| | Best printed in Explorer's "View/Text-size/Smallest" mode
Roniel Aledo / Bishop Fellay (attempted) Debate
Roniel ALEDO, Captain (Ret.) US ARMY
Original: Wednesday, February 22, 2005
Additions and Edited: February 30, 2005
Subject: Captain Aledo's answer to Bishop Fellay. "The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded." (Paul VI, UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO) Dear Bishop Fellay,
Thank you for your recently received note. Thank you also for your prayers. All prayers are welcome. I had prayed many times for many people in your "group". One good example is my wife, who always went to SSPX masses and received the sacrament of Confirmation from Mons. Lefebvre himself. After a lot of prayers she is happily in full communion with the Catholic Church!
Thanks to good prayers and efforts I showed her Cardinal Ottaviani's letters (not only his famous Intervention but his words after the final edition of the Mass of Paul VI), and explained to her that the "aarti" in India is just a cultural sign and has nothing to do with religion or "Shiva".
I also explained to her the true history behind St. Athanasius and Pope Liberius, the "perpetuity" of the Tridentine Mass given in the Bull Quo Primum, the "Pastoral" vs Dogmatic Council distinction, the Bishop "without Jurisdiction" modernist novelty and the "subjective" state of Necessity (of Luther, and many others up to 1988), the "ALL and not MANY" translations, the "Subsists In" meaning, etc.
To bring my wife to full Communion with the Church of God, obviously was not because of my humble formation in Dogmatic Theology in Opus Dei, nor my studies in the Carmelite Seminary, but of course prayers of good-willed people that really made the difference. Moving my wife away from her 7 or 8 "semi-dogmatic" points to the true Catholic doctrine was not easy but obviously a wonderful action.
Back to the note that your Excellency kindly sent me, I must tell you that sadly you leave me with no answers to my questions. In 1976 Lefebvre did not answer the letter from Pope Paul VI. Almost 30 years later the Doctrinal and Theological points that the Pope asked Lefebvre remain without answer. Now you, following Lefebvre's example, again refuse the main subject and main issue here; Dogmatic Theology. Remember I am not after emotional arguments but Theological ones. Before a bridge can be made a foundation is needed. I am not looking for emotional arguments but for Theological ones.
In this case I must answer the points in your letter (I am sorry, I am not a diplomat nor work for Cardinal Sodano, I am just a soldier so I do answer all questions I receive not as a diplomat but as a soldier: directly and without stalling):
--- Bishop Fellay: "I tell you, you do not obey the Pope when you insult us saying we are a sect. Rome never said such a thing. When Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos tells me that he has studied what we say and what we do and that we are neither heretics nor schismatics, why do you pretend to be able to pronounce a better than Rome's judgment? Who obeys?"
---Roniel Aledo: The Italian police say that you are a Sect and placed all SSPX chapels under the "sect watch" list. And if you are not a sect, then what is your "special group"?
Obviously you are not part of the Catholic Church! -- "Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize AND OBEY the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors." (Encyclical, Mortalium animos, January 6, 1928)
-- Pope Pius IX : "..it is as contrary to the divine constitution of the Church as it is to perpetual and constant tradition for anyone to attempt to prove the catholicity of his faith and truly call himself a Catholic when he fails in OBEDIENCE to the Apostolic See." (Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra to the Armenians, January 6, 1873).
-- St. Ignatius of Antioch : "Let all obey the bishop as Jesus Christ obeyed his Father" (Ad Smyrnaeos, viii, 1; P.G. 5. 708); "He who honors the bishop is honored by God; but he who does anything without the bishop's knowledge serves the devil."
--- Pope Pius XII "Christ Himself established in the society which He founded a legitimate authority to perpetuate his own authority for all time. Therefore, he who obeys the rulers of the Church, obeys our divine redeemer Himself" (Menti Nostrae para. 18)
--Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos: "To qualify as Catholic one must always, before everything, seek full communion with Peter." (Letter to Bishop Fellay) So the questions remain, what is your "organization"?
If you are not Catholic (and you are not according to Pius IX...just re-read the above!) and if you are not an established separate Schismatic Church because you haven't made a formal declaration of Xchism - like the Russians or Bulgarians, then I must conclude, like the Italian police, that you are a semi Catholic Sect, with remote aspirations of becoming someday fully Catholic.
About Your Eminence Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, you must remember his duty is to be diplomatic with you. He must be a "sweet" diplomat with you because that is the directive of the Holy Father: to be "polite", "sweet" and "charming" with you (and the day the Holy Father appoints me to the Ecclesia Dei Commission I also will be!). The day my Bishop tells me to stop calling your sect a sect, don't worry, I will certainly obey! Also I am rewriting my Book in a more "polite" way due to Bishop Rifan's advice and order (YES, despite your attacks on Bishop Rifan, he out of his great heart told me to change things in my book because they were too "rude"). So you can see that I do obey my superiors!
