Much as I admire JPII, if PF did any of these things we'd all be up in arms. Despite these appalling actions, however, the former gave us a huge amount of written material that is profoundly Catholic, in contrast to what we have received from PF. In that light, I can only conclude that the motives of JPII in these actions were benevolent and orthodox, however misguided the praxis. With respect to Dolours insightful comment on the Universalism of the likes of Bishop Barron and the displacement of the doctrine of Original Sin, I wish to add that the main cause in all of this is the excessive respect enjoyed in the Church by the theology of Balthasar. The latter is hugely respected by conservatives as well as liberals because most of his theology is quite traditional and is seen as a bulwark against the radicals such as Rahner, Schillebeeckx and Kung. However, the Salvation Theology of Balthasar was radically universalist (much moreso than Rahner's) and has crept in within the Trojan Horse of his otherwise conservative theology to infect huge portions of the Church. Those who propose Universalism need to ask themselves one question. If everyone gets to Heaven, this deprives this world of all logical meaning. If we're going into Heaven regardless, what is the purpose of this life? Logically, there remains none. Personally, I'd go further and say that it implies, if true, that God would be a monster, because He would have subjected countless humans, not excluding His Son, to having had to undergo incalculable suffering for no purpose. Given that a majority of the priests and bishops seem to be effectively universalist, it is not surprising that we have arrived where we are. God help us.
As I touched on in my previous post, the origins are outside Vatican II, in heterodox theology, which happened to be accepted by many in power in the Church at the time of VII and who opportunistically passed off their heresies as having stemmed from the Council. I'd recommend Ralph Martin's eminent study 'How Many Will Be Saved', which opened my eyes in terms of how the findings of the Council were abused and often ignored. Sections were taken from the Council with vital qualifications omitted, thus completely changing their meaning. But this is not the fault of VII, they do the same to the very Gospels.
I'm new here and entered the topic PACHAMAMAS pretty late, 46 pages of discussion before my time and the topic has taken a life of its own, but.... Bishop Schneider praised the act of disposing of the statues A Heroic Act That Will Be Recorded In Church History I regard Bishop Schneider as one of the 'living Saints', Doctor of the Church, I'd give anything to have him as my pope, but you can go and verify that for yourself by visiting his website, and watching the ten brilliant instruction videos in the Catholic Faith at: GLORIA DEI Cheers, everyone
I'll keep looking for the video. There are so many. I wish I could remember the precise video where the one Bishop offer was mentioned. It could have been a Patrick Coulombe Tumblar House video. I have seen references to the one Bishop offer in comments on articles by members of the SSPX, so evidently it wasn't a secret that Pope John Paul offered to promote a priest from the SSPX as successor to Archbishop Lefebvre. Archbishop Lefebvre said that Pope John Paul offered to make the SSPX a personal prelature - that would have given the Society the same kind of autonomy currently enjoyed by the Anglican prelature. Archbishop Lefebvre certainly signed all the Vatican 11 documents. As far as I can see, it was ten years later that he became forceful in his condemnation of its documents. Here's a link to a website showing copies of letters from the Archbishop to the Pope, one in 1980 and the other in 1981: https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f050ht_LefebvreCCL.htm Note in the first letter that Archbishop Lefebvre agrees with the Pope that the Council's documents must be understood "in the