Wars and rumors of wars on the TLM and Summorum Pontificum”?

Discussion in 'Pope Francis' started by BrianK, May 26, 2021.

  1. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    Astounding
     
    Xavier, DeGaulle and Michael Pio like this.
  2. Michael Pio

    Michael Pio Archangels

    I can't recommend a book apart from what others already said, but someone lately posted a great interview with Dr. Rob Moynihan on this topic.
     
  3. padraig

    padraig Powers

    God Bless EWTN.
    I am sure Mother Angelica is smiling from heaven.:)
     
    Booklady, AED, DeGaulle and 2 others like this.
  4. DeGaulle

    DeGaulle Powers

    There is a book by one of the priests who was actually charged with 'assembling' the 2nd Eucharistic prayer (the pseudoHippolyte one). He was a French convert from Protestantism and if I recall correctly, he regarded Bugnini and his cohorts as 'madmen'. 'The Memoirs of Louis Bouyer' is the book.
     
    AED, PurpleFlower, Sam and 1 other person like this.
  5. BrianK

    BrianK Powers Staff Member

    Brandmüller on the Motu Proprio: "A law must be accepted to be valid"

    July 29, 2021

    Posted in Italian earlier today by Marco Tosatti

    Based on a German original posted on Kath.net

    Card. Walter Brandmüller, an eminent Church historian, has published this intervention on the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes["Of Tradition the Guardians"] on Kath.net that we offer you in our Italian translation [now translated into English by myself—RM]. Enjoy the reading.



    §§§



    By Cardinal Walter Brandmüller

    July 29, 2021

    With his motu proprio Traditionis custodes, Pope Francis has practically unleashed a hurricane that has upset those Catholics who feel attached to the "Tridentine" rite of Mass revived by Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum [issued July 7, 2007].



    From now on -- according to the essential declaration of Traditionis custodes -- Benedict's Summorum Pontificum will be in large measure suspended and the celebration of Holy Mass, with some exceptions, will be allowed only according to the Missal of Paul VI.



    A look at the blogger scene and other media outlets reveals how a global protest has erupted against this document, which is unusual in form and content.



    In contrast to the protests relating to the content of the Traditionis custodes, it is necessary now to make some reflections here that refer to fundamental principles of ecclesiastical legislation -- in regard to Traditionis custodes.



    If the discussion about Traditionis custodes has so far concerned the legislative content of the motu proprio, here the text will be considered from a formal point of view as a legal text.



    First of all, it should be noted that a law does not require special acceptance by the interested parties to acquire binding force.



    However, it must be received by them.

    Reception means affirmative acceptance of the law in the sense of "making it your own."

    Only then does the law acquire confirmation and permanence, as the "father" of canon law, Gratian († 1140), taught in his famous Decretum. Here is the original text:



    Leges instituuntur cum promulgantur. Firmantur cum moribus utentium approbantur. Sicut enim moribus utentium in contrariem nonnullae leges hodie abrogatae sunt, ita moribus utentium leges confirmantur ”(c. 3 D. 4).



    (Our translation: "Laws are established when they are promulgated. They are confirmed when they are approved by the behavior of those who use them. For as due to the behaviors of users in an opposing direction [against the laws, not following the laws] quite a few laws today have been abrogated, so through the behaviors of the users the laws are confirmed").



    This means, however, that for a law to be valid and binding, it must be approved by those to whom it is addressed. Thus, on the other hand, some laws today are abolished by non-compliance, just as, on the contrary, the laws are confirmed by the fact that those concerned observe them.



    In this context, reference can also be made to the possibility provided for by customary law, according to which a justified objection against a law of the universal Church has, at least initially, a suspensive effect [in other words, a law not received does not go into effect].

    This means, however, that the law need not be obeyed until the objection has been clarified.



    It should also be remembered that, if there is a doubt as to whether a law is binding, it is not binding.

    Such doubts could be due, for example, to an inadequate wording of the law.



    Here it becomes clear that the laws and the community for which the laws are enacted are linked to each other in an almost organic way, to the extent that the community's bonum commune ["common good"] is their goal.



