ddumo

St. Peter according to Tradition was Crucified UPSIDE DOWN! Because he didn't feel he was worthy, to die in the same manner of our Lord!

First Lefebvre was excommunicated not for his, in my opinion, odd ideas on tradition nor for his reasonable suggestions on other theological issues but for ordaining Bishops without Vatican approval.
The situation was not grave. First the Novus Ordo is valid and hence even if Rome had moved to completely ban the Tridentine Mass it would not have been a grave problem.
But even if you disagree with that there still was not a grave situation. The Vatican had made it clear it wasn't going to do anything against Lefbvre if he didn't ordain Bishops. Hence the Latin Mass wouldn't have disappeared. In fact the Vatican had allowed Lefebvre to ordain a Bishop if he agreed to the compromise which he first did then changed his mind on.
Further it's clear that JPII was fully willing to support the Tridentine Mass, just not Lefebvres incorrect interpretation of "Tradition". This was clearly demonstrated by the Popes support for the FSSP and by his indult on the saying of the Latin Mass. You can't blame JPII that many Bishops refused to carry out the indult as it was intended.
The SSPX worship the TLM not Jesus Christ if they say that the disappearance of the Tridentine Rite was a grave crisis while there were 19 other valid rites.
The SSPX has a fixation on certain aspects of Tradition but they reject all parts of Tradition that relate to obedience.
Every argument the SSPX puts forth could be invoked by Martin Luther. Was he right too? At what point should any sane person believe Lefebvre over 5 Popes, the worlds Cardinals, and >95% of all Bishops, >99% of all Catholic lay people, and >90% of all Catholic priests? Or did Jesus lie?
Compare Martin Luther to Lefebvre
According to Martin Luther, "These [church laws] hold good only so long as they are not injurious to Christianity and the laws of God. Therefore, if the Pope deserves punishment, these laws cease to bind us, since Christendom would suffer."
According to Marcel Lefebvre, "In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a diminution of his faith. All the faithful can and should resist whatever interferes with their faith.... If they are forced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, there is an overriding duty to disobey."
Lefebvre and the SSPX are schismatics who reject the Church founded by Christ. Like the Old Catholic Church or any other Protestant group they decided that they are more Catholic than the Pope. That God has abandoned His Church and they are the only good ones left.
Yet is the SSPX good? Hardly.
The SSPX is no better than those priests who alter the Mass in violation of the Rubrics. Both believe that they own the right to define what Mass Catholic hear. But neither group does.
I cannot express in words the horror I feel when someone says that the Tridentine Rite has some mystic wonderfulness. I've gone to many Tridentine Rite Masses. they have a certain atmosphere but they essentially disassociate the laity from the Mass, hence the large number of people praying rosaries during Mass. The TLM is fine for some people but not most.
The Novus Ordo brings Christ to us and is a far better vehicle for communicating Christ to the vast majority of modern men and women than the TLM. If any significant fraction of Catholics really liked the TLM that much we'd see a lot more Latin Masses being said.
You condemn the FSSP because they don't have a theology. Since when does any order in the Church have the right to its own theology? That's why the SSPX is not Catholic, it has it's own home brewed theology which is falsely claimed to be based on tradition.
Show me one thing in the Novus Ordo that is heretical. Just one. So far no traditionalist has been able to do that. They just mutter about how this or that could be construed in a heterodox manner.
But to condemn the Mass because it can be misinterpreted is both a violation of a condemnation held by Vatican I but is also grounds for condemning the Bible. For do not Protestants constantly misinterpret the Bible?
So show me one thing in the new Mass that is wrong as opposed to just not being to the liking of people who are opposed to any sort of change.
I can show you things that are gravely wrong with the SSPX.
They urge people to break the first commandment by not attending Masses that even the SSPX admit are valid.
They disobey the Pope on non-theological issues.
They divide the Body of Christ through their schism.
Lefebvre called Pope John Paul II the anti-Christ. Clearly blasphemy since it implies that Jesus lied about His Church.
One of their Bishops denies the Holocaust occurred. And he's still a Bishop in good standing.
The SSPX reject the right of people to choose their own faith.
The SSPX reject the thought of reaching out to non-Catholics as a first step to converting them.
The SSPX says that the Church is not the Church but a new religion and that 1,000,000,000 Catholics are in error and only the SSPX are true.
To join the SSPX is to follow in the footsteps of Martin Luther and to reject the Church founded by Jesus.
There was no reason to ordain Bishops and there was no reason to be excommunicated but Lefebvre did both.
Lefbvre split the Body of Christ. He was no saint for what saint would call the Pope the anti-Christ?
Look at Padre Pio. Then look at Lefebvre. Then tell me that Lefebvre was a saint.