light of all Holy Tradition and on the basis of the constant Magisterium of the Holy Church". The Archbishop, in the same letter, says: "Regarding the Mass of the Novus Ordu, despite all the reservations one must have about it, I have never said that it is in itself invalid or heretical". In the second letter (dated April 1981), Archbishop Lefebvre says: "Regarding the Liturgical reform, I myself signed the Conciliar decree and I have never stated that its applications were in themselves invalid and heretical". My own take on all this is that Archbishop Lefebvre had the best of intentions and so did Pope John Paul 11. Pope Paul V1 refused his request for the TLM to be widely available in Catholic churches where it had been the norm prior to the introduction of the Novus Ordu. There are some reports that Pope Paul accused the Archbishop of setting himself up as an anti-Pope, and that heightened the Archbishop's suspicions. His treatment by those who opposed him was disgraceful, as had been their treatment of Cardinal Ottavianni at the Council. Pope Paul V1 realised too late that he had been befriended by people who had their own agenda. A lot was said and written by both sides which would have been better left unsaid and unwritten because it muddied the waters when Pope John Paul with Cardinal Ratzinger's help tried to repair relations with the SSPX. Archbishop Lefebvre was probably suspicious of Cardinal Ratzinger - not without good reason. Pope Benedict himself acknowledged that he learned much from working with Pope John Paul. Archbishop Lefebvre might not have been aware that Cardinal Ratzinger was no longer the tool of Modernism that he had shown himself to be during the Vatican Council. Archbishop Lefebvre was a good man as was Pope John Paul 11. Pope John Paul is a saint and Archbishop Lefebvre may well also be a saint. Pope Paul V1 will never be a hero to me, despite Humane Vitae. I don't doubt that both he and Pope John XX111 are saints but I don't think it's because they had all the hallmarks of sanctity while they were alive, especially when they were Popes. I expect that, like any Catholic, they confessed their sins when they were alive and received the Sacrament of Extreme Unction before they died. Being Popes, no doubt they also received the Apostolic Pardon with the last Sacrament which would ensure sainthood for them as it would for any Catholic. Saints now, but they left their successors with a terrible mess which looks like it will take direct intervention from Heaven to clean up.
Thank you for this clarification, Dolours. It has important information concerning Archbishop Lefebvre’s view that the Novus Ordo Mass was not heretical or invalid. That cuts to the heart of the matter of all of the protestations to the contrary.
My head is swimming with all the stuff written about the SSPX. Regarding the Mass, as far as I can remember from what I was taught as a child, the essentials of a valid Mass are the Offertory, the Consecration and the Priest's Communion and the Mass must be offered by a validly ordained Priest. Novus Ordu Masses have the offering of bread and wine, the words of Consecration are valid and the priest receives Communion, so it's valid and Archbishop Lefebvre would have accepted that even if he believed it to be an inferior form of the Mass intended to replace the better TLM. The Novus Ordu is certainly more open to abuse than the TLM. Archbishop Lefebvre was right about a lot of things but not everything. Nobody's perfect. May God rest his soul.
This is an excellent summary. I don't think Pope John bears anything like the same responsibility as Pope Paul for the subsequent mess. I remain open to contradiction, but it is my understanding that Cardinal Ottoviani was quite enthusiastic about Pope John's proposal of a Council. Pope John does receive quite a bit of stick for not revealing the Third Secret, but it must be borne in mind that The Church does not demand belief in the events of Fatima.
