Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:10 am Post subject: AQ Exclusive: An Interview with His Excellency Bp. Rifan
AQ Exclusive:
An Interview with His Excellency, Bishop Rifan
A very candid conversation with the traditional Bishop of the Diocese of Campos
I recently received a call from our "French Connection", who contributes greatly to Angelqueen.org but still wishes to remain anonymous. From this point forward we'll refer to him as "FC". FC often calls just to chat, but just as often the purpose of his contact goes beyond friendly conversation. This was one of those times.
Recently, Bishop Rifan had spent some time in Europe where he gave several semi-private and public talks. It was at one of these talks in France that FC - having an uncanny knack for being in the right place at the right time - managed to strike up a conversation with His Excellency and build enough rapport in a short period of time to convince the good bishop to agree to an exclusive interview with AQ.
After FC informed me of the development, I gave it some thought and told him that although I appreciated His Excellency's generosity, if the interview was to occur, I wasn't about to toss him a bunch of softballs for him to hit out of the park. Of course I would be kind and give due respect to Bishop Rifan, but there were many lingering questions I and other traditionalists would like for him to answer. FC agreed this was the correct approach.
After some further discussion with FC and getting further input from him on what type of questions should be asked, I put together the questions. However, after reading though them, I feared that because some of the questions touched on delicate and controversial topics, that His Excellency would become angry or perhaps immediately send my email to his "deleted items" folder. This turned out not to be the case.
Very shortly (literally hours) after I somewhat apprehensively hit "send", I received a kind reply directly from the good bishop himself, blessing me and thanking me for the opportunity to be interviewed. No auto-responders or assistants, and no hesitation whatsoever to tackle the interview. I was immediately impressed.
When I got the interview back from Bishop Rifan, I realized that he not only answered every question posed to him, but he answered them thoroughly and with due care. Although he is a very busy man, he took the necessary time to give an excellent interview. At times, he is plucky and direct, but honest and forthcoming.
AQ: You recently gave several talks in Europe, one attended by several hundred people. What was the purpose of your trip? Did you find it fruitful?
Bishop Rifan: Three things:
1) The purpose of my trip
2) The message of my conferences
3) The contacts and fruits.
The purpose
I have some friends there – priests who just fixed their irregular canonical situation, and they invited me to help them with some suggestions or advise regarding the path to follow. I accepted this invitation as a way of being charitable with them, as the Holy Father Benedict XVI told me during the meeting I had with him. What he had told me as a cardinal – is that the Campos Apostolic Administration is an example for all the groups attached to traditional liturgy, on how to maintain liturgical tradition in communion within the Church. Cardinal Castrillon encouraged me this visit. The pope told me he is happy with the peace in Campos, between the local diocese and his bishop and us. Cardinal Castrillon told me that the existence of Campos and the life of the Apostolic Administration, with its independent churches and proper rite, in perfect co-living with the local diocese – unity in diversity – shows that this is possible. I think demonstrating that co-living is possible is a useful point both for progressives and for traditionalists. For progressives believe such is not possible, fearing unity of Church would be undermined if they open the door for traditionalists, and traditionalists fear the may loose their identity with this co-existence. No! Peace is possible with liturgical diversity, disciplinary diversity and of course fidelity to doctrine.
The message
A newspaper in France surmised my visit by writing: “Mgr Rifan appealed to unity and warned traditionalists against radicalism and fundamentalism.” I spoke about how we must adhere to the Magisterial Church and I insisted on the necessity of communion with Hierarchy and the “sensus Ecclesia”. I warned them against mixing political issues and liturgical matters. Speaking about the crisis, I explained it brought wrong to the progressives – and to traditionalists as well.
