Thank goodness the S.S.P.X has closed the door and refused to accept this revision. It has never been a question of the text of the new prayer. What is not acceptable is that a Supreme Pontiff should agree to change the Work of the Holy Ghost in the Sacred Liturgy specifically at the behest or demand of infidels. This sets a very bad precedent. We do not change our Mass when some group of fire-worshippers--or worse (in this case)--demands a change.Thank you for holding fast to that which you have received, Bishop Fellay.P.K.T.P.
This is disobedience, pure and simple. If you cannot accept that the Pope has the right, for his own prudential reasons, to change even one prayer used once a year, you are simply disobedient and wrong. Thus you are only Traditionalist protestants.
Doug is totally wrong because Doug (a) does not know the difference between the teaching authority and the legal authority of the Pope and (b) because Doug does not (cannot?) distinguish between the validity of a law and its scope.On (b), I don't reject the revision made by Pope Benedict XVI. He is the Supreme Legislator and the revision is not contrary to Moral Law. Therefore, it is valid. However, the Pope's act does not require us to receive or use the prayer. There are several proofs for this but the largest and most obvious is the fact that the Good Friday prayers are not part of liturgy of a holyday of obligation; and a Pope cannot dictate private prayers except to proscribe those which are unCatholic (which he has not done). As a result, it is perfectly licit for faithful to attend a revised Good Friday Service and simply pray the 1962 words as the priest intones those of 2008. We are not required to receive the new prayer. It is also licit to attend an Eastern Divine Liturgy on Good Friday or even an S.S.P.X Service because the new Code of Canons allows us even to attend Protestant services without restriction, and because it is not a matter of fulfilling a holyday of obligation.The only question remaining, therefore, is whether we ought to receive the revision. I have already dealt with that. The answer is 'no'. But this is not a legal question.Nope, I'm no 'traditionalist Protestant', which is an oxymoron. It is the neo-conservatives who have a Protestant mentality, because they do not understand the nature of authority as defined by Holy Church.Peter Karl T. PerkinsVictoria, Canada
Second Response to Doug.Now that I have demonstrated the right of the faithful to refuse to use or receive the 2008 revision of the Good Friday prayers, it is high time that I addressed the situation of the S.S.P.X.First of all, a secretary of the Society e-mailed me back and informed me that the 2008 revision of the Pope does not apply to the S.S.P.X in any event because the Nota of the Secretariat of State said specifically that the 2008 text is a revision only of the 1962 texts. But the S.S.P.X does not use the 1962 texts for the Triduum Sacram in the first place. For those days, it uses the 1955 texts. Obviously, legal revisions of the 1962 text alone cannot apply to the 1955 texts.The Society claims to be operating under supplied jurisdiction. I am not supporting that claim, only pointing it out. If the claim is legitimate, the norms in place for the Society in 1976 would apply because Rome recognised the Society from 1970 to 1976. Therefore, given Bishop Fellay's reliance on supplied jurisdiction, he has a right to refuse use of the 2008 text. Quod erat demonstrandum.Peter Karl T. PerkinsVictoria, Canada
I think that the holy Father changed the prayer not to accommodate the "infidels" as you say, but rather as an opportunity to see what those who claim to be in union with Rome and claim to want unity are really made of. He offered them a chance with this prayer to demonstrate submission and humility. If this story is true, then I suppose we know now that they are not really interested in unity. Your silly legal nitpicking aside, this is arrogance and disobedience.
Sure, people may have the "right" to be a jerk. But at the end of the day they are still jerks.
Please, no name calling. I don't want to delete comments. This goes for jerks and infidels, please.
I Pray for the completion of theTriump of the Immaculate Heart ofOur Lady. When all Catholics willobey the Supreme Authority of the Vicar, Christ has chosen to be his voice on earth. All great spiritual writers have affirmedthat disobedience is a spiritualdisease to be dreaded and avoided.
Second response to Doug, but, first, the term 'infidel' in my post is not an expletive. This is the theologically correct name for people who reject the faith. There are heretics, schismatics, and infidels. Jews and Muslims are infidels.My simple response to Doug is one of incredulity. He would have us believe that it was pure coincidence that the Pope changed the text after the two chief rabbis of Palestine, in a joint letter, sent him a request to change it. These rabbis have visited the Pope before and are on excellent terms with him. Is Doug living in fantasyland? Of course the Pope changed the prayer at their instigation, and *that* is the problem, not the text of the alteration. I note also that, at the same time, Abraham Foxman and other Jewish leaders were calling *very* publicly for the same thing; in fact, they were screaming for it in newspapaers all over the world (including my local paper on distant Vancouver Island). Doug would have us believe that the Pope had decided on this course of action anyway and this pressure was mere coincidence? That would make a cat laugh.At this time of Lent, let us be honest with one another. But, most important of all, let us be honest with ourselves. Lyiing to oneself is far worse than lying to others because it leads you into a fantasyland where truth and falsehood are confused.My points stand. Deal with them or not.P.K.T.P.
To Angelo:And I pray that no authority in the Church will ever again abuse power. It is a constant teaching of the Church that even a pope can abuse his power, which is a terrible sin and against which people have a right of resistance, as they did at the Arian Schism."Summorum Pontificum" directly contradicts "De Missali Romano" of 1971. In the latter document, Pope Paul VI claimed that a right to the old Mass had been abrogated (and then made exceptions for ageing and retired priests). We now know that it was not and could not be. Where is the justice there as good priests were thrown onto the street for adhering to the Mass of the Ages TO WHICH WE NOW KNOW THEY HAD A RIGHT? Where was the justice of the elderly who yearned for the old liturgy but were denied it even on their deathbeds? There is such a thing as rightful disobedience, and the Church has always acknowledged that.If you think that supreme authority is absolute power, you are a Hobbesian Protestant following the *Protestant* doctrine of the divine right of kings. A real Catholic does not see it that way at all. The Pope's authority is limited by its end, as every Pope has always affirmed. It must build up the Mystical Body of Christ and it must be used to save souls Read Pope Innocent IV! Read St. Thomas!Let mercy and justice kiss, yes indeed. Let there be *legitimate*, not absolute, authority, authority that is primary, immediate, supreme, and universal, but not absolute. Let us stop adopting the Hobbesian Protestant notion of absolute power (tyranny). Christ established a monarchy of service, not a tyranny!P.K.T.P.
R.K.T.P.You Pray that no authority in thechurch, will ever abuse power again. This is a great prayer weall should pray constantly. Perhapswe wil obtain the conversion of the excommunicated. And by the Grace of Christ, also their followers.
"R.K.T.P.You Pray that no authority in thechurch, will ever abuse power again. This is a great prayer weall should pray constantly. Perhapswe wil obtain the conversion of the excommunicated. And by the Grace of Christ, also their followers."Amen! I am not a supporter of the S.S.P.X, if that is what you mean.As to the state of its four bishops, they are Catholic, as Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, while representing the Pope, has affirmed more than once now. As to the validity of the declarations of excommunication against them, it is disputed. It is not for me to say more except that you will find sitting bishops and even cardinals who are material heretics.As for the clerics and laics who follow the four bishops, they seem to be more Catholic than most of those who go to that pathetic joke Mass that was foisted upon us.P.K.T.P.
Post a Comment