Still Cardinal Castrillon's patience with you has its limits: "The Society of St. Pius X makes an accusation, saying that Truth has been abandoned by the Church that it calls, in a pejorative fashion, "conciliar...
...No heretics or schismatics, throughout history, have said he is wrong. They always thought that is was the Church that was wrong." (Letter from Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos).
I think the reference to "heretics or schismatics" of his Eminence is very clear to you and your ... "special group".
---BISHOP FELLAY: "The same Cardinal speaking of the Society of St Pius X said, in front of three of the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre that the fruits of the Society are good, hence the Holy Spirit is there, why do you condemn us so easily almost to hell?"
---RONIEL ALEDO: I don't. The HOLY TRADITION does (and please remember that the mission of the Cardinal is just: to be "soft" with you, to bring you into the Church diplomatically. If you or your movement had occurred 500 years ago, trust me, the Holy Inquisition would have treated you in a different way. You must be thankful of the modern world!).
I just repeat what the HOLY TRADITION says. It is not me, it is the HOLY TRADITION: -- "Your position is not in accordance with the Gospel and in accordance with the faith. To persist in this course would do great harm to your consecrated person and to those who follow you, in disobedience to Canon Law. Instead of providing a remedy for the abuses which it is desired to correct, that would add another, of incalculable gravity." (Pope Paul VI to Lefebvre)
-- "Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior" (QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE, Pope Pius IX 10 August 1863)
-----Pope Boniface VIII: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
---"There has been an acute hardening in this movement. I perceive a narrow-mindedness that makes the process of reconciliation problematic, at least in the short term...they must understand that the renewed liturgy [of Vatican Council II] is not that of another Church." (Cardinal Ratzinger 2001).
---Pope John Paul II: "In itself this act was one of disobedience to the Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience – which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy – constitutes a schismatic act....
...Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the church's law." (Ecclesia Dei, 1988) It is not me Bishop Fellay. It is the Holy Tradition of the Church: "Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize AND OBEY the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors." (Encyclical, Mortalium animos, January 6, 1928)
---BISHOP FELLAY: "When the same Cardinal tells us that the Holy Father does agree, and so Card. Ratzinger, Sodano, Medina, and himself, that the Tridentine mass has never been abrogated, why and under what title do you think you can pretend that my statement is false when I say that this mass is still in vigour? A law which is not abrogated remains in vigour, sorry for you."
---RONIEL ALEDO: Your love for the Mass is not allowing you to see the truth. The Holy See has said many times that: - The Tridentine Mass has NOT been abrogated (so you are right here)
- The LAW Quo Primum was abrogated (and then you are WRONG here)
Again – The mass NO.
– The LAW yes It is extremely simple. The Mass of St. Pius V was not abrogated because Pope Paul never forbade it, but permitted old priests to say it (so it was not forbidden). Later in 1984 and 1988 even more amplitude was given; therefore the Mass had never been abrogated.
But the LAW that placed the Mass of Saint Pius V as the universal rite of the Latin Church, that LAW, was really abrogated! Pope Paul removed the Tridentine rite as the Latin Rite universal rite, abrogated THE LAW Quo Primum, and made his rite the universal rite of the Latin Church.
Again: the Mass no, the LAW Quo Primum yes.
It is not me! It is the Holy See who says this:
---- On June 11, the Congregation for Divine Worship (The Holy See) stated that: - No priest can base himself on the Bull Quo Primum in order to celebrate the old rite.
- Quo Primum was abrogated by the promulgation of the new rite.
This is simple: The LAW Quo Primum was abrogated but the mass was not.
Education has not been forbidden in Spain. But the LAWS that regulated education in 1890 in Spain had been abrogated and today new laws regulate education in the country.
Today the Tridentine Mass authority comes from other official legislative documents and not from Quo Primum (that was abrogated). The Holy See has stated that several times: ---"The legal basis for the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass today does not derive from the Bull Quo Primum, but from the documents Quattuor abhinc annos and Ecclesia Dei which were issued under the initiatives of Pope John Paul II." (Ecclesia Dei Commission) It is not me Bishop Fellay! It is the Holy See who says that!
Even the Holy Father himself left no room for exotic theories: --Pope Paul VI: "The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The Instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided, with the authorization of the Ordinary, for the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifices sine populo.
