www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Cardinal Suspends Gibson's advisor

"There's nothing more conservative than a successful revolution!" I was taught this in Western Civ while in seminary and it was especially mentioned that it referred to the Novis Ordo of the Latin Church. Since I was then in the Pontifical Seminary of St. Mary's, I suppose that the quote has validity when applied to the 'New Order' of the Western Church's Liturgy? It is sad and yet I suppose not unusual to find this is, was, and always has been the way things are done in the Western Church. Thanks be to God that His Holiness, Pope John Paul II (a truly holy man) is NOT of the same mind and allows diversity of rite and expression amidst his jurisdiction. Would that all of his bishops did the same!

In His Holy Name,
+Father Archimandrite Gregory

Actually it was the Roman Missal that was promulgated by Pope St Pius V in the Apostolic Constitution, Quo primum , on 14 July, 1570 by decree of the Council of Trent. That same Roman Missal has undergone various revisions since its original promulgation. The revisions decreed by Vatican II and promulgated by Paul VI in the Apostolic Constitution, Missale Romanum on 3 April 1969 were only the latest revisions to the Roman Missal. So, yes, you are correct the Roman Missal has not been "abrogated".

I have always failed to understand the charge that Vatican II was a "pastoral council ONLY" and not a "DOCTRINAL council." Granted the Council was not dealing with problems of the Christological controversies of the first millenium nor with the Reformist controversy that neccesitated the Council of Trent, but say that Vatican II was a "pastoral council ONLY", thus implying the teachings of the Council Fathers are to be ignored is patently incorrect. The Second Vatican Council issued no less than two Dogmatic constitutions- Lumen Gentium (On the Church) and Dei verbum (On Divine Revelation). The Council Fathers issued various other decrees and declarations (the Eastern Catholic Churches, office of Bishops, training of priests, Christian education, etc). If one was to compare the currents codes of the Latin Church and the Eastern Churches to the teachings of vatican II, one would see that the teachings of Vatican II are the primary fontes for the current codes.

So I guess one can choose to ignore the teachings of Vatican II, but if one desires the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments), becomes involved in some Catholic Lay Apostolate or some other activity within the Church, that one is actually faced with accepting or rejecting the teachings of the Council Fathers of the Catholic Church, who are "when assembled in an ecumenical council,..., teachers and judges in matters of faith and morals, whose decisons must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith" ( Lumen Gentium , 25)

I think much of the opposition to Vatican II comes from discontent with the Liturgy. Blaming Vatican II for that is a bit unfair, and inaccurate. I remember the Mass of Vatican II and I don't recall substantial opposition to it. There were minor changes in it, and all but the canon was in the vernacular. I believe where the real oppposition set in, was from Bugnini and Paul VI tampering with the mass of the Council and promulgating the Novus Ordo some years after the Council ended. Paul VI was a very bright man who was in no practical way "smart." He was a diplomat with little pastoral experience, and I don't think he ever understood the logical consequences of some of his actions. Probably, if John XXIII had lived, much of the post-conciliar chaos would have been avoided. Keep in mind that I am saying this as a Byzantine who has no desire to be Latin. In fact, the only reason I ever go to a Latin Rite mass is because, as an organist, they pay me to be there. I usually say I work for the Latins, and worship with the Byzantines.

Let me know when you are able to convince Eastern Christianity that Vatican II was ecumenical.

Empty Churches?
Where? Not mine or the other neighboring Churches!
Packed to overflowing. School full and thriving, donations up 7 to 9,000 dollars per week.
Ready after 150 years to launch a new evangelisation.
Stephanos I

Hello,

It shouldn't matter which particular side you decide to leave orthodoxy. Liberals who break communion with the Church because of their liberalism and Conservatives who break communion with the Church because of their conservatism should meet the same disciplinary measures from the Church.

My opinion here is that those liberals you mention are due for some discipline, but a priest who celebrate Mass for the SSPX should not only be suspended, but in fact, excommunicated.

He who declares himself to be in full communion with schismatics, makes himself a schismatic.