I said that if I were to speak to progressives I would repeat what Cardinal Ratzinger said once: “While there are many motives that might have led a great number of people to seek a refuge in the traditional liturgy, the chief one is that they find the dignity of the sacred preserved there. After the Council there were many priests who deliberately raised 'desacralization' to the level of a program... they have despoiled the churches as much as they could of that splendor which brings to mind the sacred...” (Cardinal Ratzinger's Conférence to the Bishops of Chile, June 13, 1988). That is to say: you, progressives, you are guilty of the lack of sacred and of the generalized desacralization in the Church. You are guilty of the traditionalist phenomenon.
But since I spoke mainly for traditionalists, I first spoke about the great qualities of traditionalists groups, of their great love for the Church, their zeal for sacred, and so on; traditionalists are “those who do not look to the liturgy for a spiritual show-master but for the encounter with the living God in whose presence all the "doing" becomes insignificant since only this encounter is able to guarantee us access to the true richness of being.” (Card. Ratzinger – for Claus Gamber)
But for the sake of truth, I also collected of the seven capital sins of the traditionalists, that is temptations and dangers where they can fall in, and sometimes do fall:
1. Pride – feeling like we have some exclusive and personal knowledge of truth, cultic idea that we are the only Catholics, the Church’s savers.
2. Systematic lack of charity - “See how they hate each other” That’s the contrary of what pagans said about the first Christians. The art of changing one’s friends into enemies. The spirit of division.
3. Rash judgement - Spirit of suspicion. Conspiracy theory.
4. Scandalmongering – Criticism as a sytem. Ministery of criticism.
5. Spirit of dispute - Systematic disobedience. Independence toward hierarchy and Church’s Magister.
6. Cultish group spirit - "no salvation outside of us”.
7. Pessimism - against Christian hope (In spe gaudentes). To some point, satisfaction with the anormality of one’s situation - and with errors by the human part of the Church – like if this could justify one’s own position.
Contacts and fruits
I asked to meet with - as I usually do - the bishops of the dioceses I would be visiting. This was also a way of indicating to traditionalists the necessity of communion. Hence, I visited Mgr Vingt-Trois in Paris, Cardinal Ricard in Bordeaux, I had lunch with Mgr Pansard in Chartres and I was received by the nuncio in Paris. They all treated me like a brother. Mgr Vingt-Trois wrote me afterward very kindly: “I heard good reports on your stay and I thank you for the ecclesial words you spoke to the auditories. We pursue our pastoral effort at the service of communion and we put our efforts under the intercession of the Most Holy Virgin. I received many good repercussions of my talks. Many, many traditionalists have appreciated my conferences. I have spoken the truth of my convictions. I think I did my duty even if I could not please everybody.
AQ: Could you explain what the difference is between an Apostolic Administration as exists in Campos and a Sacerdotal Society like the SSPX or the FSSP?
Bishop Rifan: An Apostolic Administration, as exists in Campos, is not a group or a religious society or congregation, but is a normal and official ecclesiastical circumscription of the Catholic Church, the same as a Diocese or a Prelature or an Ordinariat, that is, a particular church, part of the Universal and unique Catholic Church. Because of that the Bishop of the Apostolic Administration has the same power as an diocesan bishop, in his jurisdiction.
AQ: As a traditionalist Bishop, how is your relationship with the other Brazilian bishops? Have you run into any political problems or other issues that may stem from your unique status?
Bishop Rifan: As a catholic bishop in full communion with the catholic church, I have good relationships with the other Brazilian bishops. I am present in all of the bishop's meetings and I receive all the consultations as would any other bishop while conserving my peculiarity and individuality, primarily regarding the traditional liturgy. The bishops respect this independence and this peculiarity of our proper rite, as the Holy See erected it. And because of this good relationship, we have many dioceses outside of Campos which now allow the traditional Mass.
AQ: Since the establishment of the apostolic administration in Campos, do you feel at all stifled in communicating your thoughts regarding the direction of Holy Mother Church, the Novus Ordo liturgy and traditional Catholicism?