The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did Our Holy Predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent." (Pope Paul VI, 24 May 1976) Also it is very important to take note of what true experts in Law say (not Roniel Aledo but the experts):
Fr. John Huels (Cannon Law Scholar) : - Pius V's bull, Quo primum tempore, did not grant a "perpetual indult," or privilege. This was a legislative act, universal law requiring the use of Missale Romanum in the whole Latin Church, except for those dioceses and religious orders that had their own liturgies for at least 200 years. It was not a privilege for any individual, group, or particular territory. Laws enacted by one legislator can be revoked by a successor (canon 20), as Paul VI did with respect to the use of the Missal of Paul VI. The so-called Novus Ordo, or new rite of Mass of Paul VI, is not really a new creation, but a revision of the previous rite, popularly called the Tridentine Rite Mass.
- Paul Vi's 1969 apostolic constitution, Missale Romanum, was properly promulgated as law in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (61: 217-222), in keeping with canon 9 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law (1983 Code of Canon Law canon 8). The constitution required the use of the newly revised Roman Missal and abrogated previous law that had required use of the Tridentine rite Mass. The pope declared that his constitution had the force of law "now and in the future," and he expressly revoked contrary law, including "the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving special mention and amendment." Moreover, the March 26, 1970, decree of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship promulgating the editio typica of the revised Roman Missal contained the phrase "Anything to the contrary notwithstanding." This general formula revokes: (1) all contrary universal laws; (2) all contrary universal customs, except those that are centenary or immemorial; (3) all contrary particular factual customs, but not particular legal customs observed for at least 30 years.
- It is correct that the general formula revoking the Tridentine Rite of Mass did not affect immemorial and centenary custom. However, the observance of the Rite of Mass of Pope Pius V was not a custom. It was imposed by law. A custom is introduced by the community (canon 23), whereas a law is introduced by the legislator. The use of the Roman Missal was decreed by universal law in 1570, and the Missal was revised in different ways by legislative acts of subsequent popes in 1604, 1634, 1888, 1920, 1955, 1960, 1961, 1964, 1965, and 1967. Although many of the ceremonies and details of the Mass of the Roman Rite largely developed through customs in the ancient and medieval Church, by 1570 the legal authority for the Rite of Mass was clearly that of papal law, not custom."
---Bishop Fellay: "Please, please the situation of the Church, our beloved Mother the Roman catholic Church is dramatic, and in part, this situation has come precisely through a wrong understanding of obedience."
---Roniel Aledo: You are right when you say there is a Crisis in the Church. Millions of priests, faithful and even bishops have a severe lack of formation, many others commit grave abuses during the Holy Mass, and liberalism is the dangerous poison that rules the world. But you are completely wrong in your way to "fight" the Crisis: that is by creating and supporting another one!
The Marxist Jesuits "priest" in el Salvador and Guatemala place poison in the Church; this is sad and tragic. But those priests damage the poor Indians and illiterate people of el Salvador and Guatemala. It is very little that those people can do to fight the Crisis in the Church. Your "special group" damages the intellectuals and most educated people in Western Europe (I am not talking about Kansas here, that is another subject) but in Europe who can easily be the best defenders of Catholic orthodoxy, the most educated and prepared to fight the Crisis and liberalism, fall in your group and add another Crisis in the Church!
I have no doubts whatsoever that once your "special group" becomes fully Catholic then you will be a Providential tool of God to fight the Crisis, to enlighten millions, to preserve true orthodoxy, but until that moment happens you just do with the best of Europe and America what the Marxist Jesuits do in el Salvador.
The Best Corrupted is the worst
Water is life. But one little variation of water (H2O2) makes it a poison. The same with your "group". Who could be the best Catholics in the world, defenders of the Faith, become just another problem to the Church of God. The Schism and excommunication, not only of your and your Bishops but also of ALL THOSE who adhere to your "movement" makes you a corrupt water. "The Best Corrupted is the Worst". If you take away the "worst", then only the BEST remains.
That is why I am sure Bishop Rifan is today's best and most Providential successor of the Apostles in the whole Church of God! He removed that "worst" element, and now Campos is the best golden treasure of the Faith in the whole world!
How many millions of souls will join you once you are fully Catholic !!
How many souls will you help to save!!
What a wonderful thing to have a truly Catholic source of beauty and Orthodoxy in the heart of Europe!
How many Blessings! What a wonderful and Providential view!
From the worst (H2O2) you will suddenly become the best (H2O) !
Think for one moment on the wonderful and extraordinary work of Bishop Rifan who travels the world spreading orthodoxy and the Mass of all times!
For example:
He goes to England, to Vancouver, to Germany, to Italy...to place the seed of true orthodoxy in the Faith! He goes to England, asks permission to celebrate the Mass of St. Pius V from the local bishop. The bishop (of course!) grants it. He meets with the Traditional group and celebrate Mass. He gives them courage, he spread the Holy Tradition of the Church, he places the seed for the fruits to come. He thanks the local Bishop. The local Bishop thanks him and invites him to come again. The local Bishops grants favors and courtesies to the Traditional group. All of this in HARMONY, in COOPERATION for the Kingdom of God, in perfect Communion, good spirit and PEACE!