    Put simply, this means that the validity of a law ultimately depends on the consent of those affected by it.

    The law must serve the good of the community -- and not vice versa, the community (serving) the law.



    The two things are not opposed to one another, but linked one to the other, neither can exist without or against the other.



    If a law is not observed, or is no longer observed, whether from the beginning or after a time, it loses its binding force and becomes obsolete.



    This -- and this must be strongly emphasized -- naturally applies only to purely ecclesiastical laws, but in no case to those based on divine or natural law.



    As an example of a lex mere ecclesiastica ["a merely ecclesiastical law"] consider the apostolic constitution Veterum sapientia ["Of the ancients the wisdom"] of Pope John XXIII of February 22, 1962, in which the Pope prescribed Latin for university teaching, among other things.



    Young scholar that I was, I reacted only by shaking my head.

    Well, Latin was the norm at the Gregorian University in Rome, and this made good enough sense given the babel of languages among the students, who came from all continents. But whether Cicero, Virgil and Lactantius would have understood the lessons [Note: given in a stumbling and fractured modern Latin], is doubtful. And then: the history of the Church, even of modern times, (taught) in Latin? With all the love professed for the Roman language -- how could it work? [Note: In other words, Pope John ordered the classes to still be taught in Latin, but no one knew Latin well enough, so many simply did not obey the decree.]



    And so it remained. Veterum sapientia was hardly printed and soon forgotten.

    But what this inglorious demise of an apostolic constitution meant for the prestige of papal authority became evident only five years later, when Paul VI's encyclical Humanae vitae [in 1968] was nearly drowned amid protests from the Western world.



    The thing is done, therefore, friends, and now, patience. Never has unenlightened zeal served peace, or the common good. It was St. John Henry Newman who, quoting the great Augustine, reminded us: "Securus iudicat orbis terrarum." ["The verdict of the world is conclusive." (link)]

    In the meantime, let's pay close attention to our language. "Verbal disarmament" has already been called that. [In other words, in discussing this new law, do not resort to alarmed, abusive, "nuclear" language..."]

    In more pious words: no violation of brotherly (and recently sisterly) love!

    Now -- seriously again: what a grotesque idea that the mystery of love itself [that is, the Mass, the Eucharist, the holt sacrifice of Christ] should become a bone of contention.

    Again, we quote Saint Augustine, who called the Holy Eucharist the bond of love and peace that encloses [unites] the head and the members of the Church.

    No greater triumph of hell could be imagined that if this bond [the bond uniting Christians in brotherly love] were broken again, as has happened many times in the past.

    Then the onlooking world would grin: "Look how they love each other!"

    [In other words, if the Church divides into competing factions, one hating the other, over this question, it would be the victory of Hell and the cause of amusement for the onlooking world.]

    [End, Brandmüller on the legal bing power of the Pope's decree]

    ***
     
    Mario, DeGaulle, Byron and 2 others like this.
  6. Michael Pio

    Michael Pio Archangels

    God bless Cardinal Brandmueller! This is, again, a very courageous statement. Unfortunately, the Dubia raised in 2016 have not been answered.
     
    DeGaulle, AED, Carol55 and 3 others like this.
  7. Carol55

    Carol55 Ave Maria

    The Next Conclave: A Nightmare Scenario
    Posted on July 18, 2021 by Steven O'Reilly

    July 17, 2021 (Steven O’Reilly) – Yesterday, Pope Francis issued Traditionis Custodes, his motu proprio which places significant restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) going forward. I will not comment in great detail on its harsh measures as others have already done so. However, for the ‘pope of mercy’ who speaks often of those on the ‘peripheries’ of the Church, it is clear neither his mercy nor the peripheries extend as far as those attached to the TLM.

    ... (Please click on one of the links in the header to read the entire post.)