Bishop Rifan: No. I don’t feel at all stifled in my right of criticizing everything wrong in the Church. We are limited only by catholic doctrine or theology. This right is placed expressly in our declaration, according the Canon 212 of the Canon Law.
AQ: Do you have any authority outside of the diocese of Campos? Would you be able to administer confirmations in the United States or any other country? If so, what conditions would have to be met?
Bishop Rifan: I have jurisdiction in the full territory of the Diocese of Campos. My jurisdiction is cumulative with one of our Diocesan Bishop, with the difference that mine is personal and his is territorial. Outside of my diocese, as every any bishop, in order to minister sacraments I would need the approval of the local bishop. This is the way I have administered the sacrament of confirmation and the sacrament of holy orders in several other dioceses, in Brazil and elsewhere.
AQ: Your relationship with the SSPX was quite friendly before the Campos reconciliation, not long after it became less friendly. How would you describe your relationship with the Society currently, in particular with Bishop Fellay?
Bishop Rifan: We were together during the conversations with the Holy See in order to regularize our canonic situation; We were even invited by them and were very grateful to them for this. When the Holy See offered them and us an Apostolic Administration they refused, and we in good conscience couldn’t refuse this offer, or more to the point this explicit will of the Holy Father. After that, they began to attack us. They removed our Masses from the list of the Traditional Mass in the world. I sent an invitation to my Episcopal consecration to the four bishops of the SSPX and they refused. I offered many times myself in order to help them in order to get a canonical regularization, and they refused. This month, during my visit in France, a friend invited one of their Bishops to speak with me and he refused, saying that it was not necessary. So, I continue to pray for them.
AQ: If a Catholic lives in an area where a Novus Ordo church and an SSPX chapel are the same distance from his home, where would you advise this person to attend Mass?
Bishop Rifan: The attendance to the Sunday Mass is an obligation for every catholic. For me, of course, the Traditional Mass is better than the Novus Ordo Mass, so I guide people to the Traditional Mass. But the Novus Ordo Mass is a valid catholic Mass, of course. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei stated that attendance at Mass in an SSPX chapel is valid. The problem is the ambience. In the Novus Ordo, the modernist ambience must be considered and in some cases avoided. In the SSPX, the anti-roman ambiance must be considered and in some cases avoided. It depends on each case. As someone said me in Rome, the problem is not the rite, the problem is the sermon!
AQ: There exists a document called “62 Reasons Why One cannot, In Good Faith, Attend The Novus Ordo”, published by “Padres de Campos” (Fathers of Campos). Most of these priests are now under your charge. Would you consider the “62 Reasons” a document that the faithful should take to heart?
Bishop Rifan: There not exists this document, signed by nobody. There exists a list of reasons against the Novus Ordo, created many years ago, collected by a priest of Campos from many different sources. This document is not official. The reasons must be considered each one, and its authority depends of the document from where they have been collected. Most of these reasons are really artificial, saying, for instance, about the apostasy of priests, etc, with no necessary causal relationship with the Novus Ordo.
We can have critics against the Novus Ordo, but inside the limits allowed by the catholic doctrine and by the Magisterium of the Church.
AQ: It has been said that you concelebrated a Novus Ordo Mass on September 8, 2004 in Brazil. What was your role at the Mass? Were you at all disturbed by anything that went on at the Mass?
Bishop Rifan: In this day, September 8, 2004, it was a great feast of the centenary of the Coronation of the Patroness of Brazil, Our Lady Aparecida, for which all bishops of Brazil were invited, with a official representation of the Brazilian Government, and so I judged necessary to be present, mainly to show our public devotion to Our Lady, attacked by the protestant sects in Brazil. I have not concelebrated sacramentally: I was only present with the Episcopal ornaments, as the catholic Bishops (only the Anglican bishops, sometimes present by courtesy, use the coral vests, without ornaments, because they cannot concelebrate). But if I had concelebrated I would not have committed any sin, of course. I don’t understand this scandal made about it, as I had committed a very big sacrilege.
