One Catholic Writer's Take On Kate Kelly

[3DOP]

My quote, "Who am it to judge?" was a reference to Pope Francis' now famous reply when asked about the restriction against ordination of avowed homosexuals as Catholic priests. There is a T-shirt with his face on it and the words "Who am I to judge?", being worn by people who despise the Catholic Church and even the recent predecessors of Pope Francis. I approve of 95% of the 260-plus popes of the Catholic Church, but I have never worn clothes with a pope's picture. It is my opinion that the people who hate the Catholic Church, but who applaud this pope to the point of wearing clothes with his picture on it, have correctly identified what he meant by disavowing any place for him to make a judgment regarding behaviors that the Church has always identified as disordered or sinful. This shirt seems to me to be popular with people who disapprove of all of the 260-plus popes, with one exception, the recent winner of Time Magazine's Person of the Year. 

 

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/03/who-am-i-to-judge-pope-francis-t-shirt.html

Edited August 25, 2014 by 3DOP

[Hamba Tuhan]

... the recent winner of Time Magazine's Person of the Year. 

 

'If ye were of the world, the world would love his own'.

[Bart Burk]

The Catholic comments on the thread mirrored your own, Rory. I was surprised at how strongly some of those comments were worded, by Catholics, condemning the way things currently are.

The Catholics aren't condemning the teaching of the Church.  They are impatient with other Catholics who don't get it or openly defy it like Nancy Pelosi.  The Mormons have Harry Reid defying them on same sex marriage.  I don't think anyone really wants to see a purging of all of the Catholics who don't measure up.  We'd all be out.  The wheat and tares grow together.

[Rain]

I do not have much knowledge of pope Francis. What is he doing that traditionalists don't agree?

[Bart Burk]

My quote, "Who am it to judge?" was a reference to Pope Francis' now famous reply when asked about the restriction against ordination of avowed homosexuals as Catholic priests. There is a T-shirt with his face on it and the words "Who am I to judge?", being worn by people who despise the Catholic Church and even the recent predecessors of Pope Francis. I approve of 95% of the 260-plus popes of the Catholic Church, but I have never worn clothes with a pope's picture. It is my opinion that the people who hate the Catholic Church, but who applaud this pope to the point of wearing clothes with his picture on it, have correctly identified what he meant by disavowing any place for him to make a judgment regarding behaviors that the Church has always identified as disordered or sinful. This shirt seems to me to be popular with people who disapprove of all of the 260-plus popes, with one exception, the recent winner of Time Magazine's Person of the Year. 

 

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/03/who-am-i-to-judge-pope-francis-t-shirt.html

As with all Popes, Pope Francis isn't forever.  He hasn't changed the teaching of the church regarding homosexual behavior, same sex marriage or anything else.  That said, he doesn't seem to choose his words wisely.

[Nofear]

That said, he doesn't seem to choose his words wisely.

Reminds me of the joke, "Catholics believe in the doctrine of infallibility... but nobody believes that. The Mormons deny the doctrine of infallibility... but nobody believes that."

[Bart Burk]

Reminds me of the joke, "Catholics believe in the doctrine of infallibility... but nobody believes that. The Mormons deny the doctrine of infallibility... but nobody believes that.

The Pope is definitely not infallible when it comes to matters of prudential judgment such as economic policy and immigration.  I will certainly consider what he has to say, but I'm not bound to follow it.  The moral teachings of the Catholic Church are considered to have been infallibly received from Christ and the apostles and are not open to change.  Essentially, infallible teachings are contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Women's ordination is one of the things which has been infallibly received from the ancient Church and cannot change.  Homosexual behavior falls under that category as well.  People who are trying to follow the church's teachings believe these things have been infallibly received.  That includes literally millions of people so it would be wrong to say "nobody believes that."  The only relatively recent infallible teachings are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Virgin Mary.  I know what you have written is meant to be a joke, but the reality is far different.

[wenglund]

That's a fair point. However, in this case, I think those of us pushing for OW are quite okay with a significant "remodeling" of our spiritual home

 

I prefer to consider the church/gospel as my Father's house in which I and other disciples spiritually dwell, and thus on a number of levels far be it from me to presume to tell the Father whether and/or how to remodel his home.

 

However, the temple that is my body is my spiritual home, and as such I rightly have say about what may be remodeled or not, though if I wish for the Spirit of my Father to dwell therein, then I need willingly conform myself to the remodeling plan set forth by the Father through the Son 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

The Catholics aren't condemning the teaching of the Church.  They are impatient with other Catholics who don't get it or openly defy it like Nancy Pelosi.  The Mormons have Harry Reid defying them on same sex marriage.  I don't think anyone really wants to see a purging of all of the Catholics who don't measure up.  We'd all be out.  The wheat and tares grow together.

