FYI, I’m about to be on Hugh Hewitt. (Imminently.)Was just on Hugh Hewitt. Talked about the Lefebvrists and whether they’re in schism. The following is supporting documentation:
EXCERPTS (John Paul II writing):
- "Hence such disobedience [i.e., that committed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre]- which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy – constitutes a schismatic act" (section 3).
-
"To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations. In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church" (section 5c).
Cool, I record his show to listen to while working.
What is interesting is that a frequent guest he has, a professor from the Naval Academy, is I believe part of SSPX and believes what Fr. Gruner has to say about Fatima. He was on last night and mentioned the SSPX connection so your appearance is a good remedy for people who didn’t understand that they are truly in schism.
For an ex-Catholic and now a Presbyterian, Hugh has been providing excellent coverage on the Pope and even aspects about St. Fautina and the Pope’s connection to Divine Mercy. It has been cool listening to discussion about the Theology of the Body and other Catholic subjects on the national airwaves.
Jimmy,
You did very well tonight. Outstanding to be precise.
I had listened to this Professor last night and was totally unimpressed with his knowledge of the Church dogma and history and felt he was being disingenuous in his statements regarding papal authority, especially in regard to the SSPX/LeFebvre schism. I felt he was leading people wrong and trying to lead them down the wrong road. Being in communion w. this schismatic group will put one’s soul in danger and am still concerned that some people will not know to stay away from this group.
God bless.
Whit
In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church” (section 5c).
Sadly, our late Holy Father did not get that support from many of the bishops.
Whenever folks (to include my pastor) in my parish start messing around with the Liturgy, I use SSPX to point out to them how SERIOUS it is to alter it, particularly on a whim that is clearly illicit. People have gone into schism over this incessant modern tinkering with the liturgy. So LEAVE IT ALONE.
Cool! Hey Jimmy… maybe you’ll get a permalink on his blog for jimmyakin.org.
Pope John Paul’s death is becoming an event of some pretty amazing effects.
This may sound like a stupid question, but who is Hugh Hewitt? I gather he is a radio host? What type of show does he have; does he mostly focus on religious topics?
Whenever folks (to include my pastor) in my parish start messing around with the Liturgy, I use SSPX to point out to them how SERIOUS it is to alter it, particularly on a whim that is clearly illicit.
Maybe I am misinformed, but isn’t the SSPX’s complaint precisely that the Liturgy has been messed with and altered? And in a strict sense (putting aside licitness), are they not in fact correct that the N.O. has, in fact “messed” with and altered the liturgy? If nothing changed, why wouild they have complained?
Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely agree the N.O. is a valid Mass. However, pastorally, I can’t shake the feeling that the changes wrought from it have been a nearly umitigated disaster. Again, what exactly was broken in the previous rite that needing such radical fixing?
I was disappointed in JA’s niggling criticism of Prof. White on the show (I read the transcript online). Opposing the Latin Mass because St. Peter didn’t have it is like opposing the Bible because Jesus didn’t have it. Clearly not a thought-out argument.
And if the question of the day is whether LeFebvre’s group is in schism or not, then the larger question of the mangling of the liturgy of the Mass will go undiscussed.
Here’s a common example: in the new consecration, the Blood of Christ is shed “for you and for all.” In the Tridentine liturgy, it’s “pro vobis and pro multis” [for you and for many].
Who authorized the change? And what does it portend? Did Christ die for everyone in the sense that no one needs to join the Church/believe in Him to be saved? Then, I submit, a great deal more than one word needs to be changed in the Roman Catholic Church.
If, on the other hand, the change was made by someone with a “modern” sensibility, some one with “compassion” who wants to be “inclusive,” the only question left is when this person’s (or someone else’s) compassion is going to make gender-neutral nomenclature necessary and female priests, and — well, you get the picture.
I should think that the Deposit of Faith is of great concern to Catholics and that tampering with it would be anametha.
I was disappointed in JA’s niggling criticism of Prof. White on the show (I read the transcript online). Opposing the Latin Mass because St. Peter didn’t have it is like opposing the Bible because Jesus didn’t have it. Clearly not a thought-out argument.
And if the question of the day is whether LeFebvre’s group is in schism or not, then the larger question of the mangling of the liturgy of the Mass will go undiscussed.
Here’s a common example: in the new consecration, the Blood of Christ is shed “for you and for all.” In the Tridentine liturgy, it’s “pro vobis and pro multis” [for you and for many].
Who authorized the change? And what does it portend? Did Christ die for everyone in the sense that no one needs to join the Church/believe in Him to be saved? Then, I submit, a great deal more than one word needs to be changed in the Roman Catholic Church.
If, on the other hand, the change was made by someone with a “modern” sensibility, some one with “compassion” who wants to be “inclusive,” the only question left is when this person’s (or someone else’s) compassion is going to make gender-neutral nomenclature necessary and female priests, and — well, you get the picture.
I should think that the Deposit of Faith is of great concern to Catholics and that tampering with it would be anametha.
Quote: “Here’s a common example: in the new consecration, the Blood of Christ is shed ‘for you and for all.’ In the Tridentine liturgy, it’s ‘pro vobis and pro multis’ [for you and for many].”
It sounds to me like you have a problem with the current English translation of the Mass, but not with the current rite of the Mass per se. I say this because my understanding is that that phrase has not changed at all in the official Latin text of the Mass; it is merely that we have a less-than-perfect English translation. From what I understand, a new English translation is in the works, and should be here as soon as it gets the necessary approval of the world’s English-speaking bishops (though admittedly that could take a while). However, I don’t know the specifics of whether it addresses this particular translation issue.
Also, depending on where you live, there may be a Latin Mass (either current rite or Tridentine) available in your area that is offered by the local diocese, not by a schismatic group. For example, in Chicago, St. John Cantius parish (as well as a handful of other parishes, I believe) offers both the current rite and the Tridentine rite in Latin.
I think you are wrong saying SSPX is in schism considering that the excommunication of the Hawaii 6 has been lifted and a quick study of Canon Law pertaining to the canonical status of SSPX reveals that the excommunication was never valid to begin with. I am not a member of SSPX or Roman Catholic. I am Greek Orthodox but my sister, her husband, and my niece and nephews are in SSPX. From what I understand SSPX was founded lawfully, has always remained loyal to the Pope, and has had no other goal but to preserve Roman Catholicism as it existed for several hundred years before Annibale Cardinal Bugnini decided to make a New Mass.
Now some of you will argue that it is closely modeled on the original Tridentine Mass and much of the text is identical but if you look closely the Sacrificial character of the Mass has almost been abrogated by the form and when the Novus Ordo is celebrated facing the people it is completely abrogated.
Let me explainin more detail:
The focus of the Tridentine Mass is the Sacrifice in the oblation of the Victim (Offeratory), immolation (doble consecration), and consummation (Communion). The Novus Ordo is a Memorial and Supper that is based on the form of a Jewish meal being broken into three parts: berakah or blessing of the gifts (presentation of the gifts), thanksgiving for gifts received (Eucharistic prayer), breaking and partaking of the bread. So you see the Novus Ordo even without the scrapping of the traditional rubrics is not a Mass based in Tradition but something radically different. The scrapping of the rubrics is merely a part of the spirit behind the Novus Ordo which no longer is focused on Absolute Truth but on fallen humanity. What better way to inaugurate this new humanism than to pervert the Mass and have the celebrant face the people?
I must tell you I feel nothing but sympathy for modern Roman Catholics who have had the wool completely pulled over their eyes. In the words of Cardinal Ottaviani Vatican II was not a reform but a revolution.