    A Horrid Thought

    We know that Pope Francis went into the 2013 conclave with an agenda: irreversible change. The question is from his standpoint, how does he insure it is irreversible? As of now, over 50% of the cardinals were appointed by Francis. These new cardinals, for the most part, seem to have been picked because they are Bergoglians. Therefore, it appears quite likely, if not probable, that the next conclave will produce a Pope Francis II. As horrid a thought as this is — barring Divine intervention; another horrid thought came to me: what if these “odds” aren’t good enough for Francis?

    Consider, Pope Francis knows his own election, dependent on cardinals created by Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI, was no sure thing. Indeed, his own election required the aid of the St. Gallen mafia, his own campaigning, the possible help of an Italian vaticanista, the help of the “influential Italian gentleman“, the help of McCarrick (all discussed in The Conclave Chronicles), and a questionably-timed police raid the morning of the conclave that knee-capped the chances of his chief rival for the papacy (see The Forgotten ‘October Surprise’ of the 2013 Conclave; The Forgotten ‘October Surprise’ (Part II): Cui Bono?). If such happy “coincidences” were necessary for his own election; will Francis leave it to chance that his hoped for successor — who he hopes will secure his “irreversible” legacy — will be as ‘fortunate’ in the next conclave? Or, could Francis do more to improve the odds?

    As horrid as it is to imagine it, there is something more Francis could do to virtually guarantee a successor along the lines he wants — at least as far as human agency goes. Theoretically, Pope Francis could alter the laws governing papal conclaves, or scrap them all together. He could, theoretically, enact new papal legislation for conclaves that would restrict the number of qualified Cardinal electors to a small group of Cardinals.

    There is something of a precedent for this going back to the time of Pope Nicholas II (see Here) when cardinal-bishops[1] had a leading role in selecting the candidate for the papacy (see also the election of Pope Innocent II and the election controversy involving anti-pope Anacletus). So, theoretically, in hopes of making his reforms “irreversible,” Francis could restrict eligible Cardinal-electors to a trusted set of Cardinals, for example, perhaps those who sit on his Counsel of Cardinal Advisors, at one time totaling eight cardinals but now seven. Changing conclave rules to protect “reform” is not new. Pope Paul VI changed the rules so that Cardinals over the age of 80 would be ineligible to vote in conclaves — thus removing a segment of the College of Cardinals potentially in opposition to the reforms of Vatican II.

    Perhaps such a scenario is no more than a scary hypothetical. No more than an improbable nightmare scenario. Then again, this is the Pope who gave us Amoris Laetitia, Pachamama, the Abu Dhabi statement, the Scalfari interviews, and a host of other outrages, most recently Traditionis Custodes. This is a Pope who want “irreversible” change.

    Buckle your seatbelts. It will be a wild ride to the end of this pontificate as Francis “speeds up.” Pray for the Church, and let us pray for Pope Francis that he remembers the Lord’s words to Peter: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren” (Luke 22:31-32).
     
  8. AED

    AED Powers

    Dear Jesus have mercy. Mary Our Mother be our safe refuge.
     
  9. thomas21

    thomas21 Archangels

    How is it possible for this guy to contradict the magisterium knowingly and not be a heretic? For example, he no doubt knew full well what the Church teaches regarding the death penalty but said the Church teaches the contrary. Isn’t the Church’s position on the death penalty part of the divine and Catholic Faith?
     
    BrianK likes this.
  10. BrianK

    BrianK Powers Staff Member

    Yes, it is. But because it’s such an unpopular topic to the modern mind, very few if any are willing to point this out. And the pope knew this would be the case beforehand. But it’s the one case where it could seriously be argued he is guilty of manifest and formal heresy, not just material heresy, and thereby, according to some respected theologians of ages past, has lost the papacy.

    https://abyssum.org/2018/12/20/pope...lation-of-god-the-fathers-and-doctors-of-the/

    Pope Francis just taught, again, a heresy according to Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine that contradicts the “teachings of scripture [the Revelation of God], the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and previous popes”:
    Posted on December 20, 2018 byabyssum
    Fred Martinez
    Tuesday, December 18, 2018