How many countries have been blessed by Bishop Rifan's wonderful visits!
You go to England. You gather your "special group". No permissions are asked, no letters to the Bishops, no introductions, no presentations to the ordinary. Just you by your "guts and glory". The local Bishop pastoral authority is insulted as declared in the Council of Trent, threatens to excommunicate all who attend, warns about your schism and excommunication, writes to the local papers. The tension raises, the indult of other Traditional groups (who attended your mass out of ignorance) is in danger. The Bishop removes the indult Mass, complains to Rome, sends a letters to the locals, removes or restrains any priest of the Fraternity of Saint Peter that might be there before, places restrictions, on the local Traditional groups. Your priest sent letters to the bishop, the bishop answers back, your priest complains of persecution, the Bishop ... sends the police to get the key of the church stolen by your "group?
Where Bishop Rifan places Harmony, you place discord.
Where Bishop Rifan places PEACE, you place insult.
Where Bishop Rifan promoted the rite of St Pius V, you get it more restrictions.
Where Bishop Rifan makes the Bishop a friend of Tradition, you just make a personal enemy.
Where Bishop Rifan places the seed for future fruits, you place the insult to a Bishop.
Where Bishop Rifan is working marvels all around the world in full Communion with Peter, you spread problems, discord, a schismatic spirit and excommunication.
Bishop Fellay: IN THE NAME OF GOD REMOVE WITHOUT DELAY THE TERRIBLE STIGMA THAT PLACES IN DANGER YOUR SOUL, AND WITH NO DELAY GIVE THE WORLD THE PROVIDENTIAL AND WONDERFUL GIFT OF A TRULY CATHOLIC SOCIETY FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD!
Also Bishop Fellay, stop at once giving "orders" to the Pope! We all know that you will not come back to the Church until the Pope "recognize" the universal right to the Tridentine Mass. You can wait 10 years or a hundred, or a thousand. THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN!!!!
Please place that in your intellect: it will not happened: - Because that right just does not exist. Quo Primum was abrogated, and the legal documents that regulate the Tridentine Rite today place concrete limitations.
- Your only hope is that the Pope, or a future Pope in the future will give PERMISSION to the universal Church; but not "recognition" just Permission.
But the main point here is that you cannot FORCE the Pope to govern the Church as you want!
I agree that you must do your duty. Go ahead, tell the Holy See that Pope Paul may have made an error in placing his mass as the universal rite of the Latin Church (because the Papal non error doctrine protects the rite from heresy but does not warrant that the Pope will take always the best path or practical decision).
Go ahead and tell the Pope that. This is your duty. Explain him he must give an Universal Indult to the Tridentine Rite and restrict the Mass of Pope Paul. If the Pope listen to you great, but if he doesn't STOP FORCING YOUR WILL to the Vicar of Christ!
You do your duty and tell him your opinion; and after that, if he does not do as you want, stop forcing him to rule the Church as you want. Your duty is done, now all is up to the Providence.
Keep forcing the Pope to do what you want, or blackmailing the Holy See (to give an universal permission or you wont return) is just not in accord with the Holy Tradition.
If you really want to get universal rights for the Tridentine liturgy, then do this: - Tell the Pope. If he does not obey you, that is ok, he is the Pope and you did your duty.
- Go back in to the Catholic Church.
- Pray a lot so you or your Bishops become Cardinals.
- Pray a lot so you or your Bishops become the Pope! (I hope your "secret weapon" is not Richard "hothead" Williamson; that would leave the Vatican with no ambassadors in a couple months.)
And about obedience, there is NO misunderstanding in its concept or definition.. The DOGMA of the Church is extremely clear, again: -- "Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize AND OBEY the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors." (Encyclical, Mortalium animos, January 6, 1928)
-- Pope Pius IX : "it is as contrary to the divine constitution of the Church as it is to perpetual and constant tradition for anyone to attempt to prove the catholicity of his faith and truly call himself a Catholic when he fails in OBEDIENCE to the Apostolic See." (Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra to the Armenians, January 6, 1873).
-- "Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior" (QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE, Pope Pius IX 10 August 1863) Also I must tell you again that your "joy" because of your Excommunication is not in accordance with the Tradition nor the LAW. "However, doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any or lessening circumstances. (cf. CIC, can. 1323) As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of "serving" the church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity." (Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts) Bishop Fellay, you must keep in mind that your misinterpretation of Canons 751, 1323,and 1324 are not defense against your excommunication.
Canon 751 does not specify that one must deny the superior's possession of authority to incur schism, but rather that one must refuse to submit to this authority. Secondly, the superior to whom you and your successor in your "special group" refused submission was the Supreme Pontiff who possesses full ordinary power and universal jurisdiction.