 

Incorrect. Harry Reid is personally opposed to SSM but can not find any legally consistent way to outlaw it.

SEE http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/cougars/54089953-90/church-gay-lds-marriage.html.csp

[Bart Burk]

Incorrect. Harry Reid is personally opposed to SSM but can not find any legally consistent way to outlaw it.

SEE http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/cougars/54089953-90/church-gay-lds-marriage.html.csp

Sure.  Just like the Kennedys are personally opposed to abortion, but didn't want to make it illegal.  Oldest excuse in the American political playbook.  Would Harry Reid for a constitutional amendment declaring marriage the union of one man and one woman?  Doubtful.  His party bosses wouldn't let him.

[why me]

 That said, he doesn't seem to choose his words wisely.

And that is the problem. Some of my catholic friends pick and choose what he says as justification for their behavior. And I think that that is the problem with some catholics who are commenting in the comments section. They see the church has waffling on the issues because it wants to be a church of 'nice'. The backbone seems to be gone according to some of the commentators. On moral issues, the lds church and the catholic church are not that far apart...but they are further apart in what the churches stress and practice.

[3DOP]

'If ye were of the world, the world would love his own'.

 

Yeah Hamba. It is a little discomfiting to have the leader of your religion be the darling of the secular news media.

 

Rain, Hi. FOX did do a piece on whether Pope Francis is waging war on conservative Catholics. It shouldn't be hard to find.

 

Cal, Hi again. I don't want to sound as though I can blithely sit by and watch Jerusalem destroyed by the Babylonians so long as I have my Mass. Our good priests constantly remind us not to forget the troubles that afflict the Church, our Church. Though we are under suspension for taking a different view of the way things have gone in the last fifty years, (Can you believe that Rome still disciplines anybody for what they believe or do? Yup. Us.) We are not a different church. We are Roman Catholics. We are not separate from Eternal Rome. We are connected, we are and wish to remain one, and inasmuch as we can be in good conscience, we are the servants of our local bishops and the Supreme Pastor in Rome today. Its a little weird. You can easily forget how the vineyard is being devastated when your own little vine seems so vibrant, fruitful, and healthy. But we are part of the vineyard and always will be. If they renounce us, we will not forsake the Catholic Church for any other, believing it alone was founded by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. We are NOT Restorationists! We build on the same foundation. There is an article written by a very restrained Traditionalist, who is probably less inclined to criticism of the Holy Father than I have been here on a few occasions. From his article, Our Hearts are Breaking, Holy Father:

"I don't enjoy criticizing the Holy Father...ever! I defended him against his critics for months after the conclave. But now when the scandal has become so widespread that many are angry and confused by the new orientation of the papacy under Francis, it becomes necessary for informed Catholics to speak their minds. And thankfully, Pope Francis himself has called for constructive criticism of his job performance on more than one occasion."

 

I don't mean to be disrespectful. Before God I wish I could see all this as everyone else does-genuine demonstrations of Francis's well-documented humility. But to me it seems more like an incessant media blitz designed to put distance between this pope and his predecessors, as if they are trying to fashion Francis into the Roman Pontiff who finally got it right, better than all the rest, and I don't see humility in that. I see a rather transparent put down of all the popes back to Peter, in fact, and I wonder: Why are they doing this to our Church, to our Holy Father? Is it because they have uncrowned our King that they now feel compelled to uncrown our vicar?"

 

  ---The Remnant Newspaper, Vol. 47 #12, July 31, 2014, by the editor, Michael Matt

 

I think Mr. Matt still bends over backward to avoid facing the problem. He asks "Why are they are trying to fashion Francis...", and, "Why are they doing this to our Church?". It appears to me that faithful Catholics like Mr. Matt would like to believe Francis to be a victim of whoever "they" are. I think it is more probable that nobody forces the pope into making any of his shockingly unorthodox quips. "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh..." Nor do I think that he is being unwittingly led by "they" into treating his office after a way that only those favoring a diminishing of the papacy could applaud. As Mr. Matt says elsewhere, we would be dismayed if Queen Elizabeth pranced around London in a pants suit, and insisted on using the drive through window to order her own fish and chips. Or...maybe he is wrong there too. Most today have no concern for the trappings of a bye-gone royalty. To hell with the monarchy! Maybe "they" are hoping and seeing what we traditionalists see. The faithful Catholic believes the papacy will endure. But those who despise the institution are given hope by Pope Francis that it is finally becoming as irrelevant as the English monarch, an anachronism that has outlived any use.