    St. Bellarmine: Francis’s Death Penalty Teaching is “Heretical;” is “Analogous to Denying” Holy Trinity, has “Implications for the Pro-Life Movement [that] would be Catastrophic” & would let loose Murderers like Ted Bundy
    Pope Francis just taught, again, a heresy according to Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine that contradicts the “teachings of scripture [the Revelation of God], the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and previous popes”:

    “[T]he Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that death penalty is always inadmissible for the Church is attentive to the inviolability and dignity of the person… the Magisterium of the Church believes that perpetual punishment [life imprisonment], which removes the possibility of moral and existential redemption for the benefit of the condemned person and the community, is a form of hidden death penalty.”
    [
    https://www.lastampa.it/2018/12/18/...executions-H4nLalvbjc2PzhQ0WXn0fO/pagina.html]

    Renowned Catholic philosopher Edward Feser explains why the Francis teaching is Orwellian error, contradicts past teachings and is judged “heretical” by a Doctor of the Church:

    “[Doctor of the Church] Bellarmine judged it ‘heretical’ to maintain that Christians cannot in theory apply capital punishment.”

    “… Pope Francis, by contrast, wants the Catechism to teach that capital punishment ought never to be used… he justifies this change not on prudential grounds, but ‘so as to better reflect the development of doctrine.'”

    “… Nor does the letter from the CDF [Francis’s Vatican doctrine office] explain how the new teaching can be consistent with the teaching of scripture, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and previous popes. Merely asserting the new language “develops” rather than “contradicts” past teachings does not make it so. The CDF is not Orwell’s Ministry of Truth, and a pope is not Humpty Dumpty, able by fiat to make words mean whatever he wants them to. Slapping the label “development” onto a contradiction doesn’t transform it into a non-contradiction.”
    (First Things, “Pope Francis and Capital Punishment,” August, 3 2018)

    Moreover, Feser shows that it is “analogous to denying the doctrine that there are three divine Persons”:

    “Once again the Pope both appears to condemn capital punishment as intrinsically wrong and claims that his remarks are consistent with past teaching. He tries to justify the claim that there is no inconsistency by saying that the Church has always affirmed the dignity of life. But this is analogous to denying the doctrine that there are three divine Persons and then claiming that this is consistent with past teaching, on the grounds that the Church has always affirmed that there is only one God. In fact, the doctrine of the Trinity requires us to say both that there is only one God and that there are three Persons in God. Similarly, consistency with scripture and previous papal teaching requires us to say both that life has dignity but also that an offender can in principle lose the right to his life. To fail to affirm both of these things is precisely to contradict past teaching, not ‘develop’ it.”
    [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.li...-he-sits-experts-question-francis-attack-on-p]

    Heresy in itself is a great evil, but this erroneous teaching could, also, bring about the evil of promoting more abortions while claiming to be “pro-life.”

    Dr. Joseph Shaw, as early as October 20, 2017, showed how the Pope’s death penalty heresy plays into the abortionist game plan with “implications for the pro-life movement [that] would be catastrophic”:

    “The Pope speaks in this address with a level of technical precision not always
    to be found in his remarks. He says:”

    ‘It is per se contrary to the Gospel, because it entails the willful suppression of a
    human life that never ceases to be sacred in the eyes of its Creator and of which –
    ultimately – only God is the true judge and guarantor.’

    “This logically implies that the ‘willful suppression of life’ in self-defence and war is also always and everywhere ruled out.”

    “This aligns his position with that made famous by the American theologian Prof
    Germain Grisez (who, as a matter of fact, wrote an open letter to Pope Francis
    protesting about the undermining of the teaching of the Church on marriage, with his longstanding collaborator Prof John Finnis). Grisez argues that warfare is morally possible if we think of soldiers not intending to kill, but intending to incapacitate.”