But I think that the best answer of this question is already done by our spokesman, with my agreement, as follows:
NOTE ON THE PARTICIPATION IN MASS CELEBRATED IN THE RITE OF PAUL VI:
Some persons have questioned the occasional participation of Dom Fernando and some of his priests in Masses celebrated in the Rite of Paul VI.
Dom Fernando is a Catholic bishop, member of the Catholic episcopate, in communion with the Holy Father the Pope. Thus, like every Catholic bishop, even those of a different rite, he must demonstrate this full communion practically.
No one can be Catholic while remaining in an attitude of refusal of communion with the Pope and with the Catholic episcopate. In fact, the Church defines as schismatic those who refuse to submit to the Roman Pontiff or to remain in communion with the other members of the Church who are his subjects (canon 751). Now, to refuse continually and explicitly to participate in every and any Mass in the rite celebrated by the Pope and by all the bishops of the Church while judging this rite, in itself, incompatible with the Faith, or sinful, represents a formal refusal of communion with the Pope and with the Catholic episcopate.
The objective fact cannot be denied that the rite of Paul VI is the official rite of the Latin Church, celebrated by the Pope and by all the Catholic episcopate.
If we consider the New Mass in itself, in theory or in practice, as invalid or heretical, sacrilegious, heterodox, sinful, illegitimate or not Catholic, we would have to hold the theological conclusions of this position and apply them to the Pope and the entire episcopate residing in the world -- that is, the whole teaching Church: that the Church has officially promulgated, maintained for decades, and offers every day to God an illegitimate and sinful worship -- a proposition condemned by the Magisterium -- and that, therefore, the gates of hell have prevailed against her, which would be a heresy. Or else we would be adopting the sectarian principle that we alone are the Church, and outside of us there is no salvation, which would be another heresy. A Catholic, either in theory or in practice, cannot accept these positions.
Our participation, therefore, is based on doctrinal principles. And it does not mean that we do not have reservations about the new rite, as we have already respectfully brought to the attention of the Holy See. Neither does our participation signify approval of everything that may happen. To be united to the hierarchy of the Church and in perfect communion with her does not mean approval of many errors that grow in the bosom of the Holy Church, provoked by her human part. And, of course, we lament profoundly with the Holy Father that the Liturgical Reform has given room for "ambiguities, liberties, creativities, adaptations, reductions and instrumentalizations" (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n. 10.52.61) and also has given "origin to many abuses and led in a certain way to the disappearance of the respect due to the sacred" (Cardinal Edouard Gagnon, Offerten Situng -- Roemisches, nov.dez. 1993, p. 35). Above all, we reject every profanation of the Liturgy, for example the Masses in which the "Liturgy degenerates into a 'show,' where one is tempted to make religion interesting with the help of silly changes in fashion...with momentary successes for the group of liturgical fabricators", as Cardinal Ratzinger criticized (Introduction to the book La Réforme Liturgique by Mgr. Klaus Gamber, p. 6).
For all these reasons, we preserve the venerable rite of St. Pius V, but "cum Petro et sub Petro", in full communion.
Pe. Gaspar Samuel Coimbra Pelegrini
Spokesman of the Apostolic Administration
Perhaps, another question, linked to that, is why we conserve and celebrate the Traditional Mass, what are the thru reasons. Because of that, I think it is good to add this explanation, I published in our bulletin:
Why do we love, preserve and prefer the classic liturgical form of Roman rite, The Traditional Mass?
Would it be only because we are nostalgic or sentimentally attached to past forms of liturgy? Only this reason would be not enough.
Would it be because we deny the power of the Pope to modify and promulgate liturgical laws? It would be against supreme Pope’s power dogma!
