinger believed it should have taken at least ten years. Why? Cardinal Ratzinger knew that a fundamental change on the scale of introducing a new Mass must be gradually revealed to the faithful over a long period of time if they were to eventually accept it.  The New Mass being imposed practically all at once over six months was not enough time. This rapid implementation led to many leaving the Church and the formation of resistance groups such as the SSPX.  Presumably, if Paul VI had listened to the Liturgical Institute in Trier and slowly and methodically transitioned from the Traditional Mass to the New Mass over a period of ten years, Catholic faithful as a whole would have remained in the Church and would have gradually accepted the changes. As a side-effect, Rome would not have faced as great of a traditionalist resistance as it faces today.

    In the same letter, the Cardinal states, “The citation from Cardinal Newman means that the authority of the Church has never in its history abolished with a legal mandate an orthodox liturgy.” The Cardinal here re-asserts what he considers to be an egregious error on behalf of the reformers. In attempting to abolish the Traditional Mass by promulgating a new one, Paul VI had performed an unprecedented act that would not stand the test of time. The Cardinal knew, quite rightly, that to do such a thing might have the effect of imposing a new Rite by force, but this new Rite could never truly replace the Old one. Opponents to the suppression of the Traditional Mass could argue effectively that replacing an ancient Rite of the Church could never be legitimately done by a legislative fiat of the Pope. The Cardinal himself, in his 2007 Motu Proprio confirmed this by admitting the Traditional Mass was never abrogated.

    In the very next sentence of the letter, the Cardinal states a key point, “However, a liturgy that vanishes belongs to historical times, not the present.” When this statement is read in light of the statements by Cardinal Koch in 2011, they may together provide a clue as to what the Pope believes the original liturgical reform should have accomplished. We know the introduction of the Novus Ordo was meant by conciliar reformers to replace or abrogate the Traditional Mass. Yet, because the New Mass was imposed upon the people in such a short time frame, the Traditional Mass did not vanish, but instead survived underground as a distinctly different Mass than that of Paul VI.  The New Mass was never really accepted by a certain contingent of Catholics. This contingent then began to grow steadily over time, as further liturgical innovations of the Novus Ordo continued to pile up throughout the 1970’s and 80’s.

    To understand how a Mass can “vanish”, we must take a look at one that has. For example, the typical edition of the 1884 Roman Rite under Leo XIII has “vanished”. It is now consigned to its historical time in history, having been replaced with a later revision of the same Roman Rite. This revisionary process has been ongoing in the Roman Rite since the time of Pius V.  Popes since then have, from time to time, made very minor adjustments to the Rite. Each revision was not seen as a “New Mass” replacing the old. It was instead seen as a minor organically developed change not altering the character of the Mass in any way. Thus the Society uses the 1962 edition of the Roman Rite, yet it is recognized as the same “Roman Rite” as that of Pius V.

    This being the case, the most effective approach to make a Mass “vanish” would be to slowly and gradually, over the course of time, alter it through a series of small revisions. The least objectionable changes could presumably be offered first, and once those were digested, further changes could be offered. Thus, by this process the Traditional Mass we know today could conceivably be transformed, after many years, into a future Missal representing a more “conciliar” Faith.  It would, in a sense, be a simulation of natural organic liturgical development. It would mimic the gradual evolution of the Traditional Mass over centuries, except, this time, the process could be carefully orchestrated and guided towards the goals of Vatican II under more direct supervision of future popes.

    If we combine the Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter from 1999 with Cardinal Koch’s revealing the Pope’s goal of a hybrid Mass, we can come to the following conclusion: that although the Traditional Mass could not be successfully replaced at once by a “New Mass”, it can be slowly transformed into a different Mass over time. Thus, in the future, the Roman Missal of 1962 may very well “vanish” and belong to history as the Roman Missal of 1884 under Leo XIII has vanished.

    The aversion to the swift implementation of the Novus Ordo in 1970 may explain, in part, the current Pope’s intense dislike for liturgical novelties.  In the same letter the Cardinal states:

    …the difference between the Missal of 1962 and the Mass faithfully celebrated according to the Missal of Paul VI is much smaller than the difference between the various, so-called ”creative” applications of the Missal of Paul VI. In this situation, the presence of the earlier Missal may become a bulwark against the numerous alterations of the liturgy and thus act as a support of the authentic reform.