    “This raises the question of whether Pope Francis or his collaborators would like at
    some point to take advantage of another implication of Grisez’s position
    . Grisez’s
    view is that it is intrinsically wrong to intend to take a life, and that this is always
    wrong (even in a just war). On the other hand, it would be permissible to remove anon-viable fetus from the womb, if the intention was not to kill but to remove the fetus from the womb for the sake of the mother’s health. Indeed, to facilitate this removal, it would be permissible to cut the fetus into pieces first.
    (See Germain Grisez ‘Towards a consistent Natural-Law ethics of killing’ American Journal of Jurisprudence 15 (1970) p4; cf. Finnis, Boyle, and Grisez Nuclear Deterrence, Morality and Realism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987) p311)”

    “This view was condemned by Pope St John Paul II in Evangelium vitae 62 (cf. §§40,
    60, 63). It should be emphasised that Grisez and his collaborators accepted the
    position of Evangelium vitae as binding on Catholics.

    The condemnation of the death penalty in all circumstance could be part of a
    strategy
    to adopt this understanding of a consistent pro-life ethic [seamless garment]. While it looks at first like a very strong ‘pro-life’ position, it allows so-called ‘therapeutic abortion’, and
    adopting it would enable the Church to make an enormous concession to the
    practice of abortion.”


    “Is should be noted that the great majority of abortions are carried out under the
    justification of the ‘health of the mother’
    , whether physical or mental, and while
    Grisez would insist that few could be truly justified on his theory, it would not be easy
    for legislators to distinguish which were and which were not. The practical result of
    adopting this approach would be the end of the Catholic campaign against legal
    abortion, and the resolution of the confrontation between the Church and the world on this most explosive of issues.”

    “In short, the implications for the pro-life movement would be catastrophic.”
    (LifeSiteNews interview on the ‘Death Penalty’ address of Pope Francis with Dr.
    Joseph Shaw, Oxford professor, October 20, 2017)

    Not only is Francis unambiguously professing the material heresy that “the death penalty is inadmissible” which apparently will promote more abortions, but on top of that, he wants to let loose the Ted Bundys to rape and kill or else he is senile or so out of touch with reality that he thinks serial rapist and murderers are miraculously going to stop raping and killing.
    [Francis’s material heresy:http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2018/08/unambiguously-pope-francis-formally.html?m=1]

    Bundy was a serial murderer and rapist who, also, tortured the victims and even engaged in necrophilia with their bodies.

    If Ted Bundy had not received the death penalty and was instead given a sentence of life imprisonment would Pope Francis want Bundy set free?

    In 2014 and now in 2018 Francis said:

    – “[T]he Magisterium of the Church believes that perpetual punishment [life imprisonment], which removes the possibility of moral and existential redemption for the benefit of the condemned person and the community, is a form of hidden death penalty.”
    [
    https://www.lastampa.it/2018/12/18/...executions-H4nLalvbjc2PzhQ0WXn0fO/pagina.html]

    – “A life sentence is just a death penalty in disguise.” (edwardfeser.blogspot, “The curious case of Pope Francis and the ‘new natural lawyers,'” June 3, 2017)

    Pray for Francis because something appears to be seriously wrong with the poor man if he wants to free dangerous criminals and serial predators from prison to kill and rape innocent people.

    Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.



    Sent from my iPhone
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2021
    DeGaulle likes this.
  11. Mario

    Mario Powers

    In speaking of the Holy Father's decision (unwise not withstanding), my oldest son, Fr. Benjamin, stated the judicial powers of the Pope allow him to do what he has done. We can argue otherwise until we're blue in the face, but...

    Personally, I foresee ample resistance, but if the significant number of comments I've seen by Trads indicate anything, anger and not love currently has the upper hand.

    How far will bishops go in stalling the implementation of Pope Francis' decision? Hmmmm...

    Safe in the Barque of Peter!
     
    Donna259, Jo M, HeavenlyHosts and 2 others like this.
  12. padraig

    padraig Powers

    I would agree with this. The Pope , any Pope has huge, huge powers. Virtually unlimited. I am sure for all the talk of Synodality, power to the lay people, accompniment, Mercy, listening with compassion ect, ect...Pope Francis and his friends know this better, far, far better than anyone else.

    He is in a position of perfect and virtually absolute Power. Great when we've a good Pope. A total killer when (as at present) we've been stuck with a terrible one. But there you go.