Would it be because we just consider the New Mass, or Paul VI’s Mass, invalid, heterodox, sinful, sacrilegious or not catholic? These statements would be against Church’s indefectibility dogma and unity of cult dogma, and they have already received the Teaching Church’s anathema, so it is an universal liturgical law, promulgated by Church’s supreme authority 34 years ago and adopted unanimously by the whole Teaching Church.
The real reasons are:
for a question of better and more precise expression of our Faith in Eucharistic dogmas,
for safety, for protection against abuses,
for the good of whole Church, in contribution for liturgical crisis’ reform,
for wealth and solemnity of rites,
for better precision and rigidity of rubrics (giving no space to “ambiguities, liberties, creativities, adaptations, reductions and instrumentalizations”, as complains the Pope – Ecclesia of Eucharistia, n. 10, 52, 61),
for the sense of sacredness,
more wealth and precision of prayers’ formulas, in reverence,
for personal and ritual humility,
for elevation and nobility of ceremonies,
for respect, beauty, good taste, piety, sacred language, tradition
and legitimate right recognized by Church’s Supreme Authority.
AQ: Your Lordship’s final message.
Bishop Rifan: I think that the present crisis is mainly a crisis of Faith, of Hope and or Charity. Lack of Faith in the Church, in his divinity and indefectibility – to look too much the human part or the Church, forgetting his divine part. Because of that, lack of hope and, consequently lack of love of God, lack of love for the Church as our family and lack of charity for the brothers. Prayer and spirit of Faith, this is the solution.
Bishop Rifan was kind enough to give us this exclusive. He will be reading this, therefore we will treat him as a guest.
It's fine if anyone would like to disagree or take issue in a mature manner with anything his excellency states in the interview. However, bashing or treating him disrespectfully will not be tolerated. We will not treat him like some po-dunk American politician, but will respect him and his office.
There will be no warnings if you cross the line, and don't bother contacting me if you have trouble logging in after posting on this thread.
But for the sake of truth, I also collected of the seven capital sins of the traditionalists, that is temptations and dangers where they can fall in, and sometimes do fall:
1. Pride – feeling like we have some exclusive and personal knowledge of truth, cultic idea that we are the only Catholics, the Church’s savers.
2. Systematic lack of charity - “See how they hate each other” That’s the contrary of what pagans said about the first Christians. The art of changing one’s friends into enemies. The spirit of division.
3. Rash judgement - Spirit of suspicion. Conspiracy theory.
4. Scandalmongering – Criticism as a sytem. Ministery of criticism.
5. Spirit of dispute - Systematic disobedience. Independence toward hierarchy and Church’s Magister.
6. Cultish group spirit - "no salvation outside of us”.
7. Pessimism - against Christian hope (In spe gaudentes). To some point, satisfaction with the anormality of one’s situation - and with errors by the human part of the Church – like if this could justify one’s own position.
As much as many would not like to admit this, Bp. Rifan is correct.
Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 533 Location: Laveen, Arizona
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:00 pm Post subject:
Bishop Rifan's list. Quite an accusation! As I read through the interview and saw 'The List', I thought he misconstrued the question and was taking aim at the Church-wrecking modernists and innovators I have met throughout the years. The hubris of thieves is evident in Bishop Rifan's list as the list turns toward the new order of churching peoples.
The only traditionalist 'hate' I have witnessed was, correctly, directed at the theft of tradition by the destructive ideas, a phobia of Catholicism in the truest sense of the word, implanted in every parish in the world.
So, yes we owe Bishop Rifan respect due his office but do we owe him respect for the content of his statements?
When I first read this subject, I thought, "Excellent. This will provide a wonderful opportunity for building bridges."
I'm personally grateful for the bishop's willingness to participate. As far as I can tell, this is the only forum that has the participation of Bishop Williamson and Bishop Rifan. If we can get some interviews with some other members of the heirarchy, maybe at least some understanding of the reality we all face will be more clearly understood by all sides.