Shalom,
Memo.

Hi,
I can see by my post I have some further explaining to do. First, let me apologize for my ignorance. If Greek (or any) Orthodox Catholics find Vatican II a springboard to find communion with the Holy See than I have partly misjudged Vatican II. I admit my unfamiliarity with Orientalium Ecclesiarum. I also admit to a myopic american point of view. I am however going to stand by a black and white view of the affect of Vatican II, principally on the american Roman Catholic Church. First, (and this is a somewhat dry read but I beleive worth it) I do believe it can be statistically proven. My information comes from the "Index of Leading Catholic Indicators" by Ken Jones published in 2003. All the indicators I will mention will compare 1965 to 2002 altought the book records these figures from 1920 on. The book also shows a positive growth trend in ALL categories measured from 1920 to 1965. 1-in 1965 there were 596 seminaries in the US, in 2002 there were 200. In 1965 there were 49000 seminarians, 2002 there were 4700. In 1965 there were 549 priestless parishes (3%), in 2002 there were 2928 (15%). In 1965 there were 180000 nuns, in 2002 there were 75000. In 1965 there were 1.3 million baptisms, in 2002 1 million. In 1965 there were 352000 marriages, in 2002 there were 256000. In 1965 there were 338 annulments, in 2002 there were 50000! In 1965 there were 10503 parochial schools with 4.5 million students, in 2002 there were 6623 parochial schools with 1.9 million students. All this and so much more while the catholic population increased in that same time frame from 45 to 60 million. Now I have only scratched the surface of the statistical information in this book. Read it and see that in total these are not statistical anamolies.
As to the issue of a Doctrinal or Pastoral Council, only 2 documents (Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum) promulgated by Vatican II carry the weight of a Dogmatic Constitution (as the Council itself decreed). In both of these documents not a SINGLE new Dogma was introduced. In fact these documents only reaffirm the Dogmas defined by previous Councils," the Dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remain INTACT"(Dei Verbum). And, "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the LATIN language is to be PRESERVED in the Latin Rites" (Dei Verbum 36.1). No traditionalist has ANY problem with either of these Dogmatic Decrees. The issue primarily rests with Sacrosanctum Concilium. Sacrosacntum Concilium is NOT a Dogmatic Decree. It is a PASTORAL decree from which virtually all the Liturgical abuses in this country are. How is it that I am disobedient (even if I disagree) by adhereing to the Tridentine Rite which by the Dogmatic words of Dei Verbum claims as "intact". Sacrosanctum Concilium itself claims " in faithful OBEDIENCE to TRADITION the Sacred Council DECLARES that Holy Mother Church holds that ALL lawfully acknowledged Rites to be of equal right"(Intro.,Para.4). I would also argue that the truly disobedient are defined here."Therefore no other person, EVEN IF HE IS A PRIEST, may add, remove or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority. Further,"that practical norms should be established" cannot not mean there are norms for Novis Ordo MASSES ad infinitum. In the Latin community,no matter what parish I attend the "spirit of unity" exists as a practical fact. The MASS is the "unity of sameness". In Denver virtually no 2 Novis Ordo Masses are identical or in many cases even remotely similiar. How do those whom wrap themselves in the mantel of Vatican II and then TRULY ignore both the Dogmatic and Pastoral decrees contained therein, make the spurrious claim the trads are disobedient. Those who favor Novis Ordo cant even agree as to what it is. All I can ask is, " if not Vatican II, then tell me what?"
Finally I like to agree that through out the Churches history many who have the stain of mortal sin have brought disgrace to the Church ( I count myself among them). However the "hushed" silence of the past cannot be compared to the PUBLIC participation of mortal sin in MANY Novis Ordo parishes today. In the past
"hushed" had the tacit acknowledgement that these things that we all hide are in fact sins. Today many participate in Novis Ordo Masses celebrating their there disobedience of infallible doctrine encouraged by the clergy(whom ignore PRESBYEROROM ORDINIS,"priests are NEVER to put themselves at the service of some human faction ideology).
I'll close by saying that I sincerely desire not to offend anyone, however, the forty years since Vatican II speak for themselves. God Bless, Robert

Please forgive my grammar and spelling in the last post. It has been a long day and when I'm tired I have truoble controlling my dyslexia. Again, God Bless, Robert

Hi folks,

I have to say that I was shocked how different the Roman Catholic Churches in ROME are from Roman Catholics in America!!!