“Traditionalists”: It’s not about the Latin Mass

When you listen to “Traditionalists” they always talk about the Latin Mass and how horrible the Ordinary Form(OF) is and how wonderful the Extraordinary Form(EF) is.

They even justify attending illicit Masses and disobeying the Pope because the Latin Mass, more properly the EF, must be preserved!

That’s hokum of course. Because if their beef with the Church was about the EF they’d have all come home by now. There are >400 approved Latin Masses each Sunday in America. And with the new rules from Pope Benedict any priest who wants to can say the Latin Mass. If the Mass is the issue there is no reason for any Priest to leave the Church since he can say the EF as much as he wants.

If the SSPX were being schismatic just because of the Latin Mass they’d come home today since they, like the FSSP and other order such as the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, could celebrate the EF to their hearts content. More importantly such a move would stop all those who attend the SSPX Masses from the pains of conscience associated with attending illicit services. If the SSPX truly cared about their flock and their only concern was the EF they’d be racing home to Rome. But they aren’t.

It’s further clear that the SSPX didn’t split with Rome over the Latin Mass since clearly Rome had no problem with the Latin Mass.

When the SSPX priests who didn’t want to abandon the Church with Lefebvre asked Rome for a home they were given an order and the authorization to say the Latin Mass whenever they wanted to.

Blessed Pope John Paul II was no enemy of the EF. And there was no need to ordain Bishops to keep the EF going when the Pope liked the EF so much he issued an order to all of the worlds Bishops to make EF readily available.

But the SSPX hasn’t come back and the “Traditionalists” are still complaining about how horrible the Church is.In reality the “Traditionalists” disagree with the Church founded by Jesus Christ on doctrinal grounds. That is they espouse beliefs inconsistent with the Catholic Church. Or at least beliefs they feel are incompatible with the Church headed by the Vicar of Christ.

Like the gnostics “Traditionalists” claim secret knowledge and special wisdom that makes “Traditionalists” more capable than we mundane Catholics, or the Pope, of seeing the Truth. Like Martin Luther “Traditionalists” believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding them and as such they need not be bothered by the fact that they are disagreeing with multiple Popes, Church Councils, and the vast majority of Bishops, Cardinals, and Priests. Obedience to the Pope and deference to the unified teaching of the Church are not part of “Traditionalists” tradition.

When cornered they admit that nothing in Vatican II or in the proclamations of any of the Popes is heretical or in disagreement with Dogma. But they talk about how modernism has slyly managed to write perfectly orthodox things that are secretly reeking of error.

Just like the Bible. After all have not the the Protestants used the, presumably Orthodox, words of the Bible to justify their heresies?

If one were to take the “Traditionalists” reasoning and apply it to the Bible one would have to declare the Bible to be written by modernist heretics. After all why else could so many people read so much error into the Bible? How could God have written something with so many evil subtexts?

The truth of course is that neither the Bible nor VII are in any way, obvious or hidden, in opposition to Christ’s Truth. Rather when men go looking to justify what they want to believe they can twist any words, even those of God Himself, to their ends.

If men can twist God’s word why should it surprise anyone that a “Traditionalist” sure he’s going to find error can go through the words of Vatican II, written by men, and find modernism? One thing people are good at and that is finding what they expect to find when reading something someone else wrote.

But why are “Traditionalists” so hell bent on finding problems with the Church?

For some it’s the fact that modernists in the Church have done so many bad things that it appears the Church itself is at fault. But when confronted with the fact that what the modernists have done they have done in direct opposition to the teachings and commands of the Popes and the words of Vatican II these “Traditionalists” simply continue to attack the Pope. It is as though St. Athanasius spent his time attacking Pope Liberius rather than the Arians.

The fact that Popes have not cracked down on modernists as much as many would like means at worst that the Popes have been weak not that they are in error. If you read the words of the Popes you’ll find no real encouragement for modernism unless, like a Protestant prooftexting the Bible, you pick a snippet here or there and ignore everything else.

The lack of evidence of Papal perfidy is so profound that “Traditionalists” are forced to resort to bizarre arguments. The Pope kissed a Koran! Aha! But then when confronted with that same Pope in book condemning Islam they just switch topics.