Edited August 26, 2014 by 3DOP

[Calm]

Never got the impression of you blithely sitting by, Rory, or casually making offhand criticism for entertainment as so many seem to do these days.

Yours is a faith of action from all I've seen. It is wisdom to see things as they really are (you know what I mean, Mark, I hope, and don't see my words as a betrayal of my apprenticeship...I am too lazy tonight to figure out the way I want to say it and am going with the easy shortcut) because only then can you change them for the better.

[mormonnewb]

I prefer to consider the church/gospel as my Father's house in which I and other disciples spiritually dwell, and thus on a number of levels far be it from me to presume to tell the Father whether and/or how to remodel his home.

 

However, the temple that is my body is my spiritual home, and as such I rightly have say about what may be remodeled or not, though if I wish for the Spirit of my Father to dwell therein, then I need willingly conform myself to the remodeling plan set forth by the Father through the Son 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

I think I understand your position. I just don't understand why you bother with the fiction of a HF. If the leaders of the Church have such perfect knowledge of God's will, why not just worship them directly? If they can never be wrong (at least, not in any "important" way), then why not just view them as "gods," even if they are not the "ultimate God"? And I'm not being facetious.

As I understand our theology, HF may not be the only God in existence. In fact, I think it follows that if HF was once a man, then He must have worshipped a god of His own. Yet, we don't bypass HF to worship HIS HF because we have a personal relationship with our immediate HF and He is exalted "enough" for us. Well, from what I gather (probably incorrectly), you believe that our leaders are perfect "enough" for us (that they run this Church in line with HF's will). And since its possible to have a very concrete relationship with them, why deal with the vagaries of an invisible and ethereal "god" when you have the next best thing right here in the flesh?

And I'm very serious. If there can be no variance between the will of God and the decisions of Church leadership, then it isn't necessary to ponder the mysteries of God or to spend time in prayer and supplication? Wouldn't it be sufficient to just throw out all of that "mumbo jumbo" and get our answers directly from conference talks and the church's 1-800 hotline?

Or is your point that even if the prophets are all dead wrong, we should just follow blindly because that is what HF wants us to do with our "agency" -- knowingly do wrong because we are told to do so?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Jesus to the Twelve: 'Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also'.

[Yirgacheffe]

Yeah Hamba. It is a little discomfiting to have the leader of your religion be the darling of the secular news media.

 

Rain, Hi. FOX did do a piece on whether Pope Francis is waging war on conservative Catholics. It shouldn't be hard to find.

 

Cal, Hi again. I don't want to sound as though I can blithely sit by and watch Jerusalem destroyed by the Babylonians so long as I have my Mass. Our good priests constantly remind us not to forget the troubles that afflict the Church, our Church. Though we are under suspension for taking a different view of the way things have gone in the last fifty years, (Can you believe that Rome still disciplines anybody for what they believe or do? Yup. Us.) We are not a different church. We are Roman Catholics. We are not separate from Eternal Rome. We are connected, we are and wish to remain one, and inasmuch as we can be in good conscience, we are the servants of our local bishops and the Supreme Pastor in Rome today. Its a little weird. You can easily forget how the vineyard is being devastated when your own little vine seems so vibrant, fruitful, and healthy. But we are part of the vineyard and always will be. If they renounce us, we will not forsake the Catholic Church for any other, believing it alone was founded by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. We are NOT Restorationists! We build on the same foundation. There is an article written by a very restrained Traditionalist, who is probably less inclined to criticism of the Holy Father than I have been here on a few occasions. From his article, Our Hearts are Breaking, Holy Father:

  ---The Remnant Newspaper, Vol. 47 #12, July 31, 2014, by the editor, Michael Matt

 

I think Mr. Matt still bends over backward to avoid facing the problem. He asks "Why are they are trying to fashion Francis...", and, "Why are they doing this to our Church?". It appears to me that faithful Catholics like Mr. Matt would like to believe Francis to be a victim of whoever "they" are. I think it is more probable that nobody forces the pope into making any of his shockingly unorthodox quips. "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh..." Nor do I think that he is being unwittingly led by "they" into treating his office after a way that only those favoring a diminishing of the papacy could applaud. As Mr. Matt says elsewhere, we would be dismayed if Queen Elizabeth pranced around London in a pants suit, and insisted on using the drive through window to order her own fish and chips. Or...maybe he is wrong there too. Most today have no concern for the trappings of a bye-gone royalty. To hell with the monarchy! Maybe "they" are hoping and seeing what we traditionalists see. The faithful Catholic believes the papacy will endure. But those who despise the institution are given hope by Pope Francis that it is finally becoming as irrelevant as the English monarch, an anachronism that has outlived any use.