The Roman Catholics in Rome are more traditional than in America...I was shocked to see many priests facing the altar...even in St. Peter's Basilica. Of course many Masses are facing people...

I didn't see any destruction of the buildings..like...tearing down the alter to put up some weird new agey look table...or moving the tablernacle anywhere else or whatever.

Plus I was even more in shock to see so many Churches in Rome having VESPERS!!!! That's the way it should be! i've been to 3 Churches in one day...that had Matins!!!

So it shows how different the Churches are! So don't blame it on Vatican II...blame it on Americanism. Orthodox Churches have similar problems...(not liturgical abuses..but other kinds).

Spdundas,

I guess you didn't get a chance to see any of the Churches in the suburbs of Rome. Because I have seen pictures of 75 of them that look absolutely as horrendous as some in the United States. I saw them in Latin Mass Magazine awhile back.

anastasios

Dear SPDundas,

Never mind the suburban churches....Rome is awesome, and truly the eternal city! The historic churches are beautiful!

I am in agreement with you about Rome SPDundas. I felt a very timeless religious and spiritual feeling there.

Tell us more about your trip. Was it recent?

In Christ,
Alice

Dear Memo,

Certainly, to break canon law by celebrating with schismatics is to invite penalty from the Church.

But how does Rome view the SSPX - are they "without grace" etc.? If one may attend Mass at an SSPX church, then what does this imply overall?

Diak is more than correct - RC's in our province began a trend of attending SSPX services and, eventually, several churches and one cathedral was built by the SSPX - and not ONLY with SSPX donations. Our Latin Hierarchy "hit the roof" when they found this out and then granted the indult in a hurry.

But I think you protest a bit too much over traditionalist, conservative priests.

I know a Tridentine priest who is a member of the Society of St Peter - he tells me they are on good terms with the SSPX and work to bring them into communion with Rome. At the same time, he and others of these traditional RC societies really DO want Rome to return to the Tridentine liturgy - no doubt about that.

But the liberals who deny various doctrines of Christianity surely do MUCH worse than conservatives who are punished for wanting what the Tridentine Rite allows them to experience in worship. There are those who prefer the Eastern Churches over the Novus Ordo for the same reason.

Historically, obedience to the hierarchy is NOT the ultimate guiding principle to a Christian - faithfulness to Christ and Church teaching is.

This is NOT to justify Fr. Somerville or anyone else - please note.

The people of Constantinople revolted against their patriarch, Nestorius, as they sensed his stand on the Mother of God was heretical. There were also cases, closer to us, of Italian dioceses rising up against their bishops - in one case, as Fr. Hardon once noted, because an Italian bishop banned the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus in his diocese . . .

What the priest we are considering here did was wrong.

But I get a sense that you are affirming obedience to the hierarchy as the ultimate value.

St Maximus the Confessor opposed the then united hierarchy of the entire Christian world in favour of doctrinal orthodoxy and even suffered unspeakable torture for it.

And I"m not comparing the priest here to St Maximus either.

If Rome wants to be ecumenical with others and, as a sign of that, wants to be easy with her liberals, that is fine.

But why the attitude toward conservatives?

Punish the disobedient, by all means. But why is it that those who are publicly punished are largely conservatives?

In addition, why is Rome failing to see the positive spiritual results that her legitimate societies and seminaries of the Tridentine Rite are bringing to the Church? Why not study WHY this is so and see where to go from there?

I attended liberal Catholic colleges for a number of years.

I could tell you stories . . .

The people I came into contact with there are not worthy of the defense of solid Catholics like yourself or Fr. Stephanos . . .

Alex

Robert,

A few points I would like to make in response to your post.