(Comments in blue and bold, red or underlined emphases are mine - SgC) The phrase that Abp Lefebvre used (about the NO mass) is "I have never stated that its applications were in themselves invalid and heretical". But neither did he say that it was good or perfectly fine. Which is why he fought for the right for all to freely celebrate the TLM in all Catholic churches. And he further explained in that interview: As far as we know, you voted in favor of the decree on the Liturgy.... Archbishop Lefebvre: Yes, I must admit it... but I could not foresee how far the liturgical reform would go.... And for several years you celebrated Mass according to the new rite.... Archbishop Lefebvre: I celebrated Mass according to the new liturgical instructions of 1965, but never according to the final ones of 1968 which bear the signature of [then-] Msgr. Bugnini. Abp Lefebvre did sign the V II documents. But he later had second thoughts about the Declaration on Religious Liberty. And wasn't he proven right about his doubts after the sacrilege at the Assisi inter-faith meeting in 1986 happened? I do not blame him. How can I? We have surely felt the same horror he must have felt then, when we saw the Pachamama worship at the Amazon synod recently. Archbishop Lefebvre: "Anyway, the Declaration on Religious Liberty is the real apple of discord, because other errors result from the introduction of this liberal principle in the Church. The break with Tradition in this case is obvious: 11 popes, from Pius VI to Pius XII, condemned Liberalism; the Council approved it. No one can convince me that there is no contradiction." Yes, he had been impressed by Pope JPII's address, where the pope said that V II had to be read in light of Tradition, but he was disappointed after his audience with the pope. He explains why: Nevertheless, when you left the audience that you had [with the pope] on November 18, 1978, the tone of your statements was quite different: “I am confident,” you said. “With John Paul II everything becomes possible.” To what do you attribute your change of attitude? Archbishop Lefebvre: I had been struck by a passage from his address in which he affirmed that the Council had to be read in light of Tradition. “Finally,” I said to myself, “we can hope for a revision of Vatican II.” But my expectation was disappointed. Who knows, maybe it was the men in the Curia who prevented him from going down that path.... Everyone knows that in the Vatican an influential liberal-Masonic Mafia is active, without whose “placet” [approval] no change is possible. And so we have arrived at the present moment of the Church in which the triumph of Liberalism is being celebrated. On January 29, 1979, you told a Swiss newspaper with satisfaction: “The pope himself told me that it would be enough for me to sign a declaration in which I said that I accepted the Council according to Tradition.” An agreement seemed possible, then, or are we mistaken? Archbishop Lefebvre: Even Cardinal Ratzinger, when he was appointed Prefect of the Holy Office, thought that our case could be resolved in a few months. But you have to be honest. The expression that you quoted can be interpreted in various ways. What does it mean to “accept the Council according to Tradition”? We spoke about this several times, specifically with Cardinal Ratzinger; for him this means that the theses of Vatican II should be integrated into those of Tradition. But integrate is still a vague word. In my opinion it is appropriate to make a distinction. There are some conciliar documents that are obviously in conformity with Tradition, which pose no problem: I am thinking of Lumen Gentium, but also of other documents, such as the one on priestly formation and the seminaries. Then there are some ambiguous texts, which nevertheless can somehow be “interpreted” correctly according to the previous Magisterium. But there are also some texts that are plainly in contradiction with Tradition and which can in no way be “integrated” [with it]: the Declaration on Religious Liberty, the decree on Ecumenism, the one on the Liturgy. Here, agreement becomes impossible.... And after that audience with JPII, he never had the chance to meet with the pope again: After that audience, haven’t you ever met the pope privately? Archbishop Lefebvre: No, I had no “official” contacts except with Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Oddi and Cardinal Gagnon. On more “unofficial” terms I also met with the Frenchman Jean Guitton [the author—Ed.], who appears to be extremely interested in my “case”. You are probably right on both accounts. We may suspect that during these conversations you discussed possible solutions for your “case”. Can you speak about them? Archbishop Lefebvre: The Holy See would be willing to “regularize” the existence of our work, the “Society of St. Pius X”, from which the ecclesiastical approval granted on November 1, 1970, was withdrawn in 1975 by a decision that I consider invalid juridically. They said that the pope would be altogether willing to set up the Society as a Personal Prelature. Moreover we would have authorization, already partially provided by the 1984 Indult, to celebrate Mass according to the old rite of St. Pius V. All this, however, on the condition that we sign a declaration fully accepting the decrees and reforms of Vatican II. But that is not possible for us in conscience. In the same vein, I know that many, many Catholics love Pope JP II, but it is almost impossible for me to see him as a hero, because of that sacrilege in Assisi and elsewhere, for which he never issued any public apology. He went against the 1st Commandment. +