What does that mean under suspension?

[Bart Burk]

What does that mean under suspension?

Maybe he is part of the Society of St. Pius X group which rejects Vatican II? They are a traditionalist group which I believe wants only the Latin mass and rejects freedom of religion, ecumenism, relations with Jews and other reforms Vatican II initiated. Benedict XVI, that famous liberal Pope, declared the SSPX has no canonical status, and their ministry is not legitimate within the church. I don't know that much about SSPX so I am relying on the internet which could be wrong.

[3DOP]

What does that mean under suspension?

 

Hi Yirgacheffe.

 

It seems significant that the author of the piece, referenced by Bart Burk, comes from a periodical entitled Crisis. I doubt that the editors had exactly the same things in mind as I might, but vaguely speaking, there seems to a general awareness of serious problems afflicting the Church. All of the post Vatican II popes with the exception of Pope Francis have spoken vaguely about the grievous undermining of Catholic identity that has happened since the Council. Pope Paul VI even spoke of the "smoke of Satan" entering the sanctuary. Yet there seems to be a paralysis. There is no will in the Vatican to do anything about it. I am not sure why Bart referred to Benedict XVI as, "that famous liberal pope". Unlike any pope since the Council, he attempted to bring about a reconciliation between the SSPX and Rome. He incurred the wrath of liberals when he lifted excommunications (invalid though they may have been) against the four Society bishops. He roused opposition again when he proclaimed in his papal bull of 2007, Summorum Pontificum, that the 1962 Missal had never been suppressed, which was the position taken by the founder of the SSPX, Abp. Marcel Lefebvre all along. For nearly 40 years bishops had been treating the ancient Mass, and those of us attached to it, as though it were illegal. We are thankful for these actions of "that famous liberal pope", even if the rest of church and the world pretty much dislikes poor Pope Benedict.

 

This is certainly not the venue to discuss the defects of the New Mass, from a theological perspective. But when the entire Catholic world had turned its back on the Mass of the Ages, Abp. Lefebvre had been promised that if he would celebrate one Mass, according to the New Rite of the Church, thereby acknowledging his acceptance with what will seem to you like a very minimal act, he refused. Besides his own obligations to conscience, to have done so would have told the world that there is nothing terribly wrong with the New Mass. He refused and because of that, all of the priests of the Society of St. Pius X were placed under suspension. That means basically what Pope Benedict said regarding canonical status and lawful ministry. But that would be assuming that there is no urgent and pressing need to ignore the suspensions because of an emergency, because of a crisis in the Church. Canon law admits that under pressing circumstances such as imminent death, souls may avail themselves of a suspended priest for the Sacraments. The Society of St. Pius X, with whom I identify, though not a member, (only priests, religious, and the third order are members) understands this law to extend to the emergency status which was occasioned by the false suppression of a lawful liturgy, which had and continues to bear the fruit of plentiful vocations.

 

Young people simply are not drawn to the New Mass. Who knows why. Anyway, there is an increasing shortage of New Mass priests around the world. In spite of the cloud of suspension and the suspicion it brings, the SSPX has no shortage of young men applying for the priesthood. Neither is there any shortage of young new families with many children making lots of noise in the halls, schools, and playgrounds of our chapels! I have on my shelf, a book quoting "that famous liberal pope", before he had become so, admitting that the New Mass was and I quote, "a banal, on the spot product." All of the ancient liturgical rites, different though may be, are believed to have derived from Apostolic origin, and have been considered untouchable, insofar as any radical changes might go. Never has there been a "Mass" that was made up at once, as was the New Mass all in a flurry and hurry in the course of a few years. Only over centuries have liturgical rites added this minor change or deleted another for various reasons and not without great deliberation. In this book where the future Pope Ratzinger wrote his forward, there is a chapter devoted to the question of whether a pope even has the authority to suppress an ancient liturgical rite of the Church. Until 1969, it would have been an academic question, because even when an Eastern Rite Church would come into communion with Rome after schism, they were never required to relinquish their ancient heritage. The conclusion of the question was that in consideration of apostolic origins and church law, the pope cannot lawfully suppress an ancient liturgical rite, and it is outrageous that from 1969 until 2007, it was assumed that he had. In the years subsequent, the Old Rite has become a symbol of resistance which for the most part, is still practically suppressed. About the only places where bishops will allow the Old Rite, is in locations where it is already provided...by the Society of St. Pius X.