    The Vicar of Christ means...well.. he's the Vicar of Christ...and boy does this guy know it.

    It's the sheer unmitigated hypocrisy of the whole thing that sticks in my craw. They are using Traditional Theological understanding to forward Liberal / Modernist heretical aims.

    Utter and complete hypocrites.

    Lending a listening and compassionate ear to fellow travellers. Attila the Hun, wipe them all out, to all that dare to dissent.

    Hypocrites.
     
  13. thomas21

    thomas21 Archangels

    Are you sure he’s the vicar of Christ, even if it can be mathematically proven he’s teaching a different gospel? If we can get past the hurdle of being forced to be in communion with a heretic to be saved (I don’t believe that is what God demands: the Bible seems to tell us to avoid false teachers, so how may it be a command of God to stay in communion with one?) even if an angel came down to preach a different gospel he is anathema. If even an angel is anathema, how would a pope who teaches heresy be?

    Are we just say “to hell with logic!” or will God punish us for not accepting the truth, because we can’t stomach it? It’s not like we’re out of options, as there are 2 men in white in Rome. For me it makes sense that the way to separate weeds from wheat is to let someone without authority command unholy things. Those who obey would be doing so because they’re scared more of hell rather than truly loving the things of God.

    Just some thoughts, because I can logically prove he’s teaching heresy, and would argue that it is implausible that he’s unaware of it. Does being logical make me schismatic? Mystery is beyond logic, but it certainly cannot contradict it. Everything that can be logically proven is certainly true. Everyone who doesn’t love truth will be deceived in the end times.

    God is truth right?
     
  14. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    God is Truth , right. But Jesus established the Catholic Church. We are either safely in the Barque or we risk eternal torment. We need to keep SELF out of it.
     
    Michael Pio, Jo M, AED and 1 other person like this.
  15. thomas21

    thomas21 Archangels

    The scary thing is, if he is a false shepherd (for objective logic can establish he’s teaching heresy), and you obey an evil command, you also leave the barque. The Nazis didn’t fare well saying that they were just following orders and people claimed they were responsible for knowing it was evil.

    Not saying he is a false shepherd, but objectively we are supposed to recognize our shepherd’s voice.
     
  16. PurpleFlower

    PurpleFlower Powers

    What evil command has Pope Francis given us? Who here is following an order from PF that is objectively evil and therefore causing them to "leave the barque?"
     
    AED likes this.
  17. TinNM

    TinNM Guest

    I watched that EWTN video on the Tridentine Mass and the reform that seems to have been made an objective, I also became aware of the breaking news on Cardinal McCarrick. There was a bit of a row in that thread.

    The thing is, is we can say he is the Pope, Seat of Peter, Good Shepherd but it is also a body of Christ of which we are a member, that body of Christ being the Church, correct? So, we too have some responsibilities in this.
     
  18. thomas21

    thomas21 Archangels

    It’s the principle involved. Since you think you have to obey him or go to hell, your brain prevents you from seeing things for what they are.

    Divorced and remarried should be free to have communion if conscience allows
    Death Penalty is intrinsically wrong
    There is no just war
    You can worship idols without being an idolaters
    We should have an one world fraternity
    We should stop clinging to traditions like Pharisees
    Convincing someone else of your faith is fundamentalism
    These experimental vaccines are a moral duty
    Communists stole good ideas from Christians

    Everything he says can be dismissed away at the moment. But cummitatively they point to a disturbing pattern.
     
    themilitantcatholic likes this.
  19. TinNM

    TinNM Guest

    PurpleFlower likes this.
  20. PurpleFlower

    PurpleFlower Powers

    I still see everything how it is and disagree with all of the things you listed here, even though I believe we are to honor the pope and obey him in all non-sinful things he has jurisdiction over in the Church.

    He will not be pope forever. One day God will send a good and holy pope that will correct the incorrect statements and ideas of this pope. Let us hope that we are all still safely in the Barque when that time comes. History is full of schisms that occurred because people disagreed with problems in the Church or with the pope and redefined for themselves what the "True Church" was.
     

Share This Page