Universae Ecclesiae released - full English text
(05-15-2011, 01:45 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: I don't want to derail this thread anymore, but I support what Vetus has said here. He is speaking wisely.

(05-15-2011, 01:45 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: That's because the documents need to be 100% on the spot.  If someone makes a cake with 5% poison, are you going to say "let's ignore the poison, the cake is delicious!"  No.  You're going to worry and fret about the poison.  And you probably won't eat the cake.  (That is, if the cake isn't a lie...)

I really believe Vetus has a very ardent desire to serve, honour and love the Lord. Obviously on various issues we'll have to agree to disagree. In his last reply to me he displays strong intellectual rigour and I'm clearly not convincing him of anything so he's rock-solid in his own convictions if nothing else.

Bottom line, I especially object to some of the heavy-handedness displayed on the forum at times.

The other issue for me is making every controversial issue into a litmus test, and I think what one forum member sees as 5% poison may not in fact be poison at all. I get the impression sometimes that certain members just plug their ears and scream "it's poison! it's poison!" If that's the attitude it makes me wonder why they're on FE in the first place knowing that a large percentage of members disagree with some of the harder-line stances.

Like if some of our more adamant fundamentalists believe that I'm a Liberal and others are modernists... and yet Quis tolerates us... why endanger yourselves by hanging out on FE? The tent of tradition, I think, is much larger than that. At any rate I think positions have really hardened because the SSPX has been "irregular" for so long and has been thus permitted to develop independently.

I love the SSPX... I would've wished that UE was the document regularizing them after they demonstrated their good will by showing up for the doctrinal talks. And otherwise it's not even much of an olive branch to tend to them. It mentions reconciliation but doesn't go a long way to reconciling anything.

(05-15-2011, 01:45 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
Bakuryokuso Wrote:In terms of my own "intellectual enslavement"... I mean, really. I brought a Jew to the TLM with me on Maundy Thursday this year. Oh look at me! I'm so intellectually enslaved that I'm actively working for the conversion of Jews! Boy are my priorities out of whack!
By doing that, I hope you know, that you are acting much more Catholic than the Pope.

Thanks for the "complement"... that's a common expression in French, "being more Catholic than the Pope" but it's always used in the sense that it's impossible to be more Catholic than the Pope  :)
Reply
Cetil Wrote:Joshua,
Your discussion of the possible sacrilege involved here is very disturbing and interesting. Have you discussed this with Father Z or any other clergy?
C.

No I have not. However, having been with the FSSP, I can tell you that it was a very divisive issue at one point. A certain Priest of the FSSP (rather high in its echelons) many years back was of the opinion that neither tonsure nor any of the Minor Orders (when performed today) confer the clerical state and are utterly devoid of any meaning or efficacy, other than an "external" continuity with "defunct" liturgical traditions. Well Bishop Bruskewitz thought otherwise and essentially took this Priest by the ear and said, "Look! ... See this? See these rites that I am performing? It says I [i]am making clerics. Period."[/i] (not in these words, obviously, but that's the gist of it.)

Objectively speaking, it's really quite simple. As long as a liturgical rite or ceremony has the full approbation of the Holy See, then anything the rite says it is doing is in fact actually happening. The reason that I hesitate to send over this query over to Father Z. (who is of the opinion of the aforementioned Priest) or someone in a similar position is that I don't want this to domino into disaster. A cursory examination of this issue will reveal that a very real problem exists here. The solution can go in one of three directions:

[i]1.)
The Holy See (PCED/SCR) issuing a clarifying statement that the use of the Minor Orders - as contained in the approved 1962 Pontificale Romanum - by canonically erected socities and institutes confers the clerical state upon the reception of tonsure. To those who do not make use of the Rites of Minor Orders, the clerical state is conferred upon reception of the Diaconate.

2.) To placate traditional societies, Rome devises a revised set of rites for Minor Orders that omits any reference to the conferral of the clerical state.

3.) Rome disallows the permission to make use of the rites of Minor Orders for any priestly institute of society. [/i]

Needless to say, the latter two would be horrific. However they are, unfortunately, the more likely outcomes of a full investigation into the matter, IMHO. This is really why, in this technological age, I don't want this issue to find its way to the desk of some influential wolf in prelatial attire via communication with Fr. Z or anyone similar. The only position that a Catholic can take on this issue at this moment in time, objectively speaking, is that the rites of Minor Orders, for as long as they enjoy the full approbation of the Holy See, do precisely what they unequivocally state: conferring the clerical state. To say otherwise would be blatant sacrilege.
Reply
(05-15-2011, 10:44 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: I love the SSPX... I would've wished that UE was the document regularizing them after they demonstrated their good will by showing up for the doctrinal talks. And otherwise it's not even much of an olive branch to tend to them. It mentions reconciliation but doesn't go a long way to reconciling anything.

The SSPX has been in this battle for 45+ years fighting against the very thing that the UE supports. They could care less if they are regularized under those terms or not.