 

There are other issues of course. Acceptance of Vatican II? I accept Vatican II according to the words of the promulgating pope, Paul VI. So does the SSPX, but therein lies the problem. The Society accepts that the Council defined no new dogma as Paul VI affirmed. Unless it was infallibly declared, why is there this continuing pretense that it has authority to overturn what previous popes had said in condemning in the most vigorous terms, the kind of ecumenism and religious liberty that the Council authorized? For these reasons among still more, those who conclude that there is indeed an emergency in the Church, are persuaded that under these sad circumstances, we are permitted to receive the Sacraments from priests who are said to be suspended from their ministries, who "have no canonical status", to faithful who want nothing more than to receive the graces of the Sacraments the same way as western Catholics have done for centuries and longer.

 

Let me know if this answers your question or if you have more. I am always a little reluctant to talk about these things here simply because it is an LDS board. But at least one is allowed to say these things publicly here. To me, a proof that there is an emergency in the Church is that to even try to have this same discussion openly and dispassionately, is to be banned at Catholic Answers with your posts deleted so nobody can see what has really been transpiring for these last few decades.

 

-------------------

 

I offer my apologies to all here for being so long-winded about a subject that is very dear to me, but which can have only peripheral interest to a non-Catholic. Thanks again to all here and especially the moderators for your tolerance of my occasional tangent.

 

Rory

Edited August 26, 2014 by 3DOP

[Bart Burk]

The reference to the "that famous liberal Pope" was sarcasm.

 

Here is a link to the SSPX FAQ from its own web site for those who are interested:

 

http://sspx.org/en/faq-page#n1785

 

We have a couple of parishes in South Bend which regularly provide the traditional Latin mass as well as the English language mass, Spanish language mass, Polish language mass ... there are probably other languages as well.  My understanding is the English language mass is simply a translation of the Latin mass.  I want to have a clear understanding of what is being said at mass so I prefer the English language mass.  Occasionally, parts of the mass in my parish are done using Latin.  Imagine the LDS requiring all of the wards and branches in Spanish speaking  countries to use the English sacrament prayers simply because they were received that way by Joseph Smith in the Doctrine and Covenants.  That's akin to requiring English speaking countries to use Latin. 

Edited August 26, 2014 by Bart Burk

[3DOP]

The reference to the "that famous liberal Pope" was sarcasm.

 

Here is a link to the SSPX FAQ from its own web site for those who are interested:

 

http://sspx.org/en/faq-page#n1785

 

We have a couple of parishes in South Bend which regularly provide the traditional Latin mass as well as the English language mass, Spanish language mass, Polish language mass ... there are probably other languages as well.  My understanding is the English language mass is simply a translation of the Latin mass.  I want to have a clear understanding of what is being said at mass so I prefer the English language mass.  Occasionally, parts of the mass in my parish are done using Latin.  Imagine the LDS requiring all of the wards and branches in Spanish speaking  countries to use the English sacrament prayers simply because they were received that way by Joseph Smith in the Doctrine and Covenants.  That's akin to requiring English speaking countries to use Latin. 

 

I thought it was perhaps sarcasm, Bart. Thanks for the thread. I should have said so before now, but I have been in agreement with just about all of your evaluations, including the original reason for starting the thread.

 

But Bart, you are very mistaken about the Mass. It isn't about the language, it is about the defective prayers theologically that water down things that Protestants don't like, especially intercession of the saints, the Mass as a sacrifice, and the priest as an alter Christus making an offering to God for the people. It is not difficult to demonstrate but would be probably inappropriate here. You may send me a private message any time if you are interested. Latin is good and is our western heritage, but I would sooner the Old Mass in vernacular, than the New if it was entirely in Latin.

 

God bless you on your journey of faith Bart Burk and thanks for your patience with me.

 

Rory

 

.

[wenglund]

Wade,

I think I understand your position. I just don't understand why you bother with the fiction of a HF. If the leaders of the Church have such perfect knowledge of God's will, why not just worship them directly? If they can never be wrong (at least, not in any "important" way), then why not just view them as "gods," even if they are not the "ultimate God"? And I'm not being facetious.

As I understand our theology, HF may not be the only God in existence. In fact, I think it follows that if HF was once a man, then He must have worshipped a god of His own. Yet, we don't bypass HF to worship HIS HF because we have a personal relationship with our immediate HF and He is exalted "enough" for us. Well, from what I gather (probably incorrectly), you believe that our leaders are perfect "enough" for us (that they run this Church in line with HF's will). And since its possible to have a very concrete relationship with them, why deal with the vagaries of an invisible and ethereal "god" when you have the next best thing right here in the flesh?

