Thursday, September 19, 2013

A plea to the Pope: please, Holy Father, overrule the Curia’s probably illegal instruction to the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate not to use the 1962 Missal

A plea to the Pope: please, Holy Father, overrule the Curia’s probably illegal instruction to the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate not to use the 1962 Missal

The motu proprio ‘Summorum Pontificum’ says that they need ‘no permission from the Apostolic See’ to celebrate the Tridentine Mass: their congregation has acted ultra vires
By on Thursday, 19 September 2013
 
William Oddie

Dr William Oddie is a leading English Catholic writer and broadcaster. He edited The Catholic Herald from 1998 to 2004 and is the author of The Roman Option and Chesterton and the Romance of Orthodoxy.
Pope Francis leaving the Basilica of St John Lateran earlier this week (CNS)
Pope Francis leaving the Basilica of St John Lateran earlier this week (CNS)
I write what follows with extreme reluctance, intensely aware that in doing so I will be giving help and encouragement to those who believe what I fervently do NOT believe: that Pope Francis is a “liberal Pope” who is unworthy of the respect and obedience that all Catholics owe their supreme pontiff. Some of the same malcontents think, too, that both Benedict XVI and John Paul II were also “liberal popes”. I think that they are pretty close to being unhinged; they are certainly not in my opinion loyal Catholics. I am not saying that popes don’t sometimes make mistakes, or that we are not entitled to point them out. A pontificate is judged (the extreme rarity of some actual and conscious heresy apart) by its general direction, its clear underlying intention, not by whether or not there are misjudgments. These can always be corrected, when their effects are not what is intended, or prove inimical to the Church’s interests.
Pope Francis has now, in my opinion, committed or allowed — intentionally or unintentionally is not clear — a big mistake, which could have serious consequences for the Church. Possibly because what has happened has simply been slipped through without his being adequately informed or advised, he has allowed a decree to be issued by the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life forbidding the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate — an entirely admirable body — to celebrate the Extraordinary Rite and ordering them to use instead the Novus Ordo: which in fact they were already doing, though not exclusively. Both the Ordinary and the Extraordinary usage were seen by them as being, as Pope Benedict himself had explained, different expressions of the same liturgy, and they used both. (Incidentally, I understand that the suggestion that an internal attempt was made to make the Extraordinary Rite compulsory throughout the order is simply untrue: See Father Z here)
Now, however, the choice which everyone without exception in the rest of the Church has been given by Benedict XVI has been taken away from the Friars: they must now use the Novus Ordo and nothing else, ever. This has prompted four senior Italian scholars — Roberto de Mattei (whose admirable biography of Pope Pius IX I reviewed in The Spectator), Mario Palmaro, a philosopher of law, Andrea Sandri, an expert in constitutional law, and Giovanni Turco, a philosopher (the first two teach at the European University of Rome, the third at the Catholic University of Milan, the fourth at the University of Udine) — to send to the congregation a long and damning critique of the decree, arguing that the congregation does not have the authority to overrule the the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” of Benedict XVI, which specifically authorises the use of the Extraordinary Rite by those parishes or communities which wish to use it.
Whether or not this is the case, it goes clearly against Pope Benedict’s intention: as Sandro Magister put it in a headline at the end of July when all this was first announced, “For the First Time, Francis contradicts Benedict”. Is this true? This is what the four scholars have to say (their academic style in translation comes over as rather stilted); their full text is given by Sandro Magister.
As for the prohibition of the celebration of the Mass in the ancient Roman rite (also called the “extraordinary form”), many grave problems are posed by the decree…
First of all, with regard to this prohibition imposed on the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate… one cannot help but point out that this is clearly in contrast with what is established for the universal Church as much by the bull “Quo Primum” of St. Pius V (1570) as by the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” of Benedict XVI (2007)… the motu proprio of Benedict XVI establishes that “it is… permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated.” And it specifies that “for such a celebration with either Missal, the priest needs no permission from the Apostolic See (my emphasis) or from his own Ordinary.”
The motu proprio furthermore affirms that “if communities of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, whether of pontifical or diocesan right, wish to celebrate the conventual or community Mass in their own oratories according to the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal, they are permitted to do so…”
The same motu proprio establishes unequivocally that “we order that all that we have decreed in this Apostolic Letter given Motu Proprio take effect and be observed from the fourteenth day of September, the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, in the present year [2007], all things to the contrary notwithstanding.”
As is clear from the two aforementioned texts and from their essential connotations, the freedom to celebrate the Tridentine Mass belongs to the universal legislation of the Church and establishes a right for every priest.