Do not confuse the sins of Catholics with errors in the Church. The Church will always be true and a rock on which we can shelter in even the most terrible storm. Rather take your energy and use it to support the Church against the modernist enemies within. Do not take to the lifeboats and leave the Church foundering. God gave you your talents to support His Church not to wander off and attack it from without.

Others are just the sort of people who cannot abide change. The sudden changes in the Church after the council upset them so much that they cannot distinguish between the good and the bad. They convert their feelings of unease to condemnation of the OF.

When confronted they cannot really explain why the OF is evil but they fall back on arguments that the Latin Mass is magical and better than all the other rites of the Church.

You can tell this because when someone thinks something is truly bad they can usually tell you why in a heartbeat. Nazism is wrong because it kills Jews. Racism is wrong because it oppresses the innocent. Abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent child.

Yet when you ask a “Traditionalist” what’s wrong with the new Mass they cannot point to any specific thing. They mutter generalities, it’s not a sacrifice--even though the word sacrifice is everywhere in the word of the OF--, or they say that it should never have been changed--Quo Primum!, even though Church law has always stated that one Pope cannot bind another Pope on matters of discipline and even though the EF has been changed many times.

It’s clear that in truth the problem with the OF is that “Traditionalists” don’t like it. It’s a matter of taste, nothing more.

That doesn’t mean that some criticisms of the OF aren’t perfectly valid, like the OF itself, but that they do not rise to the level of justifying mass disobedience.

Interestingly enough if the “Traditionalists” were right and the EF is somehow better than all other Masses then Pope Pius V who instituted that Mass was either evil or a failure. For when he promulgated what is now the EF in 1571 he allowed other rites to continue. If the EF was somehow perfect or wonderful Pope Pius V must have been either evil, intentionally depriving those who celebrated other rites of the glory of the EF, or a failure, by not working hard enough to get those poor fools to accept the perfect Mass.

And all the Popes since then have been similarly evil or failures, including St. Pope Pius X. By the way those Popes didn’t think the EF was perfect since at three of them made such major changes to the EF as established by Pope Pius V that they required Papal Bulls to promulgate the changes.

But to be honest one must admit that the OF is not perfect either. Sadly “Traditionalists” seem unwilling to work constructively in the Church to correct liturgical abuses, they seem unaware that most of the things in the OF they don’t like--such as liturgical dance, clown Masses etc--are violations of the rules for the Mass defined by Pope Paul VI, and ensure that the full rubrics, which by the way include the use of Latin, are both enforced and enhanced.

Others, a tiny minority hopefully, reject the Church because it does not support their hatred of Jews and non-Catholics. To hear “Catholics” righteously announce that non-Catholics are all going to Hell no matter how good they are brings a great sadness to all true Catholics.

Similarly when an SSPX Bishop can deny the Holocaust one has to wonder if his attachment to the “old” Church is not at least partially based on the anti-Semitism that some used to hold, anti-Semitism that was always condemned by the Church and the Popes however.

Irrespective of what has occurred in the past no person can any longer reject God’s Church because of the EF. The EF is welcomed by the Church. If that is your only concern come home to Christ.

Sadly many “Traditionalists” are infected with the same disease that Protestants have. A strong dislike of Church authority.

Why else would “Traditionalists” believe suspended priests over Sr. Lucia about the consecration of Russia? Why else would they spin convoluted theories about how Cardinal Ottaviani didn’t really retract his concerns about the OF after he read the final Missal and talked to the Pope? Or who who has love for the Papacy founded by Jesus would claim that Pope Paul VI was kidnapped, tortured, murdered and secretly replaced because he changed his mind about the OF he worked so hard to bring about?

If you think the comparison with Protestants is too much know this I’ve had to dispute with many Protestants using arguments off of “Traditionalists” web pages.

When “Traditionalists” attack the modern Popes they are walking in lock step with Protestants.

It is time for honesty. Modern “Traditionalists” can no longer hide behind the supposed problems of the OF. They must either return home to the Church founded by Jesus or admit to themselves that it is not the Mass but the teachings of the Church they cannot abide.

AND WHERE is the access to the Heavenly Jerusalem? AT YOUR NEAREST, CATHOLIC CHURCH. As the Letter to the Hebrews makes so clear, Jesus ascends to the heavenly sanctuary to culminate his Sacrifice of Calvary in everlasting glory. And, because Jesus is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek, heaven and earth become one in the holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Paradise is as close as your local parish church!