Thirdly, the consecration of bishops against the express will of the Supreme Pontiff is no mere act of disobedience, but an act which carries by virtue of the law the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication -- penalties which were reiterated to Lefebvre personally by no less than the Supreme Pontiff and two Cardinal Prefects.
Finally, in light of Lefebvre's express intention in consecrating bishops without papal mandate, that of providing for the continuation of the SSPX until Rome adopts his position or get "converted", Lefebvre was not carrying out an isolated act of disobedience, but rather he intended to perpetuate a situation of disobedience for a prolonged period of time.
Also your argument that Lefebvre acted under grave fear in order to resolve a state of necessity is absurd: all laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator. Therefore a state of emergency cannot be invoked against the expressed judgment of the Holy Father.
Your "Subjective" necessity is the same as that of Luther, Calvin, etc. They also were full of "Subjective" Necessity too. There is a long, long list of people in 2000 years who left the Church because their "subjective" necessity.
---Bishop Fellay: "Or, do you need to kiss the Koran to be obedient to the Holy Father?
--Roniel Aledo: Please let me know when the Holy Father gave the order to kiss the Koran. Last year? In 1986? I haven't heard about that order.
Please Bishop Fellay, don't take a moment of perplexity or spontaneous moment of misjudgment as a De Fide declaration! A De Fide declaration cannot be given to a second of confusion in an old person. De Fide declarations need more than that!
Not long ago, in Kansas I think, you said that the Pope received the mark of "Shiva" in India. Again, please be more careful of what you say to the people who follow you:
A letter dated November 22,1994 from the Pontifical Council for Social Communications signed by Archbishop John P. Foley, president of the pontifical council, explains the custom of the Aarti and its role in Indian society: " Indian Catholics...use "Aarti" when a child returns home after receiving First Holy Communion, and when a newly married couple are received by their respective families. Nowadays, "Aarti" is often performed to greet the principal celebrant at a liturgical event, as it was on the occasion shown in the photograph. On such occasions, "Aarti" is usually offered by a Catholic married lady, and certainly not by a "priestess of Shiva" as has been alleged... 'Use of the "Aarti" ceremonial by Indian Catholics is no more the worship of a heathen deity than is the decoration of the Christmas tree by American Christians a return to the pagan rituals of Northern Europe." Now, Bishop Fellay, with all due respect I must insist on some answers. Please I am not asking for examples! I am not asking you for the Political Liberty declaration, the "subsists in", the "die for All", the Perpetuity of Quo Primum, the Assisi meeting, etc.
I am not asking you for those (If you insist on those, I as a soldier, of course will give you direct answers, but now the main subject is what worries me).
Remember, I am not asking you for examples of the Crisis or the "Modernist" teaching of the Church. I am asking you about the heart and main subject of this issue.
Why do I ask you? I know you are not in Communion and have no authority to teach, but I am just curious to learn what explanations you have! How can your "reconciliation" of the Tradition of the Church with your acts be explained? I also ask you because since 1976 there has been an absolute silence in your "special group" about these questions. I give you a chance to defend the honor of Lefebvre and your group.
Lefebvre answered more or less all letters of Pope Paul. But in 1976, when Pope Paul sent him a letter with 2 main Dogmatic statements, Lefebvre never answered. In almost 30 years there had been no answer. Again! This is your golden opportunity to give an "explanation" of very simple Theological issues.
And again, please, don't give me examples of the "modernist" heresies of the Pope or the Church today. Before I can give you examples and more examples of flying Blue whales, it is imperative to do a prior scientific analysis to see if really a Blue Whale can fly.
"A Blue Whale was flying from Amsterdam to Paris, another from Rome to Madrid, etc... I saw them! I swear it!" My answers is the same: before you give me thousands of examples and more examples you must prove to me FIRST that a Blue whale can fly. Before you give me examples of the "liberalism" and "modernism" of the Holy See you must prove to me first that the Holy See can really deviate from the Faith! 1. THE GREAT HERESY OF MARTIN LUTHER:His heresy of Free interpretation was simple. He read the Bible, COMPARED what he read to the teachings of the Pope and said: "The Pope is RIGHT here and WRONG there"
"I Martin Luther say so! After careful examination and comparison between the word of God and what the Popes teaches, I declare that the Pope is wrong in 2, 3, 6 and 8"
Then Calvin did the same thing and said the Pope was wrong in "1, 5, 9, 12"
Henry VII had a lot more light. After careful "comparison" and examination he concluded that the Pope was "only" wrong in 1 and 2.
And so on and so on and now we have hundreds of sects all around, each one with the "True" interpretation of Faith.