First, regarding the statistics you have posted. It is true that by a lot of indicators, things are "worse off" now than they were before Vatican II. But I ask two questions: is it due of Vatican II? And was it really better before Vatican II just because "statistics" show that it was? Is our Lord looking for a lot of people in the seminaries, or is he looking for "10 good men"?

Let us remember, all the changes made in the wake of Vatican II in the 1960's and 1970's were made by those trained before 1960. I think a LOT of negative stuff happened in the Church in the 60's and 70's. However, this was done by people who grew up in pre-Vatican II Catholicism. If it was so great beforehand, why were so many willing to chuck it all after Vatican II? We may have had a lot of men in the seminaries in the 1950's - but a lot of them were quick to leave the priesthood in the 1960's and 1970's - what does that say about their (pre-Vatican II) formation? Simply putting a lot of bodies in the seminaries and the pews does not mean that conversion of the heart was happening on an individual level.

I think what happened from the 1960's to the 1980's is a natural response to a ecumencial council. It takes some time to understand it and implement it correctly. However, I think that work is now being done (although there are still problems admittedly). There are now over 150,000 adult converts every year in the United States - is this the sign of a "dead Church" that the traditionalists so quickly proclaim? In my experience, most of these converts are people on fire for the Lord and are hard at working trying to make more converts - was this happening in the 1940's and 1950's? I'm not so sure. Also, whereas there are still liturgical abuses, I have traveled a great deal, and I can honestly say that it is not as widespread as many believe (anticdotal, I admit); I have attended many beautiful and well-said Masses in many dioceses.

Also, we must keep in mind that that 60's and 70's were extremely revolutionary times in the West - apart from Vatican II. There is no proof that not having Vatican II happened would have resulted in a better Church today. In fact, I would claim that the Catholic Church (even in America) is in a better place in the 21st century to respond to the world due to Vatican II than she would have been without it. But these things don't happen overnight: look at the current American bishops - those that are the most "wishy-washy" were trained and ordained BEFORE Vatican II. Those that are the strongest in defending Church teaching were ordained AFTER. Given a few more decades, and I think we have a very good trend (and we must look at things in terms of decades and centuries, not days or months).

Also, Vatican II was a radically wonderful council when it comes to relations with the Orthodox and how Eastern Catholics are treated in the Church. Before Vatican II, most Latins wanted to "convert" Eastern Catholics, and simply thought Orthodox were schismatics who were damned to hell. No "good statistics" can make up for such sinful thoughts.

A final note: I am not "against" traditionalists - I fully believe that having a Latin Mass available is a very good and right thing to do. However, priests cannot interpret Vatican II on their own terms (like this priest did) - they must follow their bishop in all things - he is the one charged with interpreting Scripture and Tradition. So if the bishops say that you can't celebrate with the SSPX, then as a priest you must obey - not look for loopholes in your personal interpretations. That simply makes you a Protestant.

Diak, you also taught at a traditionalist school? Interesting. As did I, albeit one in an FSSP parish in communion with Rome--a parish which, as you rightly note, has been more successful because it is a full-fledged parish with all 7 sacraments and other rites according to the 1962 edition of the *Missale Romanum*.

Your remarks about having full-time FSSP priests are apt and largely true, but the Toronto situation, with which I have some familiarity, is perhaps unique in that the indult Latin Mass, allowed in an Oratorian parish in downtown Toronto, has failed to draw in the large number of SSPX people who inhabit the literal geographic boundaries of this parish. One of the priests asked one of these people, who kept going to the SSPX Mass even though it meant walking past the parish where an indult Mass was offered, why she did so. Didn't she think it better to be "in communion with the Holy Father?" Her reply: "Until the Holy Father is in communion with Tradition, I won't be with him!" Clearly schism compounded with stubbornness is a toxic thing, immune to reason.

Adam

I found the letters between Fr. Somerville and the Cardinal. You can see them at:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/somer.htm

Furthermore, there has been further correspondence in August. It is published here:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/remnant/ville1.htm