On the negative or lamentable side, when I read the bishop's answers, it became much for apparent to me of just how wide the gulf is between those of us with a more SSPX oriented view and those of the bishop's view.
I find this a problematic passage:
Quote:
If we consider the New Mass in itself, in theory or in practice, as invalid or heretical, sacrilegious, heterodox, sinful, illegitimate or not Catholic, we would have to hold the theological conclusions of this position and apply them to the Pope and the entire episcopate residing in the world -- that is, the whole teaching Church: that the Church has officially promulgated, maintained for decades, and offers every day to God an illegitimate and sinful worship -- a proposition condemned by the Magisterium -- and that, therefore, the gates of hell have prevailed against her, which would be a heresy. Or else we would be adopting the sectarian principle that we alone are the Church, and outside of us there is no salvation, which would be another heresy. A Catholic, either in theory or in practice, cannot accept these positions.
There are a number of non sequiturs in that statement:
If we consider the New Mass in itself, in theory or in practice, as invalid or heretical, sacrilegious, heterodox, sinful, illegitimate or not Catholic,
We have to distinguish between theory and practice.
Theory:
I have yet to see a Novus Ordo fully celebrated/offered as the rubrics of Paul VI actually proscribe. In theory that is the rite that would be protected by the Holy Ghost. Even so, the reality is there. The Novus Ordo follows the Protestant reformation with only a few points that rescue it thanks to the indefectibility of the Church from being completely Calvinist.
The other point that is fully Orthodox is that the Novus Ordo has been inflicted on the Church as a punishment from God for the lack of faith and corruption of Modernism. God is using and allowing by his permissive will the Church to disintegrate in many places.
As Fr. Malachi Martin said, "Christ may be saying to the Council Fathers, 'Okay. You can have it your way and you'll see where it gets you. In the end, I'll bring back my grace and restore the Church. "
Practice:
What is happening in practice are numerous abuses, options, bad translations, coercions, genuine errors and corruptions that produce invalid, heretical, sacrilegious, heterodox, sinful and illegitimate masses. In many cases that is the only type of mass available to the faithful.
Quote:
we would have to hold the theological conclusions of this position and apply them to the Pope and the entire episcopate residing in the world -- that is, the whole teaching Church: that the Church has officially promulgated, maintained for decades,
First on the promulgation:
If I recall correctly and from Micheal Davies (RIP) writings, what was promulgated as a hopeful embracing of an optional rite by Paul VI is not the same as the still binding status of Quo Primum. Paul VI never abrogated the Old Rite and never legally made the Novus Ordo the official rite of the Church.
As the bishop himself stated, we have to separate the human failings from the Divine. The human part of the Church can be corrupted and confused. And it can even go to the point of creating a "Facade" of the teaching Church that in reality is not the teaching Church. Like a Father that has his authority over his children and is simply delinquent in his disciplines. He talks a good game , sometimes when he feels like it, but never actually teaches clearly, gives confusing messages and doesn't provide example. And most importantly, he ignores the lessons and wisdom of his own parents.
In other words the Churchmen can do things that are legally licit and morally wrong by virtue of their positions and despite their Divine mission.
Quote:
and offers every day to God an illegitimate and sinful worship -- a proposition condemned by the Magisterium -- and that,
I've been trying to point out on several threads, and I believe this is important: All one has to do is look at the condemned propositions of the Synod of Pistoia in "Auctorem Fidei" and we have a problem of contradiction in the Magisterium. Unless of course there are differences in the weight of the authorities being invoked.
Quote:
therefore, the gates of hell have prevailed against her, which would be a heresy.
Unless of course, there is a premise that is flawed. Namely the invocation or rather the lack of invocation of the Magisterial infallibility of the Church. Instead, a series of policy initiatives and a lack of vigilance on the part of the heirarchy can give a great imitation of "the gates of Hell prevailing" when in actuality it is the gates of the Church that have not held. There is no promise of Christ that prevents that. As Paul VI said, "the smoke of Satan has entered through some crack and is in the sanctuary in the highest levels of the Church."