Lefebvre did the same! Only one little difference: he read directly from encyclicals and documents of the past Magisterium. That is it. That is the only difference between Lefebvre and Luther version of Free interpretation. Luther from the Bible, Lefebvre from old encyclicals."We don't create our Dogmas and Faith, we just teach the Dogmas and Faith as it has ALWAYS been TAUGHT" or so said Lefebvre. But how do I know his interpretation of those Dogmas is what the Church "always" taught??
"We don't create our Dogmas and Faith, we just teach the Dogmas and Faith as it has ALWAYS been taught " or so said Lefebvre.
But how do I know his interpretation of those Dogmas is what the Church "always" taught ??
----If bishop Lefebvre reads old encyclicals, COMPARES them with the documents of the Popes and reaches the conclusion in his PRIVATE JUDGMENT that the Pope is not "traditional" in 1, 2, and 3... (Therefore the Pope is Wrong and Lefebvre really knows what "tradition" is.)
---Then, what stops Bishop John to read old encyclicals, COMPARE them in his private judgment with the documents of the Pope and get to the conclusion that the Pope is not "Traditional" in 1, 6, 7? (Therefore the Pope is Wrong, Lefebvre is wrong and only Bishop John knows what real Tradition is.)
---What stops Bishop Michael to read old encyclicals, COMPAREthem in his private judgment with the Pope's documents and get to the conclusion that the Pope in not "traditional" in 3, 5, 6 and 10? (Therefore the Pope is Wrong, Lefebvre is Wrong, Bishop John is Wrong, and only Bishop Michael is the only one who really knows what "Tradition" is.)
---And what stops Bishop Ramon? And Bishop Elmer? And Bishop Roniel to do the same thing??
---What stops every single priest, Theologian or Bishop in the world to read old Encyclicals, COMPARE them with the Pope's documents and judge where the Pope is "right" and where the Popes is "wrong", where the Pope is "traditional" and where the Pope is "not Traditional"?
Lefebvre swears he knew where the Pope was NOT "traditional" based on his private comparison of old encyclicals with the Popes recent documents!
But...also... - Bishop CLARENCE says the same thing! And because the Pope is not "traditional" and because SSPX also does not understand "tradition" he founded his own society! The Society of St Pius the V !
http://www.sspv-bishop.org/
- Bishop MARK says the same thing! And because the Pope is not "traditional" and because SSPX also does not understand "tradition" he founded his own society!
http://www.cmri.org/bishop.htm
- Bishop LUCIANO says the same thing! And because the Pope is not "traditional" and because SSPX also does not understand "tradition" he founded his own society!
http://www.truecatholic.org/pope/
- Father MICHAEL says the same thing! And because the Pope is not "traditional" and because SSPX also does not understand "tradition" he founded his own society!
http://popemichael.homestead.com/contactthePope.html
- Also the followers of Father LEONARD, who have their own society:
http://www.catholicism.org/default.htm
- Father Gregorio says the same thing! And because the Pope is not "traditional" and because SSPX does not understand Tradition, he founded his own society!
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/7170/ipal3.htm
How do I, or any Catholic knows out of this "traditional" buffet where real Tradition is?
Where the Truth is?
Must I believe Lefebvre or Clarence?
Bishop Mark or Bishop Luciano?
Who do I believe?
With who is the Holy Spirit?
Where is the real Tradition in this Traditional buffet?
Bishop Fellay, you must give an explanation on how/ where/ when/ which way/ your behavior f or the last decades (your own and that of Lefebvre) is in accordance with the CATHOLIC DOGMA: " 85 -The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. " (Catechism if the Catholic Church) Also Bishop Fellay you must explain to yourself and the world, if you want any one to take you seriously, how in the world you can reconciliate the DOGMATIC factor, that you are not in Communion with the Holy Father, your are not member of the Magisterium and still, without hierarchical connection you give yourself the right to Teach and Preach: "Christ has given the supreme authority in His Church to Peter and to the Apostolic College, that is, to the Pope and to the college of Bishops una cum Capite. . .by their nature, "the charge of teaching and governing... cannot be exercised except in hierarchical communion with the head of the College and with its members" (Constitution Lumen Gentium, 21; cf. Also 25). A fortiori, a single bishop without a canonical mission does not have, in actu expedito ad agendum, the faculty of deciding in general what the rule of faith is or of determining what Tradition is. In practice you are claiming that you alone are the judge of what Tradition embraces." (Unanswered Letter from Pope Paul VI to Lefebvre, 1976) This is the way you must explain the world your posture. Remember a foundation is necessary before a bridge. Before hearing hundreds of examples of Flying Whales, you must explain how a Whale can fly before everything else. --- Michael Davies (EX -Lefebvrist) "I have been greatly saddened during the past five years to note the emergence of what I term neo-Protestants. These are men who claim to be serving the Faith, but who, to all intents and purposes, have become Protestants. The essence of Protestantism is that each Protestant is his own pope. He refuses to submit to the Magisterium, the teaching authority, of the Church founded by Our Lord, but makes his personal opinion the ultimate authority of what he will or will not believe. (Near his death in 2004) CATECHISM OF ST. Pius X:Q: Can the Pope err when teaching the Church?