Agreed. And that is why I still go to a NO mass daily; because I believe it can be valid, if the priest has the intention of doing what the Church intents. In the same vein, due to a few bad experiences, I am careful when I travel overseas, to observe if the priest is following the rubrics of the GIRM or if he preaches anything heretical in his homily. Unfortunately there is no foolproof way of knowing what intention is in his heart. If only the TLM were available daily... +
Thank you. Yes, I was unfair to Pope John. He was diagnosed with cancer less than a month before the opening session of the Council, having been suffering the symptoms for about a year before that. The diagnosis wasn't made public but we can be sure that the Modernists who bad-mouthed Cardinal Ottavianni were aware of it and that Cardinal Montini was the person most likely to succeed him. According to Taylor Marshall (in the video I posted above), Cardinal Ottavianni was enthusiastic about the proposal of a Council. Marshall suggests that the Cardinal was expecting anathemas to be issued against the Modernists like Teilhard deChardin but that the Modernists came prepared and cut the ground from under the Cardinal. While I have reservations about some of Marshall's conclusions, he's a natural born teacher capable of explaining the most complicated matters in a way that even my pea brain can understand. That's why I like his videos. Cardinal Ottavianni seems to have been a strict disciplinarian which wouldn't have endeared him to academics used to students hanging on their every word. It's a pity that his successors were more lenient. We don't really know whether things would have been different had Pope John lived to preside over the Council. He was an enthusiastic supporter of ecumenism and chose Cardinal Bea to liaise with the Jews. Cardinal Bea was a very influential modernist. I think that some Popes were too trusting of their inner circle. What I find most annoying is that whenever we question dubious decisions or actions by the Pope or hierarchy, we are treated as though we don't trust that God will keep His promise to protect the Church. Nobody ever acknowledges that some Popes and members of the hierarchy display precious little trust in God when they water down or manipulate Church teaching to please the faithless. No matter how many "new paths" they invent, conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit. Sometimes I wonder whether they actually believe in the Holy Spirit.
He signed the documents. That they were interpreted differently than he expected doesn't change the wording which he put his signature to at the Council.
Every NO Mass is valid provided it includes the Offertory, the Consecration and the Priest's Communion. That includes Masses celebrated by priests dressed as clowns or Cardinals having young people send their "intentions" to Heaven in notes tied to balloons. Something that those who think that the TLM is perfect need to bear in mind is that nowadays the TLM is celebrated by priests who mostly have a great love and reverence for it. Wanting to promote the Mass, they are more likely to be extra careful not to do anything which would give the impression of irreverence. It's their choice to offer the TLM. Many of us who remember when the TLM was the only Mass also remember Masses which weren't offered with the greatest reverence. There's no reason to suppose that if the Vatican mandated regular TLMs in every parish there wouldn't be priests saying Mass grudgingly and without great reverence. A priest with ill intent will have the same intention irrespective of the language of the Mass. We took a lot on trust back in the day. We didn't know Latin other than a few basic prayers. The words of Consecration were whispered by the priest. For all we knew, he could have been reciting a nursery rhyme. I'm not sure, either, that there was a homily at every Mass pre-Vatican 11. Anyway, a priest offering the TLM is just as capable as preaching heresy in a homily as one offering Mass in the vernacular. I'm a huge fan of Taylor Marshall and other prominent supporters of the TLM but I think their enthusiasm can blind them to the possibility that the realisation of their dream could fall well short of their expectations.
I recall coming across a splendidly traditional-looking website a couple of years ago. Very ornate looking graphics, seemed the real deal. Then I realised it was utterly blasphemous. I got out of it like a dose of salts. It just goes to show that the devil can make use of anything, even Marian devotion, for his own ends. [This website most particularly and viciously attacked Archbishop Fulton Sheen. When one remembers all the shenanigans delaying the process of his beatification, it all speaks volumes for the worthiness and holiness of this great and prophetic bishop].