Is it now Pope Francis’s intention to overturn, not only Pope Benedict’s cherished wish and intention as expressed in “Summorum Pontificum” but at the same time “the universal legislation of the Church”? He can, of course, himself change that legislation: but he must, if this is what he wishes to do, clearly and unequivocally say that that is what he is doing. Will he really withdraw the motu proprio? I do not believe for one second that he would wish to do that, even if there were no risk (there is in fact an absolute certainty) that by doing so he would alienate many faithful Catholics, and open up wounds and divisions which Benedict XVI had so gently and effectively healed. Pope Francis has not, in fact himself made any public declaration prohibiting the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate from celebrating in the Extraordinary form: so it may be asked if the obedience of the Friars to the Congregation is not a misplaced obedience, an obedience not to the Pope, but to a decree the Congregation had no right to issue, since it is in contravention of the motu proprio, and therefore of “the universal legislation of the Church”? Should not the friars, therefore, respectfully inform the congregation that they intend to revert to the use of the 1962 Missal where and when it seems appropriate to them to do so?
I really hope that that is what they decide to do. For the fact is that this decree does not simply concern the Friars. If they give in, we could be next: I for one fear that I could lose the right, which I increasingly greatly cherish, of being able on Sunday mornings to hear the Mass celebrated according to the Usus Antiquior. As the four scholars point out, “…the decree bears an objective relevance for all those who – for the most diverse reasons – treasure and love the Latin-Gregorian Mass. These faithful currently constitute a conspicuous part, and certainly not a negligible one, of Catholics, scattered all over the world. Potentially they could coincide even with the totality of the members of the Church. The decree objectively impacts them as well.”
So I hope the Pope will now act. Not to support the congregation (which will probably be his inclination) but to instruct it quietly to withdraw this unjust and irregular prohibition. Please, Holy Father, do it: this is a decision which could affect your whole pontificate, the continuity of which with that of your beloved predecessor we all need you to cherish and preserve.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/09/19/a-plea-to-the-pope-please-holy-father-overrule-the-curias-probably-illegal-instruction-to-the-franciscan-friars-of-the-immaculate-not-to-use-the-1962-missal/

Vatican Council II indicates Muslims need conversion is a point missed out by Michael Voris and Pat Archbold

Here is another video in which Michael Voris, this time with Patrick Archbold assumes that Vatican Council II has changed the Church's old teaching on other religions.Vatican Council II abrogated it. It is pre-Vatican Council II stuff.
(15:31) A priest mentions that the Catholic Church has changed the old teaching on other religions with Vatican Council II and so now it is accepted that all religions are equal paths to salvation.Patrick Archbold   just accepts a priest saying this. Archibold did not ask the the priest to cite the precise text for this big change. He did not ask the priest to explain where does Vatican Council II make this statement.
Assuming he did ask the priest, who said salvation is there in all religions, the priest  would simply cite Lumen Gentium 16 which indicates a non Catholic can be saved with a good conscience or in invincible ignorance, or Lumen Gentium 8, which says there can be elements of sanctification and grace in other religions etc and both Michael Voris and Patrick Archbald would accept this.
Since like that priest they too interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism and are not aware that LG 14 and AG 7 support the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Also LG 14 and AG 7 do not mention any exceptions to the dogma on salvation. Neither are LG 16 and LG 8 known or unknown exceptions to the thrice defined dogma or to Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
Archbold says (19:37) he would greet a Jew with Happy Hanukkah and at the end of the say say "Hey do you know about Jesus?". Again- it is  Jesus without outside the church there is no salvation!
Cushingism is assuming that there are known exceptions to the traditional teaching on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Feeneyism is assuming that there are no known exceptions.So Vatican Council II can be interpreted with either.
Liberals use Cushingism which is irrational. For them we can see or know  exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation in other words, we are able to see and meet the deceased  in Heaven, those saved with the baptism of desire etc.Since we can see and meet them in real life they are exceptions to the teaching on all needing to convert into the Church for salvation.This irrationality goes unchecked by Voris and Archbold.
 