Better they are not regularized than to be associated with the massive loss of faith that the EU supports - no?
Reply
I haven't read through some of the later pages of this thread, but, and I hate to have to say this, we need to keep watch over these sorts of statements.  We may (and should) place hope in them being a sign that the Church is taking the first baby steps toward coming back to tradition wholesale.  However, there are many in the Church who want to integrate the TLM and the NO so that the EF exists no longer.  And at this point, the latter appears much more likely than the former, for now.  We cannot always assume the worst of God's Church, even if it has been so trampled.  We know that the Holy Ghost will give it the grace to reject all evils and return to glory.  But we would be quite foolish to assume the absolute best of all our prelates in Rome during this time of crisis as well.  I'm not talking about judging individuals.  I'm talking about expecting Rome to suddenly look like it's 1890 or 1700 again (which I believe many of us would die for).
Reply
(05-16-2011, 08:02 AM)Walty Wrote: I haven't read through some of the later pages of this thread, but, and I hate to have to say this, we need to keep watch over these sorts of statements.  We may (and should) place hope in them being a sign that the Church is taking the first baby steps toward coming back to tradition wholesale.  However, there are many in the Church who want to integrate the TLM and the NO so that the EF exists no longer.  And at this point, the latter appears much more likely than the former, for now.  We cannot always assume the worst of God's Church, even if it has been so trampled.  We know that the Holy Ghost will give it the grace to reject all evils and return to glory.  But we would be quite foolish to assume the absolute best of all our prelates in Rome during this time of crisis as well.  I'm not talking about judging individuals.  I'm talking about expecting Rome to suddenly look like it's 1890 or 1700 again (which I believe many of us would die for).

Keep your hope properly placed. First thing to do is read what is written - lies and falsehoods = more of the same lies and falsehoods of the last 45 years = more double talk to add to the confusion = devious reason for "supposed change".

As darkness cannot exist when there is light - the TLM cannot exist when the rule is NO. In fact, if there is no better way to obliterate the TLM and the faith of it's lex orandi than to make it subject to the NO - which. the obliteration of the TLM and the faith of it's lex orandi always has been and remains the goal, based on this Universae Ecclesiae.

Pretty much with the stroke of the pope's pen, Rome could suddenly look like it's 1890 or 1700 again, instead, we get this Universae Ecclesiae - what else needs to be said?
Reply
(05-16-2011, 07:54 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(05-15-2011, 10:44 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: I love the SSPX... I would've wished that UE was the document regularizing them after they demonstrated their good will by showing up for the doctrinal talks. And otherwise it's not even much of an olive branch to tend to them. It mentions reconciliation but doesn't go a long way to reconciling anything.

The SSPX has been in this battle for 45+ years fighting against the very thing that the UE supports. They could care less if they are regularized under those terms or not.

Better they are not regularized than to be associated with the massive loss of faith that the EU supports - no?

Yeah the European Union is nothing but trouble ;) Seriously... depends on your definition of "associated" I suppose. I don't see an association between the FSSP and the NO, for instance.
Reply
(05-16-2011, 01:02 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 07:54 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(05-15-2011, 10:44 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: I love the SSPX... I would've wished that UE was the document regularizing them after they demonstrated their good will by showing up for the doctrinal talks. And otherwise it's not even much of an olive branch to tend to them. It mentions reconciliation but doesn't go a long way to reconciling anything.

The SSPX has been in this battle for 45+ years fighting against the very thing that the UE supports. They could care less if they are regularized under those terms or not.

Better they are not regularized than to be associated with the massive loss of faith that the EU supports - no?

Yeah the European Union is nothing but trouble ;) Seriously... depends on your definition of "associated" I suppose. I don't see an association between the FSSP and the NO, for instance.

The FSSP support the destruction of the true faith via their acceptance - or perhaps better stated, their tolerance of the NO.
Reply
(05-16-2011, 01:09 PM)Stubborn Wrote: The FSSP support the destruction of the true faith via their acceptance - or perhaps better stated, their tolerance of the NO.

Hi Stubborn – here’s where I’m coming from:

I attend a diocesan TLM that’s existed continuously since the mid-1970’s. It was just a regular parish where in the mid-70’s one priest convinced the other to stop saying the NO. So they said the TLM exclusively. The Canadian Bishops made the public celebration of the TLM illegal, but they persisted, argued Quo Primum to the Cardinal and all, but the parish priest still got kicked out of his presbytery, and just kept on saying the TLM in people’s living rooms. He traveled across Canada in the 1980’s, saying the TLM in multiple cities each Sunday. Plane-hopping from Toronto to Winnipeg to Alberta to Victoria by plane on a single Lord’s Day offering the Mass of All Time. Several of these communities are now SSPX chapels. He retired last year, he’s in an SSPX retirement home now.