I disagree. (I am no Thomist, and if someone here is a Thomist, please feel free to correct me if my understanding is wrong.) St Thomas Aquinas in his Summa gives this in his Reply to Objection 2: The intention of mimicry or fun excludes the first kind of right intention, necessary for the validity of a sacrament. Article 10. Whether the validity of a sacrament requires a good intention in the minister? Objection 1. It seems that the validity of a sacrament requires a good intention in the minister. For the minister's intentionshould be in conformity with the Church's intention, as explained above (Article 8, Reply to Objection 1). But the intentionof the Church is always good. Therefore the validity of a sacrament requires of necessity a good intention in the minister. Objection 2. Further, a perverse intention seems worse than a playful one. But a playful intention destroys a sacrament: for instance, if someone were to baptize anybody not seriously but in fun. Much more, therefore, does a perverse intentiondestroy a sacrament: for instance, if somebody were to baptize a man in order to kill him afterwards. Objection 3. Further, a perverse intention vitiates the whole work, according to Luke 11:34: "If thy eye be evil, thy" whole "body will be darksome." But the sacraments of Christ cannot be contaminated by evil men; as Augustine says against Petilian (Cont. Litt. Petil ii). Therefore it seems that, if the minister's intention is perverse, the sacrament is invalid. On the contrary, A perverse intention belongs to the wickedness of the minister. But the wickedness of the minister does not annul the sacrament: neither, therefore, does his perverse intention. I answer that, The minister's intention may be perverted in two ways. First in regard to the sacrament: for instance, when a man does not intend to confer a sacrament, but to make a mockery of it. Such a perverse intention takes away the truthof the sacrament, especially if it be manifested outwardly. Secondly, the minister's intention may be perverted as to something that follows the sacrament: for instance, a priest may intend to baptize a woman so as to be able to abuse her; or to consecrate the Body of Christ, so as to use it for sorcery. And because that which comes first does not depend on that which follows, consequently such a perverse intention does not annul the sacrament; but the minister himself sins grievously in having such an intention. Reply to Objection 1. The Church has a good intention both as to the validity of the sacrament and as to the use thereof: but it is the former intention that perfects the sacrament, while the latter conduces to the meritorious effect. Consequently, the minister who conforms his intention to the Church as to the former rectitude, but not as to the latter, perfects the sacrament indeed, but gains no merit for himself. Reply to Objection 2. The intention of mimicry or fun excludes the first kind of right intention, necessary for the validity of a sacrament. Consequently, there is no comparison. Reply to Objection 3. A perverse intention perverts the action of the one who has such an intention, not the action of another. Consequently, the perverse intention of the minister perverts the sacrament in so far as it is his action: not in so far as it is the action of Christ, Whose minister he is. It is just as if the servant [minister] of some man were to carry alms to the poor with a wicked intention, whereas his master had commanded him with a good intention to do so. ----------------- If the priest does not do what the Church intends to in the Holy Sacrifice of the mass (and this is not inconceivable in the case of priests who see the Eucharist not as a thing, not as a reality, but as the assembly of the people), then the Sacrament is not valid. As Fr John Hardon said, "What we are calling liturgical abuses are only symptoms of deep doctrinal errors that have penetrated once Catholic circles and are causing untold damage to the faith, and I mean it, of millions!" http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Mass/Mass_004.htm +
Even if there were no other reasons than the following, I still believe that we should all go back to the TLM. (I mean we should do away with the NO mass). - the priest does not allow any particles of the consecrated Host to fall from his fingers, by keeping his fingers pinched together. - likewise, no particle of the Eucharist falls to the ground when Communion is given to the faithful, who receive it on their tongues, with a paten held below - no unconsecrated hands will be touching the Holy Eucharist - there would be strict conformity to the rubrics of the mass, because the priest does not have any liberty to change any part of it, and it would be glaringly obvious if he did. +
That is harsh on Abp Lefebvre. How could he have known, unless God had told him? But he did everything within his means to try to point out and correct the errors once the underlying unholy intentions became manifest. In one article I read, a priest who left the SSPX to join the FSSP after Abp Lefebvre consecrated the bishops at Econe, said about the Abp, “His face radiated holiness, and after meeting him I understood why artists portrayed saints with a halo.” +
