Your Eminences, Your Excellencies,
Praised be Jesus Christ!
It has now been two weeks since the publication of the Pope's Moto Proprio, Traditionis Custodes. I understand that a number of you are assessing the document and will issue your complete response in the near future.
I write as a regular communicant at Masses (in various dioceses across Canada - Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver - over many years) in the ancient Rite of Rome, I can categorically state that the papal claim: "A final reason for my decision is this: ever more plain in the words and
attitudes of many is the close connection between the choice of
celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council
II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of
what is called the “true Church.” is absolutely and categorically NOT true.
Obviously there will always be exceptions. Crackpots exist in every group. But they are ABSOLUTELY NOT "many" as the Pope claims. In fact, a couple of years ago I engaged one such person who was attending a Mass in the ancient Roman Rite, yet expressed strange, unorthodox, and even protestant views. Rather than encourage this person in error, I strove to explain our Catholic Faith to this confused person.
The path forward, in Christian charity, is to always take erring brothers and sisters aside to guide them, accompany them into a full understanding of our Catholic Faith, and not, as the Pope has done, by punishing innocent, faithful, loyal Catholics. It is the duty of the local bishops, the parish priest, and the faithful to challenge their fellow Catholics if they fall into error. The papal sledgehammer for a very small problem that requires a surgeon's scalpel is a grave mistake, that takes on the air of being bizarre when one when one considers the complete lack of papal action on the very many and most serious abuses of the Missal of Paul VI.
There is also a biblical principle that is at stake: one cannot do evil to achieve a good: "...it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it". (Romans 3:8). Suppressing
the Mass of the ancient Roman Rite, a Mass that has been the centre of
Latin Christendom's sacred worship for nearly 2000 years under the pretext of
avoiding an "evil" is not a licit moral argument.
Though I take issue - strong issue - with the Pope's actions, never have I denied that he is the Pope. Indeed, as a Catholic, I also do not permit those who propagate the poison of breaking with the visible hierarchy on this blog. Why should I? Why should I mix Christ with Belial? I am aware of the horror of the early Fathers of schism, and the spirit of schism. It is true that only a bishop can engage in schism, but this does not preclude a member of the lay faithful for breaking with the Church in peccato. Those who wish to break with Holy Mother Church can - sadly - go elsewhere. I shall pray for them.
In conclusion, do not listen to those who wish to suppress the Mass. Likewise do not listen to those engaging in slander, detraction, and raising a cacophony of rage and hate. They too - like the Modernists and progressives - are doing the devil's work, who happily slices his "sausage" from both ends. Rather go out - to borrow a phrase from the Pope - to the peripheries and speak to the seriously normal men, women, and children who attend this ancient Mass every week. There you will not find hatred, rage, the spirit of schism. You will find faithful, loyal Catholics.
Be assured of my prayers,
In Jesus and Mary
This may provide clarity as to how we should move forward.
UPDATE: 2021-08-02 4:35 PM.
10 comments:
Pathetic.
Barona,
No bishop will read this. Put it in snail mail to each of them.
As for "those engaging in slander, detraction, and raising a cacophony of rage and hate," please name them. Are they bloggers? Social media commentators. Please tell us. Do not fall into the trap, which we have discussed, of Francis labeling those nasty "rigid" and "self-absorbed, Prometheun, neo-Pelagians."
As for "crackpots", I don't think that was necessary.
Barona,
“The papal sledgehammer for a very small problem that requires a surgeon's scalpel is a grave mistake.”
What is the “very small problem that requires a scalpel”, to which you refer?
“Those who wish to break with Holy Mother Church can - sadly - go elsewhere. I shall pray for them.”
Are you referring to those like the faithful Catholics that followed St. Athanasius out into the desert; those “who left the buildings but kept the faith”? He who when faced with people saying to him, “The world is against you, Athanasius!” St. Athanasius replied, ” Then I am against the world.” Those?
This is why the question of who is the Pope is not peripheral, but central. The “Pope” has ruled, and there is no going back from it. He wants the old out and the new in. That’s it. Done deal. The Church of this Pope has no room for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the Missal of Pope St. Pius V, or it’s 1962 revision. His Church is to be New Order. Period. The tightly controlled permissions granted are designed to quickly and methodically sniff out whatever TLM life remains from every corner of the world. It is just a matter of time. That is the will of the Pope, and we know this. This is to be a New Order Church, unified around this New™️ Liturgy. The “old” mass is “divisive” and apart from the new. The Doctrines are different and any permissions are by definition divisive at the doctrinal level.
Given that, what use is there of begging for permissions? Given that, why are you even broaching the subject? The Pope clearly wants unity around the New Mass.
I have an answer to that question, and it doesn’t involve “begging for permission”, either. I don’t necessarily understand how you can answer it. And as I mentioned in the other post you deleted, I don’t understand how you can fail to serve at both Masses, since that is so CLEARLY the will of the “Holy Father”.
In my opinion, there is a place for righteous anger. What makes anger “righteous”? When it is anger out of zeal for God and the Holy things of God, for Jesus Christ hanging on the Cross re-presented in all of His crowning glory. Righteous anger is when we see sacrilege committed against the holy things of God. When Jesus was angry - used the whip against the money changers … it was because His holy, sacred Temple was turned into a market. That was the only recorded expression of anger of our Lord … and it was a sight, because they all ran from Him. Lack of anger, under certain conditions, can itself be a sin.
Deleted????