    Thus, the Cardinal is opposed to liturgical innovations of the Novus Ordo because they thwart the aims of the more gradual “authentic reform” over time. Liturgical innovations or “abuses” serve to continually present the faithful with a radical stark departure from even the Mass of Paul VI, much less the Traditional Mass. In other words, these innovators have been hurting the cause of the “authentic reform” (slow and gradual assimilation of changes) by instituting their novelties far too rapidly to be digested by the faithful.

    In order for the Cardinal’s “authentic reform” to work, these “abuses” must stop and the Mass of Paul VI must move closer to the Mass of Pius V. As Cardinal Koch revealed, the eventual goal of the Pope is to blend these two Masses into one hybrid Mass of the Roman Rite.  In Rome’s view, factions of the faithful have, in a sense, splintered off from the reform movement, like the Society. As long as the Society is outside of this process, they cannot be a part of the “authentic reform”. If the Society stays separated, they will continue to keep the Traditional Mass alive in its current form. Therefore, Rome would be back to the situation it faced in the 1970’s.

    To remedy this, the Society must be participating in the “authentic reform”. The reform could ostensibly take the least objectionable elements of the Mass of Paul VI and try to slowly assimilate them into the Traditional Mass. Once the envisioned “hybrid Mass” is accomplished, the reform would once again have one Mass of the Roman Rite to work with as it did before 1969. Future reforms to this “new” Missal could then be introduced very slowly and gradually over the course of years. By this method, at some point in the future, the Traditional Mass, as it was known in 1962 and said in 2012, will once and for all “vanish” and be confined forever to its proper “historical time”.

    Lest one think these ideas are purely theoretical, concrete steps to implement the “authentic reform” have already taken place. Less than one year after issuing the Motu Proprio freeing the Traditional Mass, the Pope altered the Good Friday prayer of the 1962 Missal.12  Then, on April 30, 2011, the Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei stated in an official instruction, “New saints and certain of the new prefaces can and ought to be inserted into the 1962 Missal, according to provisions which will be indicated subsequently.”13

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    April 15 Deadline - Benedicts Plan for the Society
    « Reply #4 on: April 10, 2012, 09:57:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Seraphim
    1) Neither Rome, nor Bishop Fellay, seems concerned with removing the unjust and invalid excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre which justice demands.  Apparently Luther can be rehabilitated, but for Archbishop Lefebvre, anathema sit!


    Seraphim,

    Below is the quote from BF I was speaking of. Not sure I agree 100% w/ Bishop Fellay here. They probably didn't mention ABL and BdCM because they are deceased and the penalty of excommunication doesn't apply to the deceased. It would be nice if they were meant to be included though.

    http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-1031-mccall-fellay.htm

    Quote
    At the Angelus conference, Bishop Fellay also drew our attention to a related indication found in the wording of the Vatican decree nullifying the decree of SSPX excommunication. The final paragraphs of this decree reads:

    On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on July 1988. At the same time I declare that, as of today's date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect. (Emp. added)

    Bishop Fellay pointed out what should have been obvious to us all.  Notwithstanding the fact that the first sentence mentions only four of the six bishops subject to the former decree, the final sentence clearly states that the former decree “no longer has juridical effect.”  That means the former decree ceases to legally exist.

    If the decree claiming Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer are excommunicated latae sententiae has no juridical effect, the declaration with respect to them has been withdrawn as well.  To avoid this obvious conclusion, the language needed merely to say “with respect to these four bishops only,” the former decree has no juridical effect; or “except as regards Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer” the former decree has no juridical effect.

    I must admit that I felt rather stupid for not having noticed at the time what was clearly but subtly accomplished by this clever wording. The declared excommunication latae sententiae against Archbishop Lefebvre and his trusted ally in 1988 was removed without mentioning either of them by name.  To do so would likely have elicited another episcopal rebellion.


    Offline Francisco

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1112
    • Reputation: +830/-12
    • Gender: Male
    April 15 Deadline - Benedicts Plan for the Society
    « Reply #5 on: April 11, 2012, 09:21:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Let nobody forget that right through the long duration of the talks with Rome, Bishop Bernard Fellay did not get any fact-finding/investigation done as to how Campos has fared, Tradition-wise, since it signed a deal with Rome. This is absolutely incredible! All one heard, now and again, few and far between mumbles from SSPX priests that things were not good at Campos, and the "reconciled" priests were not happy. If there is any truth at all in this, could it be that Bishop Fellay knows what is happening/has happened at Campos, but doesn't want to be negative?