The assistant priest still offers the diocesan TLM and an FSSP priest comes in once a month and on feasts usually. So we’ll likely become an FSSP chapel once the other diocesan priest retires. The assistant priest has literally never offered the NO in a parish situation, stretching back to his pre-1970 ordination. I’m relatively new to the TLM myself (January 2011) but many of the parishioners I speak with are very anti-NO, anti-Vatican II and yet love the Pope.

You can understand I’m rather skeptical about your FSSP claims. In the reality of the two diocesan priests – who were (as far as they know) the only priests in my diocese who publicly stuck with the TLM – there isn’t such a “rupture” as you see between the FSSP and the SSPX in terms of “defending the faith”. Most FSSP priests today hadn’t even been ordained in 1988, so they haven’t lived with the same bitterness over the excommunications. And the SSPX itself has hardened its positions because of its long-term “irregular status” in the church.

Bottom line, and this is what I’m seeing “on the ground” in my diocesan TLM, is that the battle for Tradition is being fought on more than one front, in more than one way.

Would you ever come to visit my parish and tell the FSSP priest to his face that he supports the destruction of the true faith? You have to remember that tradition is lived on a soul-by-soul basis. I understand you’re more of an SSPX guy and I’m an FSSP guy, but I wouldn’t dream of saying that the SSPX supports the destruction of the true faith because of reasons x, y, z.

So does the SSPX require, as a condition to its regularization, that the NO be abrogated beforehand? I’ve never seen that actually written anywhere in their materials but you seem to imply it. Thoughts?
Reply
(05-16-2011, 01:32 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 01:09 PM)Stubborn Wrote: The FSSP support the destruction of the true faith via their acceptance - or perhaps better stated, their tolerance of the NO.

Hi Stubborn – here’s where I’m coming from:

I attend a diocesan TLM that’s existed continuously since the mid-1970’s. It was just a regular parish where in the mid-70’s one priest convinced the other to stop saying the NO. So they said the TLM exclusively. The Canadian Bishops made the public celebration of the TLM illegal, but they persisted, argued Quo Primum to the Cardinal and all, but the parish priest still got kicked out of his presbytery, and just kept on saying the TLM in people’s living rooms. He traveled across Canada in the 1980’s, saying the TLM in multiple cities each Sunday. Plane-hopping from Toronto to Winnipeg to Alberta to Victoria by plane on a single Lord’s Day offering the Mass of All Time. Several of these communities are now SSPX chapels. He retired last year, he’s in an SSPX retirement home now.

The assistant priest still offers the diocesan TLM and an FSSP priest comes in once a month and on feasts usually. So we’ll likely become an FSSP chapel once the other diocesan priest retires. The assistant priest has literally never offered the NO in a parish situation, stretching back to his pre-1970 ordination. I’m relatively new to the TLM myself (January 2011) but many of the parishioners I speak with are very anti-NO, anti-Vatican II and yet love the Pope.

You can understand I’m rather skeptical about your FSSP claims. In the reality of the two diocesan priests – who were (as far as they know) the only priests in my diocese who publicly stuck with the TLM – there isn’t such a “rupture” as you see between the FSSP and the SSPX in terms of “defending the faith”. Most FSSP priests today hadn’t even been ordained in 1988, so they haven’t lived with the same bitterness over the excommunications. And the SSPX itself has hardened its positions because of its long-term “irregular status” in the church.

Bottom line, and this is what I’m seeing “on the ground” in my diocesan TLM, is that the battle for Tradition is being fought on more than one front, in more than one way.

Would you ever come to visit my parish and tell the FSSP priest to his face that he supports the destruction of the true faith? You have to remember that tradition is lived on a soul-by-soul basis. I understand you’re more of an SSPX guy and I’m an FSSP guy, but I wouldn’t dream of saying that the SSPX supports the destruction of the true faith because of reasons x, y, z.

So does the SSPX require, as a condition to its regularization, that the NO be abrogated beforehand? I’ve never seen that actually written anywhere in their materials but you seem to imply it. Thoughts?

Not to speak for him, but YES! The SSPX does in fact believe teh NO should be abrogated! That is why Archbishop Lefebvre had to disobey the Vatican to begin with! They wanted him to say the NO just once, to prove that both were equally acceptable and he wouldnt do it. Also, two months ago I emailed the vocations dept. at FSSP and asked them if I could be accepted into their seminary believing that the tridentine mass is superior to the NO. They told me flat out, via email, no I could not be accepted if I believe the tridentine is superior to the NO.
Reply
(05-16-2011, 02:08 PM)st.dominic_savio Wrote: Also, two months ago I emailed the vocations dept. at FSSP and asked them if I could be accepted into their seminary believing that the tridentine mass is superior to the NO. They told me flat out, via email, no I could not be accepted if I believe the tridentine is superior to the NO.

Well, it might depend on who you talk to then!
I know of at least 3 FSSP priests who believe the NO is nothing more then a mere "protestant celebration", and another priest (Administrator) told me in person flat out that the TLM was far more superior to that of the NO!!  So I hope you are not implying that the FSSP has the same stance on this issue!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)