A: The Pope cannot err, that is, he is infallible, in definitions regarding faith and morals.
Q: How is it that the Pope is infallible?
A: The Pope is infallible because of the promise of Jesus Christ, and of the unfailing assistance of the Holy Ghost.
Q: What sin would a man commit who should refuse to accept the solemn definitions of the Pope?
A: He who refuses to accept the solemn definitions of the Pope, or who even doubts them, sins against faith; and should he remain obstinate in this unbelief, he would no longer be a Catholic, but a heretic.
Q: How should every Catholic act towards the Pope?
A: Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher , and be united with him in mind and heart. 2. THE GATES OF HELL WILL NOT PREVAILBut I am also extremely curious to hear an answer to the question that Lefebvre never did answer.
It is true that the language in the Second Vatican Council is complex, and can give room to wrong interpretations. It is true that the language in the Second Vatican Council is reconciliatory and "soft", "sweet" and "friendly. But does it means that they contain Heresy? Does it means that the Holy Spirit was on "vacations" and had other things more important to do than to protect an Council of the Church from Heresy? And because it was a "Pastoral" Council (because it did not define any new Dogma) was it not protected by God from Heresy?
Had you ever read Chapter XXX of Liberalism is a Sin from Don Felix Sarda y Salvany. I think that Chapter XXX will be good reading to you. Also if you read with a more open spirit the Holy Father you will do amazing discoveries: -- Pope John Paul II: "Here it is not a question of altering the deposit of faith, changing the meaning of dogmas, eliminating essential words from them, accommodating truth to the preferences of a particular age, or suppressing certain articles of the Creed under the false pretext that they are no longer understood today. The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of the revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, 'the way, the truth, and the life' (Jn. 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth?" ( Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint, issued in May, 1995) But going back to the Unanswered Doctrinal Point, that is the Holy Spirit on "vacations" during the Council, the Catholic Dogma says that a Council is Free of Error or Heresy when the Pope calls for it, the Popes directs it and the Pope approves its documents as Pope, this is as Universal Pastor of the Church and not as a private Theologian.
All of those points were followed by the Second Vatican Council. Pope Paul gave a masterful and simple explanation of the DOGMA of the Church indefectibility that was never answered by Lefebvre or anyone in your group: "With the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, the Popes and the Ecumenical Councils have acted in this common way. And it is precisely this that the Second Vatican Council did.
Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that We enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the two-thousand-year-old Tradition of the Church considers as fundamental and immutable. We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate Successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk 22:32). The universal episcopate is guarantor with Us of this." (Unanswered Letter of Pope Paul VI to Lefebvre, 1976) I think, just out of Christian Mercy, that you should give us an explanation to this fundamental Theological questions. CATECHISM OF ST. Pius X:Q: Are we also obliged to do all that the Church commands?
A: Yes, we are obliged to do all that the Church commands, for Jesus Christ has said to the Pastors of the Church: "He who hears you, hears Me, and he who despises you, despises Me."
Q: Can the Church err in what she proposes for our belief?
A: No, the Church cannot err in what she proposes for our belief, since according to the promise of Jesus Christ she is unfailingly assisted by the Holy Ghost.
Q: Is the Catholic Church infallible, then?
A: Yes, the Catholic Church is infallible, and hence those who reject her definitions lose the faith and become heretics. Please Bishop and by the way, don't forget that QUANTA CURA was against MORAL religious freedom, whereas Dignitatis Humane was against POLITICAL oppression. - MORAL freedom is one THING
- POLITICAL freedom is another THING.
One was against the Freemasonic Liberal statements, the other against Communist Dictatorships that ruled half of the world and many Catholic countries (Poland, Lithuania, Slovenia, etc), forcing their people to be Godless by imposing Atheism.
Catechism of John Paul II: 2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error, ( 37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953,799) but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right (Pius XII, 6 December 1953).
2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner (Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3). The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order." (cf PÃo IX, enc. "Quanta cura"). Bishop Fellay, you mention some support from anonymous and mysterious Cardinals.
I think it is smarter and more in accordance with the Tradition to follow a Pope than a mysterious Cardinal, to follow a Pope with a clear name than an "anonymous" Cardinal.
If in doubt, go with the Pope: ---"In itself this act was one of disobedience to the Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience–which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy–constitutes a schismatic act.