    As a side issue I ask, with all those Rosary Crusade tally forms, could there not have been a small questionnaire inserted so that the laity could say yes or no to a deal with Rome?

    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5020
    • Reputation: +3826/-28
    • Gender: Male
    April 15 Deadline - Benedicts Plan for the Society
    « Reply #6 on: April 11, 2012, 11:03:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Its also noteworthy to point out, that whatever 'sacrifices' Rome has done up to this point, as read in the article, would not have been permitted if someone was not willing to accept such a sacrifice. That is, if BXVI has been "risking his reputation" this entire time, by whatever means, as a means to show his good faith to the Society this should be a red-flag indeed; it is reason enough to be cautious of regularizing with Rome.

    Would not true 'good faith' and a pope who would be worth reconciling with have done the Motu Propio, the lifting of the excommunications, etc. on his own? Let us remember, it is not the traditionalists who have left Tradition, but the other way around. Should not the the unity between Society and Rome be a natural phenomenon; And its the fault of the Society leadership for permitting the appearance of dialogue which would indicate that 'that' is what it was after; that ordinary jurisdiction was its objective.  

    If it can be proven that all the Society has wanted since its inception was to form priests in the traditional method, yet be able to continue living in a state of 'normality' with Rome, then there's nothing else to be said.

    But this is not the case. If it were, ABL would never have gone so far as to danger himself with what he know would be an 'excommunication'. He consecrated four bishops, knowing full well what the reaction from Rome would be; lets not forget, this is a man who worked closely with these people before all of this happened. He knew how they worked, and he'd had enough of of the trampling on the Faith.

    The point is, if he only wanted a traditional formation, with regularity with Rome being equally important, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. And it seems as if this is now the mentality of the superiors of the Society. That 'regularization' is what's most important, not the safety of the Priesthood and tradition from would-be destroyers, the modernists.

    ABL allowed himself to separate from NewRome for a reason. Has that reason truly disappeared?

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5309
    • Reputation: +4384/-1637
    • Gender: Male
    April 15 Deadline - Benedicts Plan for the Society
    « Reply #7 on: April 11, 2012, 08:20:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    Quote from: Seraphim
    1) Neither Rome, nor Bishop Fellay, seems concerned with removing the unjust and invalid excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre which justice demands.  Apparently Luther can be rehabilitated, but for Archbishop Lefebvre, anathema sit!


    Seraphim,

    Below is the quote from BF I was speaking of. Not sure I agree 100% w/ Bishop Fellay here. They probably didn't mention ABL and BdCM because they are deceased and the penalty of excommunication doesn't apply to the deceased. It would be nice if they were meant to be included though.

    http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-1031-mccall-fellay.htm

    Quote
    At the Angelus conference, Bishop Fellay also drew our attention to a related indication found in the wording of the Vatican decree nullifying the decree of SSPX excommunication. The final paragraphs of this decree reads:

    On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on July 1988. At the same time I declare that, as of today's date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect. (Emp. added)

    Bishop Fellay pointed out what should have been obvious to us all.  Notwithstanding the fact that the first sentence mentions only four of the six bishops subject to the former decree, the final sentence clearly states that the former decree “no longer has juridical effect.”  That means the former decree ceases to legally exist.

    If the decree claiming Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer are excommunicated latae sententiae has no juridical effect, the declaration with respect to them has been withdrawn as well.  To avoid this obvious conclusion, the language needed merely to say “with respect to these four bishops only,” the former decree has no juridical effect; or “except as regards Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer” the former decree has no juridical effect.

    I must admit that I felt rather stupid for not having noticed at the time what was clearly but subtly accomplished by this clever wording. The declared excommunication latae sententiae against Archbishop Lefebvre and his trusted ally in 1988 was removed without mentioning either of them by name.  To do so would likely have elicited another episcopal rebellion.


    Not sure I buy this wishful thinking:

    A declared censure applies to those explicitly named.

    Does it not also stand to reason that the declaration lifting the censure also explicitly mention those who are no longer indicted under it?
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16