HolyRope: I am not a huge fan, of the TRUE MODERNISTS, in the Church, but Vatican II, and the N.O. Mass, have nothing to do, with the concept, of Modernists. Only the teachings of VII which reiterated previous infallible teaching are infallible. The rest are not; they are reformable. This shouldn't surprise you. The popes can teach error, even on matters of the faith, when they are not exercising the charism of infallibility. When VI was formulating the definition of papal infallibility, it found over 40 errors made by popes on faith and morals over the years. The gift of infallibility is limited to either ex cathedra statements or the exercise of the universal and ordinary Magisterium, when a teaching was taught "by all, always and everywhere." The pastoral teachings of VII, especially regarding ecumenism, dialogue, religious liberty, and even the “subsist” ecclesiology are not infallible because they are undefined concepts and were not taught by the Church "by all, always and everywhere." That is why the Holy Ghost prevented the Church from binding Catholics to them. They are subject to reform. And in the future, they will be reformed. So don't let it worry you too much. God is still in charge. I believe He is using VII to sift out the heretics and to purify the Church.
Pope Paul VI did NOT impose the NO on the universal Church. He offered it as an alternative in the Latin Rite of the Church. Second, because the pope didn't bind the universal Church to use the NO, his act does not invoke the charism of infallibility. Most Catholics believe that a pope cannot impose a harmful rite upon the Church. The Council of Trent disagrees with you. Trent anathematized anyone who would create a new rite, so it obviously contemplated that such could occur. Nicea II also anathematized anyone who would set aside the ecclesiastical traditions of the Church. The pope was never excepted from these possibilities, because he too can do such a thing. The fact that Paul VI did not invoke his authority to bind the universal Church (he couldn't for the Holy Ghost wouldn't allow it) should put you at ease, at least somewhat.

Holy Cannoli: Thankyou again for your thorough response: I thought of a great letter, I read awhile back, concerning the "Reason" the Lord, and Risen Christ, has turned the Church in the direction of Inter-religious dialog! I think you might find it fitting here!

Would that Rabbi Korn, Rabbi Neusner or any other of the Jewish Rabbisthat the Catholic Church engages in "dialogue" (whatever that means) since VC-II

A Letter from a Devil on the Assisi Event

(in the style of Screwtape Letters)