Vatican Council II (LG 14,AG 79 interpreted with Feeneyism indicates Islam is not a path to salvation. Muslims need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (AG 7)for salvation (to go to Heaven and avoid Hell). They need to enter the Church 'as through a door'(AG 7,CCC 846).
 
So Michael Voris and Pat Archbold need to say that Vatican Council II says Muslims need to convert for salvation.This is the official teaching of the Catholic Church, according to Magisterial documents (CCC 846,Dominus Iesus 20 etc) irrespect if the Holy Mass is the Tridentine Latin Mass(14:17) or in the vernacular.
 
It is possible for a Muslim to be saved as a possibility known only to God however this case would not be an exception, known or unknown, inreal life.Since there are no such cases known to us in 2013 there are no known exceptions to the dogma on salvation - and Vatican Council II does not mention any. 
-Lionel Andrades
 


 
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/vatican-council-ii-indicates-muslims.html#links
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/archdiocese-of-detroit-and-canon-law.html#links
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/vatican-council-ii-is-not-ambigous-on.html#links
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/lumen-gentium-14-and-ad-gentes-7.html#links
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/there-is-no-ambiguity-in-lumen-gentium.html#links
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/michael-voris-louie-verrechio-using.html#links
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/in-wilderness-and-barrage-of-noise-is.html#links
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/rationality-road-less-travelled.html#links
 

Archdiocese of Detroit and Canon Law

The Archdiocese of Detroit and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) according to Wikipedia placed a ban on Michael Voris for his views on other faiths(1). Recently they allowed a meeting of dissenters in the Archdiocese of Detroit (2) and no press release was issued.
 
Otherwise the  Archdiocese of Detroit supports the USCCB in officially stating that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known exceptions to Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7 'all need faith and baptism for salvation') and the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is Cushingism. It assumes that there are known exceptions to the Catholic Church's traditional teaching on faith issues.So the baptism of desire a possibility, is assumed to be an exception to the dogma.(Notification,on Fr.Peter C.Phan,USCCB Doctrinal Committee). (3)
 
It is the Archdiocese of Detroit and the USCCB saying there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,to Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14, which state all need to enter the Church for salvation.This is an important doctrinal issue that Michael Voris needs to address.
 
Since if there are no known exceptions then the USCCB was wrong in the Fr.Peter C. Phan Notification.The text specifically mentions invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire as if they are known exceptions..(The USCCB has pulled down the text of the Notification from the internet)It also means Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma on outside the church there is no salvation.it also does not contradict  the Syllabus of Errors on the issue of non Catholic and non Christian religions.
Bishop Grumbleton and Sister Nancy Farley and all who hold an office in the Catholic Church, according to Canon Law must accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church.In this case they need  to accept Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) and the dogma on salvation.Archbishop Allen Vigneron, the Archbishop of Detroit must also affirm Vatican Council II (LG 14,AG 7) which is in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and does not mention any exceptions.Invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not exceptions unless one is using Cushingism instead of Feeneyism in the interpretation.
 
Also, how do they interpret the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII ? With Cushingism or Feeneyism ? Do they assume that the Letter supported Archbishop Cushing or Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine ? Was Fr.Leonard Feeney excommunciated for heresy or for disobedience (discipline)? Did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make a factual mistake for them ? Do they assume that the baptism of desire is an explicit exception to the dogma on salvation or it is a possibility only, known to God and unknown to us?
 