And I'm very serious. If there can be no variance between the will of God and the decisions of Church leadership, then it isn't necessary to ponder the mysteries of God or to spend time in prayer and supplication? Wouldn't it be sufficient to just throw out all of that "mumbo jumbo" and get our answers directly from conference talks and the church's 1-800 hotline?

Or is your point that even if the prophets are all dead wrong, we should just follow blindly because that is what HF wants us to do with our "agency" -- knowingly do wrong because we are told to do so?

 

By this same "reasoning" you should worship yourself and your pop cultural icons rather than God. Right? As you asked, "why deal with the vagaries of an invisible and ethereal 'god' when you have the next best thing right here in the flesh?"  

 

While that may very well be the case with you (i.e. self worship and worship of the world), your "reasoning" doesn't apply to me.

 

I see things quite differently. My deference to Church Leaders, particularly in matters of Church governance, is in part an outgrowth of my worship and trust in God. To me, I can only fully worship and trust him if I accept his leadership choices rather than frequently rejecting them and their counsel and presumptuously supplanting myself in their stead. With the later, I wouldn't be trusting or worshiping God, but rather myself.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 26, 2014 by wenglund

[Avatar4321]

Interesting article - especially the comments at the end.

 

I am finding the comments especially interesting.

[Yirgacheffe]

Hi Yirgacheffe.

 

It seems significant that the author of the piece, referenced by Bart Burk, comes from a periodical entitled Crisis. I doubt that the editors had exactly the same things in mind as I might, but vaguely speaking, there seems to a general awareness of serious problems afflicting the Church. All of the post Vatican II popes with the exception of Pope Francis have spoken vaguely about the grievous undermining of Catholic identity that has happened since the Council. Pope Paul VI even spoke of the "smoke of Satan" entering the sanctuary. Yet there seems to be a paralysis. There is no will in the Vatican to do anything about it. I am not sure why Bart referred to Benedict XVI as, "that famous liberal pope". Unlike any pope since the Council, he attempted to bring about a reconciliation between the SSPX and Rome. He incurred the wrath of liberals when he lifted excommunications (invalid though they may have been) against the four Society bishops. He roused opposition again when he proclaimed in his papal bull of 2007, Summorum Pontificum, that the 1962 Missal had never been suppressed, which was the position taken by the founder of the SSPX, Abp. Marcel Lefebvre all along. For nearly 40 years bishops had been treating the ancient Mass, and those of us attached to it, as though it were illegal. We are thankful for these actions of "that famous liberal pope", even if the rest of church and the world pretty much dislikes poor Pope Benedict.

 

This is certainly not the venue to discuss the defects of the New Mass, from a theological perspective. But when the entire Catholic world had turned its back on the Mass of the Ages, Abp. Lefebvre had been promised that if he would celebrate one Mass, according to the New Rite of the Church, thereby acknowledging his acceptance with what will seem to you like a very minimal act, he refused. Besides his own obligations to conscience, to have done so would have told the world that there is nothing terribly wrong with the New Mass. He refused and because of that, all of the priests of the Society of St. Pius X were placed under suspension. That means basically what Pope Benedict said regarding canonical status and lawful ministry. But that would be assuming that there is no urgent and pressing need to ignore the suspensions because of an emergency, because of a crisis in the Church. Canon law admits that under pressing circumstances such as imminent death, souls may avail themselves of a suspended priest for the Sacraments. The Society of St. Pius X, with whom I identify, though not a member, (only priests, religious, and the third order are members) understands this law to extend to the emergency status which was occasioned by the false suppression of a lawful liturgy, which had and continues to bear the fruit of plentiful vocations.

 

Young people simply are not drawn to the New Mass. Who knows why. Anyway, there is an increasing shortage of New Mass priests around the world. In spite of the cloud of suspension and the suspicion it brings, the SSPX has no shortage of young men applying for the priesthood. Neither is there any shortage of young new families with many children making lots of noise in the halls, schools, and playgrounds of our chapels! I have on my shelf, a book quoting "that famous liberal pope", before he had become so, admitting that the New Mass was and I quote, "a banal, on the spot product." All of the ancient liturgical rites, different though may be, are believed to have derived from Apostolic origin, and have been considered untouchable, insofar as any radical changes might go. Never has there been a "Mass" that was made up at once, as was the New Mass all in a flurry and hurry in the course of a few years. Only over centuries have liturgical rites added this minor change or deleted another for various reasons and not without great deliberation. In this book where the future Pope Ratzinger wrote his forward, there is a chapter devoted to the question of whether a pope even has the authority to suppress an ancient liturgical rite of the Church. Until 1969, it would have been an academic question, because even when an Eastern Rite Church would come into communion with Rome after schism, they were never required to relinquish their ancient heritage. The conclusion of the question was that in consideration of apostolic origins and church law, the pope cannot lawfully suppress an ancient liturgical rite, and it is outrageous that from 1969 until 2007, it was assumed that he had. In the years subsequent, the Old Rite has become a symbol of resistance which for the most part, is still practically suppressed. About the only places where bishops will allow the Old Rite, is in locations where it is already provided...by the Society of St. Pius X.