A Letter from a Devil on Assisi: Traditionalist Misunderstandings
Dear Sneakylick,
I am very happy that you took my advice. Your patient is now leaning toward Radical Traditionalism. And I know what will make him cross that line! One word: Assisi. When someone hears that word, they usually think of that stupid hippy Francis. "Make me a channel of your peace." Yuck! But we can redefine Assisi. You see, the Enemy's Vicar has done something which is very controversial. He invited unbelievers to pray with him! This sickens me. This is why.
You see, the 20th century was our century. We made countries fight each other in almost every decade. We got people to think of man as an object, instead of a subject. We got people to think that man was a mere production of economy. We also got people to think that if you are a certain race, religion, or culture, you are not a person. Not only that, we got them to persecute them! We murdered millions and millions and millions of people. Everywhere you go, there were condemnations. We hate Jews! We hate Blacks! We hate Catholics! I loved it! If not, they were also troubled because they had little money because of the depression. We made man depressed! They had no more hope!
The Enemy's Church knew this. She knew that that man wanted hope. To do this, she had to change her approach on teaching doctrines. She didn't want to follow the "Spirit of the Age" of condemnation. Instead, she wanted to teach truth against the false philosophies, to show that her doctrines are better than the false ones. When I made a person teach false humanism, she striked back teaching authentic humanism: that the perfection of man is life with the Enemy.
She also found a way to evangelize: ecumenism. She prefers to dialogue with other religions. You see, I made people have an "open mind." This means that they hate anything which sounds close-minded. In other words, they are close-minded when it comes to close-mindedness. So when the Enemy taught that His Son is the Only way, people rejected it because it did not feel right and not very open minded. We got people of hating Catholic doctrines such as existence of hell, that the Catholic Church is the only true Church, and so on. In fact, I made them hate Catholic doctrine so much, that they don't even want to hear it.
The Enemy's Church then made a new strategy. She knows that they don't like to hear those things, so she will present something which both parties agree on and work from there. For example, that ArchIdiot Fulton J. Sheen said that the only way to convert Muslims is through Our Lady of Fatima. He said,
"In any apologetic endeavor, it is always best to start with that which people already accept. Because the Moslems have a devotion to Mary, our missionaries should be satisfied merely to expand and to develop that devotion, with the full realization that Our Blessed Lady will carry the Moslems the rest of the way to her Divine Son." (The World's First Love, page 204)
This is what the Enemy's Church did at Assisi. That old charismatic idiot John Paul wanted to have a dialogue. He invited them to pray. Why? Because he wanted to soften their prejudice and dialogue is needed for it. At the same time, he will sneak in the Gospel. Of course, the Church does not condemn this, but your patient doesn't know that. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange once said,
"It might be expedient for such to associate commonly with pagans and Jews in order to forward the work of their conversion, at least negatively, by softening of prejudice." (The Theological Virtues: Volume One On Faith, B Herder Book Co [1965], page 417)
But don't let your patient see this! Don't even let him try to see the rationale for this event. Make him the judge. Make him condemn the Pope! This is what we want! He doesn't know that communicating with unbelievers isn't necessarily evil, but they should be cautious of it. And if a doubt were to arise about the sufficiency of reason, the bishop should have the decisive last word (ibid). But he doesn't know that. He lives in a country where professors have to be refuted. He has a "debate" mentality. Every error must be refuted. Make him think that the only approach of evangelization is, "Go to Jesus Christ or go to hell!" And if they hear someone saying otherwise, he will refute it. Even though this is not in itself wrong, the Church prefers not to do this. However, make your patient think that the "debate" mentality is the only approach of evangelization. But most of all, never make him read what John Paul preached at the Assisi event itself! Don't make him read things like:
"...I profess here anew my conviction, shared by all Christians, that in Jesus Christ, as Savior of all, true peace is to be found, 'peace to those who are far off and peace to those who are near'" (Cf. Eph 2.17).
and
"His birth was greeted by the angels' song: Glory to God in the highest and peace among men with whom He is pleased" (Cf. Lk 2:14). He preached love among all, even among foes, proclaimed blessed those who work for peace (Cf. Mt 5:9), and through His death and resurrection He brought about reconciliation between heaven and earth (Cf. Col.1:20). To use an expression of Paul the Apostle, 'He is our peace.'" (Eph.2:14).
If he does read it, make him critique it! Make him say, "But look! It doesn't say Jesus is the ONLY peace! This implies that there can be other ways of achieving peace without Jesus!" Of course, it does not imply that at all, but who cares about truth! By condemning the Pope's teaching, he is condemning Paul's teaching and he doesn't even know it! John Paul is only restating what Paul preached.
But you can make your patient say things like, "But it doesn't say enough! It doesn't say, if you don't convert, you will go to hell!" You see, the Pope could have done that, but didn't. If he said something like that dialogue will be lost and we might have won their soul. But the Pope hates us. He doesn't want them to lose their souls to us. So he says only enough truth that is sufficient for them to hear. They believe in peace, and the Pope says Jesus Christ is the true peace. This might make them re-think their views of Catholicism. This might make them think that Catholicism isn't just condemnation and hell, but also a good and peaceful religion. But your patient doesn't know this. And don't let him know! Don't let him see the rationale for doing it!
Also, when the Pope wanted to have a dialogue, he permitted them to pray according to their own religion. Of course, if a person has religious freedom in any land, he should have religious freedom on the Church's home turf as well. John Paul permitted them to pray so that they can have a dialogue and he can preach the truth. This is because prayer itself is not wrong. No one knows or can control what a pagan for example, will pray to. If he pray to the false god, the Enemy might answer if it pleases Him.
This is the big distinction which you cannot afford to let your patient know. John Paul did not say, "pray to your false god." If he did, then he would be preaching falsehood. He invited him to pray, which again, isn't wrong. But your patient doesn't know that and don't let him. Instead, since he is theologically ignorant, make him condemn it. Make him say things like, "Look! He didn't stop them from praying to their false gods!" But if the Pope did do this, all dialogue will be ended and we could have won their souls. However, that old man didn't. He permitted it so that they can have a dialogue.
One final thing. You can make him disagree with Assisi, but your main goal is to make him condemn it publicly. You see, Cardinal Biffi disagreed with John Paul, but he did not publicly dissent from the Pope by writing articles in newspapers, websites, or blogs. What you want him to do is be unlike Cardinal Biffi.
Make him condemn it. After this, his soul is closer to our Father here below.
Your Uncle, Water Strider, senior devil