It may be mentioned that the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) has not been granted canonical status yet, since they will not affirm Vatican Council II (according to Cushingism).If the Archdiocese is not willing to affirm in public the literal interpretation of the dogma (because of irrational Cushingism) then they should not expect the SSPX to affirm Vatican Council II in public,according to Cushingism.
 
So canonically can Bishop Grumbleton and the LCWR be opposed in the Archdiocese of Detroit?
 
LG 14 and AG 7 are in agreement with the dogma on salvation and the the SSPX and Michael Voris' position on other religions and Christian communities and churches.Doctrinally Vatican Council II (with Feeneyism) supports Michael Voris and ChurchMilitant TV.
 
Michael Voris needs to talk in terms of Feeneyism and Cushingism, rationality and irrationality, the deposit of the faith and heresy.
 
Similarly when Michael Voris is critical of the New Evangelistaion he must also mention that the understanding of Mons.R.Fisichella is the same as the Archdiocese of Detroit. They assume that there are known exceptions to Catholic faith-teachings.
 
The Archdiocese of Detroit, the USCCB and the Mons. Fisichella also contradict the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846). When CCC 846 states all need to enter the Church 'as through a door'(AG 7) it does not contradict CCC 846 also saying that all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church. Yes all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church and all in 2013 need to enter the Church 'as through a door' and with 'faith and baptism' to go to Heaven and avoid Hell ( for salvation).
No one in the Archdiocese of Detroit or the USCCB can know any exception to LG 14 ,AG 7 or CCC 846.
The question that Michael Voris put to Fr.Jonathan Morris of the Archdiocese of New York should also be formally asked of the Archdiocese of Detroit and the USCCB.-Lionel Andrades

1.
Using a press release issued by the Archdiocese of Detroit, the Diocese of Scranton issued this statement in response to a planned speaking engagement of Voris in that diocese:
"The Diocese of Scranton has determined that Mr. Voris will not be allowed to speak in a Diocesan or parish facility. After these engagements were scheduled, the Diocese became aware of concerns about this individual’s views regarding other religious groups. In videos posted on the Internet, Mr. Voris makes comments that certainly can be interpreted as being insensitive to people of other faiths. The Catholic Church teaches us to respect all people, regardless of their faith tradition."
"Although the Diocese shares Mr. Voris’ support of efforts to protect human life, his extreme positions on other faiths are not appropriate and therefore the Diocese cannot host him."[]
-Wikipedia, Michael Voris

In April 2011 Voris (who had intended to give a talk entitled "Living Catholicism Radically"[9]) was banned from speaking at Marywood University and any facilities owned by the diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania.[1] This action was taken after complaints were made about Voris's statement about other religions.[1] In a letter to the talk's organizers (Paul and Kristen Ciaccia), the diocese declared that "it had been informed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Mr. Voris's home Archdiocese of Detroit that Voris had caused "a number of controversies" and "that his programs are not endorsed by his home archdiocese".[9] The diocese held that some of his statements "certainly can be interpreted as being insensitive to people of other faiths".[2] Voris ascribed this decision to "political correctness. Anything somebody takes offense at, whether it's true or not, seems to be out of bounds."[1] The speech was moved to the Best Western Genetti Hotel and Conference Center in Wilkes-Barre, and the talk's organizers invited local Bishop Joseph Bambera to attend "to evaluate Mr. Voris's knowledge of the faith, free from opinions formed by others."[9] The bishop did not take up the offer. The Ciaccias said the ban "belies deeper inconsistencies in diocesan policy."[9] Voris spoke about the events in a video segment, noting the diocese allowed Sara Bendoraitis, the director of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Ally Resource Center at American University, to speak at the University of Scranton the previous spring-
-Wikipedia, Michael Voris

2.

  
 
January 12, 2012
Questions for the Canon Lawyers :Can Archbishop Allen Vigneron and Bishop Kevin Rhoades be considered Catholic if they refuse to affirm in public the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/01/questions-for-canon-lawyers-can.html#links
It's a Free Country.. : A Catholic who rejects a defined dogma like outside the church no salvation is automatically excomunicated. He has no right to use the word 'Catholic'.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/01/its-free-country.html