Vox there are -sadly - crackpots. They are those people who are taking on themselves authority they do not have, seeking to counter schism with schism. They are creating great harm not only to Tradition, but but extension to the entire Church. Leaving the Church is not the answer to evil men seizing power of Her canonical and administrative structures.
Aqua my friend, what is "pathetic" or "erased"? You can comment anytime you wish. Indeed I welcome your input, but please ensure to adhere to the comment box guidelines, understanding you are a guest in our living room.
In no way was I "begging' the bishops. I was merely pointing out to them in a manner and style they might understand that Catholic Tradition is NOT the problem, and that if you carefully read my post you would notice that I accused the Pope of doing "evil". We do not want to provide ammunition for enemies of the Church, do we?
To conclude: what do we see from real churchmen like Lenga and Vigano? Have they left the Church, declared the See of Peter vacant? To the contrary, they push the Pope very hard to return to Catholic tradition. In other words, if there will be a bad break it will be from him and not them. You notice that the pope has NOT moved against them as they have - very cleverly - not fallen into the trap to declare the See of Peter vacant (which is what Francis and his agents want). The pope in declaring against the ancient Roman Rite is displaying a schismatic attitude. Read the Abbe de Nantes.
Ref, the deleted comment I really don’t care. I mention it in passing. I only noticed because I love free and open debate, and would love to hear the other side. So … I was watching for a response from anyone to my comment. And then it disappeared. Again, I don’t care, either way. I mention it in my post above in passing, that is all.
FYI - the See of Peter (Bishopric of Rome; the active ministry that was resigned) is not vacant. It is occupied by Jorge Bergoglio. Also, the Sede (the Seat, Throne, of Peter; the Office, Munus of Pope that was NOT resigned - quantifiably not resigned if you read the text) is also not Vacante. It is occupied by Pope Benedict XVI. He resigned active ministry due to declining health. He “remains firmly and forever, safely within the enclosure of St. Peter”. And since only one man can be within that “enclosure” at a time, that makes Benedict XVI - still (miraculously, IMO, at this age) reigning Pope.
My point to you is that there is no possible way that you will continue to be able to assist at a Traditional Latin Mass in the short to long terrm
(depending on location). It is going to be steadily, inexorably forcefully, universally cancelled. That is the will of the “Pope”. And once again - as Catholics, if he is the Pope then we have a duty to submit to his leadership to the fullest extent theologically, dogmatically possible. He WANTS to unify around the New™️Mass. “Old” Mass is divisive. Why continue down that path of disunity against the will of the “Pope”?
That leads me to my main point of contention against the FSSP, which split from the SSPX Order over this precise issue: Vatican II, all its subsequent Constitutions and its New™️Mass Liturgy must be accepted down to every letter and punctuation mark as dogmatic. I am of the opinion of Arbp LeFebvre that some of it is heretical; most of the rest is neutral at best and primarily weak and problematic. Its Mass (New™️) is barely licit and usually heretical, as said by most Priests - open by design to outright abuse and abominations. WHY do they accept this? They say they do. Ok, then why don’t they say the New™️Mass? If they accept it, why is the Traditionis Custodes even problematic? Switch!
My point is to bring into alignment what most “Trads” profess with reality. If it’s licit and dogmatically sound, and Bergóglio is Pope, then follow that path wherever it leads - primarily, do what the Pope is now insistent we all do and give up the old that is source of disunity and confusion.
But …. If not - then take a stand with the eternal RCC of eternity that can never change because She is already perfect since she was given to us by God.
Barona,
I posted the original comment where it was before, July 26, “The Laity Is Not To Blame For Traditionis Custodes”. I put it there for reference only, since you obviously didn’t see it.
I try to be a good guest. This is your blog, your rules - all comments are at your sole discretion. If you, or any other blog I find interesting, decides my comments are inappropriate or undesired (it happens), I just move along.
I am certainly not leaving the Church. The occupant of the Seat of Peter has, however, separated himself from me on more than one occasion. I believe all that the Catholic Church in time has taught, not changes and whims that create a "holy spirit" that is suffering mental illness.
I will not accept the false church they are forcing down my throat.
That is not schismatic.
They, are schismatic.
Aqua, I am aware that the laity are not the problem. My argument to the bishops was a very modest one, also designed in a manner that they would understand. My point simply is this: out of all the millions of traditional Catholics there are no doubt a handful who are, let us say a bit "cranky". I too have been cranky over the years. My point is simple: the local bishop with the parish priests deals with individual persons. The point I was trying to stress to the bishops )as they soon will be deciding on how to "apply" the moto) the Pope's pretext is false, a chimera. hence, it is immoral. We already know that even a number of "liberal" bishops around the world see this. Hence, my modest post to "liberal" bishops to at least not persecute millions of innocent Catholics.
Vox, I completely agree with you. The schismatic attitude and the "bad break" comes from those in the hierarchy who are breaking with Catholic doctrine; as is manifested by this attempt to suppress the ancient Roman Rite of Mass. I think we need to stress the point of schism much more in this action by Francis. It is very interesting that his strongest critics: + Vigano of Italy and + Lenga of Poland have not been "excommunicated" or even "suspended" I think for two reasons: 1) the Pope fears them; and 2) he cannot find any canonical grounds to act, since they are not the ones who have broken unity; nor broken with Francis' predecessors. They are merely doing what Catholics have always done. In this sense Francis is trapped. If he "excommunicates" or "suspends" them, it is an admission of guilt.
Post a Comment