In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the church's law" (Pope John Paul II, 1988)
--- "I take the occasion of this meeting to address all those who are still part of the Saint Pius X Fraternity. I urgently invite them to place themselves again under the direction of Peter's successor and to make contact with the 'Ecclesia Dei' Commission which was established to facilitate their reincorporation into full Church communion." (Pope John Paul II, 1990)
-- Pope John Paul II: "Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra Ecclesiam nulla salus–"outside the Church there is no salvation"– stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition and was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and in the Council of Florence (Decretum pro jacobitis, DS 1351). The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. Lumen gentium, n. 14). (May 1995) Bishop Fellay you said you understand the Soul of the Church. Is this true?
Do you understand those who are INVISIBLY UNITED to the Church of Christ?
You have not answered my question: How do you increase the number of people who are INVISIBLY UNITED to the Church of Christ?
Had you ever stopped to think how many of the pagans and heretics who prayed together with the Pope in Assisi MIGHT BE INVISIBLY UNITED to the Church of Christ ??
Yes, I am the first one in accepting that Assisi looks ugly at first glance. But once again: Have you ever stopped to think how many pagans and heretics who prayed together with the Pope in Assisi MIGHT BE INVISIBLY UNITED to the Church of Christ ?? --1. Catholic Dictionary, Attwater (Imprimatur/Nihil obstat 1946): ". .Those NON-Catholics who are saved are in life outside the visible body of the Church, but are joined invisibly to the Church by charity and by that implicit desire of joining the Church which is inseparable from the explicit desire to do God's will."
--2. THE CATECHISM EXPLAINED, Rev. Francis Spirago, Professor of Theology(c) 1899, 1921, by Benziger Bros. (Printers to the Apostolic See) Nihil Obstat: Scanlon. Imprimatur: Archbishop Hayes, D.D.NY: "If, however, a man, through no fault of his own, remains outside the Church, he may be saved if he lead a God-fearing life; for such a one is to all intents and purposes a MEMBER of the Catholic Church."
--3.Baltimore Catechism No.3, (IMPRIMATURS: Archbishop John McCloskey of New York 1885,Archbishop Gibbons Baltimore 1885, NIHIL OBSTATS: Rev. Remigius LaFort, Censor Librorum 1901)
"Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church?
A. Such persons are said to belong to the "SOUL of the church"; that is, they are really MEMBERS of the Church without knowing it."
--4.THE SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE, August 8, 1949: "For in this letter – (June 29, 1943, "On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.") – the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who ARE UNITED to the Church only by desire."
--5. THE CATECHISM OF ST. PIUS X, 172 : " If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit DESIRE of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as BEST HE CAN such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to THE SOUL of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation" (172) Bishop Fellay, despite your "horror" for the Interfaith meeting in Assisi, you must keep asking yourself "how many of those heretics and pagans MIGHT be INVISIBLY united to the Church of Christ." What had you done lately to increase the number of people INVISIBLY UNITED to the CHURCH of Christ?
Also you must understand than the Pope knows a lot about Moral Theology and has several experts in Moral Theology as his personal advisors. Most likely you don't have anything to fear - and the Pope did not commit any mortal sin by praying in Assisi.
Despite your allergy to ecumenism and the efforts of the Church in increasing the number of people INVISIBLY UNITED to the Church, you must realize something that you always lack to mention in all your writings: --"The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded." (Paul VI, UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO)
--- Pope Pius XI: "Against the violent effort of the powers of darkness which would snatch from the hearts of men the very idea of God, we hope very much that Christians shall come and join all those who, and they are the greater part of humanity, believe that God exists and who adore him." (Divini Redemptoris 1937)
---Pope John Paul II: "Therefore, it is an error to consider the Church as one more road to salvation together with that of other religions, which would be complementary to the Church, although converging with the it toward the eschatological Kingdom of God. Consequently, a certain mentality of indifference characterized by religious relativism that leads to believing that religions are equivalent among themselves, must be excluded" (January 2000)
--- Pope John Paul II: "An erroneous or incomplete understanding of inculturation or ecumenism, however, must not compromise the duty to evangelize, which is an essential element of the Catholic identity. The Church... cannot fail to sense the urgency of bringing the Good News to millions who have not yet heard Christ´s saving message" (April 2002) Here again, Bishop Fellay you have the direct answer of an unafraid soldier of Christ the King, who is following his oath and duty to defend the Church of God. Now it is your turn to answer with courage and valor. And with all respect and courtesy, if you don't, I will conclude that you are just not ready for me...yet.
Respectfully,
| | RONIEL ALEDO
CAPTAIN US ARMY (ret.)
Knight of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem |
Roniel ALEDO / Bishop FELLAY (attempted) DEBATE - INDEX PAGE HERE
See "Annals Australasia"'s Un-official Home Page
What's New? at Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page
Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page
| |
No comments:
Post a Comment