 

There are other issues of course. Acceptance of Vatican II? I accept Vatican II according to the words of the promulgating pope, Paul VI. So does the SSPX, but therein lies the problem. The Society accepts that the Council defined no new dogma as Paul VI affirmed. Unless it was infallibly declared, why is there this continuing pretense that it has authority to overturn what previous popes had said in condemning in the most vigorous terms, the kind of ecumenism and religious liberty that the Council authorized? For these reasons among still more, those who conclude that there is indeed an emergency in the Church, are persuaded that under these sad circumstances, we are permitted to receive the Sacraments from priests who are said to be suspended from their ministries, who "have no canonical status", to faithful who want nothing more than to receive the graces of the Sacraments the same way as western Catholics have done for centuries and longer.

 

Let me know if this answers your question or if you have more. I am always a little reluctant to talk about these things here simply because it is an LDS board. But at least one is allowed to say these things publicly here. To me, a proof that there is an emergency in the Church is that to even try to have this same discussion openly and dispassionately, is to be banned at Catholic Answers with your posts deleted so nobody can see what has really been transpiring for these last few decades.

 

-------------------

 

I offer my apologies to all here for being so long-winded about a subject that is very dear to me, but which can have only peripheral interest to a non-Catholic. Thanks again to all here and especially the moderators for your tolerance of my occasional tangent.

 

Rory

No I'm not sure it answered the question, maybe it did and I didn't understand the answer.  Maybe I should clarify my question more,  who is under suspension, why the suspension, who imposed the suspension, and what are the consequences of suspension.  If you don't want to disrupt the thread you can message me and of course if you'd rather not continue the conversation that's fine too.  I did find your answer interesting though, thanks for the explanation.

[3DOP]

No I'm not sure it answered the question, maybe it did and I didn't understand the answer.  Maybe I should clarify my question more,  who is under suspension, why the suspension, who imposed the suspension, and what are the consequences of suspension.  If you don't want to disrupt the thread you can message me and of course if you'd rather not continue the conversation that's fine too.  I did find your answer interesting though, thanks for the explanation.

 

All priests of the Society of St. Pius X are suspended from exercising their sacramental ministries, except under the instance of urgent necessity, such as imminent death of one in need of Last Rites, or Confession. Practically, this is a means of isolating these priests so that any bishops sympathetic to them will also be under censure if they should grant permission for them to exercise their ministry in their diocese. The Church cannot but recognize these priests as validly ordained and offering valid sacraments, but they would say it is illicit for them to do so.

 

The suspensions occurred in the Summer of 1976. It is a long story going back to the Council. Abp. Lefebvre had incurred the animosity of the European bishops, north of the Rhine, the French and German especially for his opposition to many of their favorite projects at the Council. In about 1970, some French seminarians approached the Archbishop, complaining that they couldn't get an orthodox seminary formation in France. With much perusasion and signs of God's approval, including canonical recognition by the Holy See and permission from the Archbishop of Sion in Switzerland to establish as seminary in his diocese, Mgr. Lefebvre began the work at an age when most men are retiring from public life. The seminary quickly outgrew its first house and a new location was found in Econe, Switzwerland. Many young Frenchmen began to apply to the seminary to the chagrin of powerful French bishops, whose own seminaries were as empty as they are today.

 

They persuaded the pope to send "apostolic delegates" for the purpose of evaluating the formation these seminarians were receiving. On the whole, their report never entered into the reasons why Lefebvre and the priests he ordained were eventually suspended. The report was favorable, but the seminarians were scandalized at the opinions of these two visitors who had expressed their beliefs casting doubt on the bodily resurrection of Christ, and the belief that it was time for a married priesthood. Msgr. Lefebvre responded to this visit with a letter to the seminarians, intended to remain internal, as a private reaction of righteous indignation, dated Nov. 21, 1974. But when the note, which for all the hubbub is a model of gentle and dispassionate reflection, was made public, it also clearly condemned the New Mass and the teachings of the Council. Ultimately, this was intolerable to Pope Paul VI, who was faced with the choice of reestablishing what he had said about the authority of the Council, emphasizing its pastoral and non-doctrinal limitations or trying to discipline one lonely bishop. He seemed reluctant, knowing that the "spirit of Vatican II" had taken off like a wildfire out of control, and rather than put out the fire, he chose the easier course and censured the Archbishop.

 

The consequences of suspension are legal. Suspension does not invalidate the Sacraments conferred, and nobody with any knowledge of sacramental theology would suggest that they do. Nor would anyone deny that in a state of emergency, a suspended priest may exercise his priestly ministry. For a while, I denied that there was such a state of emergency in the Church, and so I am sympathetic to those who hesitate to agree that there is. In fact, it would be rash for a Catholic, without giving it serious deliberation, to knowingly receive the Sacraments from a suspended priest. One such as myself has to be very patient with those who are not familiar with the facts, and for whom it takes time to do the adequate search of the state of the Church, and the state of their own conscience. One must be confident that there is an ongoing pressing need for suspended priests to exercise their ministries irregularly, no differently than if they had come upon people injured and dying from a train crash. Its like the Church has been in a train wreck and if bodily danger constitutes an emergency, how much more the danger to countless souls who are uninstructed and misguided as to how to be saved?

 

This would be how anyone must see the situation, if they would avail themselves of a suspended priest. 

 

3DOP

Edited August 27, 2014 by 3DOP

[Yirgacheffe]

All priests of the Society of St. Pius X are suspended from exercising their sacramental ministries, except under the instance of urgent necessity, such as imminent death of one in need of Last Rites, or Confession. Practically, this is a means of isolating these priests so that any bishops sympathetic to them will also be under censure if they should grant permission for them to exercise their ministry in their diocese. The Church cannot but recognize these priests as validly ordained and offering valid sacraments, but they would say it is illicit for them to do so.

 

The suspensions occurred in the Summer of 1976. It is a long story going back to the Council. Abp. Lefebvre had incurred the animosity of the European bishops, north of the Rhine, the French and German especially for his opposition to many of their favorite projects at the Council. In about 1970, some French seminarians approached the Archbishop, complaining that they couldn't get an orthodox seminary formation in France. With much perusasion and signs of God's approval, including canonical recognition by the Holy See and permission from the Archbishop of Sion in Switzerland to establish as seminary in his diocese, Mgr. Lefebvre began the work at an age when most men are retiring from public life. The seminary quickly outgrew its first house and a new location was found in Econe, Switzwerland. Many young Frenchmen began to apply to the seminary to the chagrin of powerful French bishops, whose own seminaries were as empty as they are today.

 

They persuaded the pope to send "apostolic delegates" for the purpose of evaluating the formation these seminarians were receiving. On the whole, their report never entered into the reasons why Lefebvre and the priests he ordained were eventually suspended. The report was favorable, but the seminarians were scandalized at the opinions of these two visitors who had expressed their beliefs casting doubt on the bodily resurrection of Christ, and the belief that it was time for a married priesthood. Msgr. Lefebvre responded to this visit with a letter to the seminarians, intended to remain internal, as a private reaction of righteous indignation, dated Nov. 21, 1974. But when the note, which for all the hubbub is a model of gentle and dispassionate reflection, was made public, it also clearly condemned the New Mass and the teachings of the Council. Ultimately, this was intolerable to Pope Paul VI, who was faced with the choice of reestablishing what he had said about the authority of the Council, emphasizing its pastoral and non-doctrinal limitations or trying to discipline one lonely bishop. He seemed reluctant, knowing that the "spirit of Vatican II" had taken off like a wildfire out of control, and rather than put out the fire, he chose the easier course and censured the Archbishop.

 

The consequences of suspension are legal. Suspension does not invalidate the Sacraments conferred, and nobody with any knowledge of sacramental theology would suggest that they do. Nor would anyone deny that in a state of emergency, a suspended priest may exercise his priestly ministry. For a while, I denied that there was such a state of emergency in the Church, and so I am sympathetic to those who hesitate to agree that there is. In fact, it would be rash for a Catholic, without giving it serious deliberation, to knowingly receive the Sacraments from a suspended priest. One such as myself has to be very patient with those who are not familiar with the facts, and for whom it takes time to do the adequate search of the state of the Church, and the state of their own conscience. One must be confident that there is an ongoing pressing need for suspended priests to exercise their ministries irregularly, no differently than if they had come upon people injured and dying from a train crash. Its like the Church has been in a train wreck and if bodily danger constitutes an emergency, how much more the danger to countless souls who are uninstructed and misguided as to how to be saved?

 

This would be how anyone must see the situation, if they would avail themselves of a suspended priest. 

 

3DOP

So, you are saying you go to a church headed by one of these suspended priests??