I am grateful for His Excellency's candor and graciousness in reaching out to the AQ readership. With all due respect, I must take ussiue with his "seven capital sins" list.
Quote:
But for the sake of truth, I also collected of the seven capital sins of the traditionalists, that is temptations and dangers where they can fall in, and sometimes do fall:
1. Pride – feeling like we have some exclusive and personal knowledge of truth, cultic idea that we are the only Catholics, the Church’s savers.
Is it sinful to believe sincerely that personal knowledge of truth accrues from assisting at the Mass of the Ages? I don't know ant traditionalists who deny the validity of all other rites (Eastern Rite, e.g.). This seems odd to me.
Quote:
2. Systematic lack of charity - “See how they hate each other” That’s the contrary of what pagans said about the first Christians. The art of changing one’s friends into enemies. The spirit of division.
I have never encountered Traditionalists who hate one another. Many hate what has been done to the Church by the modernists.
Quote:
3. Rash judgement - Spirit of suspicion. Conspiracy theory.
If there is demonstrable proof of a conspiracy, say, to intoroduce ambiguities into a conciliar document in order to tear down the liturgy, does that make acceptance of the existence of such a conspiracy a "rash judgement"? I think not.
Quote:
4. Scandalmongering – Criticism as a sytem. Ministery of criticism.
When a highly-placed Church official is photographed kissing the koran, or concelebrating a Pauline mass after having denied doing so, distribution of such proof is hardly scandalmongering. It is merely a statement of fact.
Quote:
5. Spirit of dispute - Systematic disobedience. Independence toward hierarchy and Church’s Magister.
Very much present in the handful of people who actually believe what fringe elements like Tradition put forth, or for BLEEPS. Not so, in my observation, for the vast majority of traditionalists.
Quote:
6. Cultish group spirit - "no salvation outside of us”.
I've never heard that, although I have heard "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus". Does Bishop Rifan believe in that? I would be curious to see his answer.
Quote:
7. Pessimism - against Christian hope (In spe gaudentes). To some point, satisfaction with the anormality of one’s situation - and with errors by the human part of the Church – like if this could justify one’s own position.
Number 7 is perhaps the one that bothered me the most. Every scrap of a rumor of good news regarding freeing the Mass or "regularization" is met with exhileration and hysterical optimism on this board and elsewhere. If traditionalists can be characterized as being pessimistic about the state of the Novus Ordo establishment, it is because we are looking at the facts.
Joined: 31 May 2005 Posts: 1290 Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:58 pm Post subject:
Quote:
6. Cultish group spirit - "no salvation outside of us”.
That one, at least, appears to be correct. I remember people praising Bishop Williamson because he was steadfast in his distance from Conciliar Rome and New Church. I even wrote a set of question and answers and posted a few of them online to see whether anyone could agree to some propositions which I found extreme. As I recall I had a few people agreeing with at least substantial parts of it. The attitude of some is clearly--as far as I can see--that the safest way to retain the Catholic faith is to keep as great a distance from Rome as one can while still acknowledging that there is a Pope.
Thanks to the good Bishop for agreeing to the interview. It was very interesting and I enjoyed reading it. _________________ Qui illud ex fide comedit, Ignem comedit et Spiritum
I found Bishop Rifan's interview very positive, and would not want to pick any disagreement with it. (Perhaps he'll be the bishop of our new apostolic administration, or whatever it is to be, and that would be fine with me.)
I have seen each of his seven "capital sins" exhibited by some traditionalists, and some traditionalists who exhibit most or all of them.
I have also seen most of them exhibited by modernists. For instance, most real modernists exhibit extreme and "systematic lack of charity" toward anyone (especially orthodox Catholics) who disagrees with them. They exhibit a greater "spirit of disobedience" toward the Magisterium than most traditional Catholics have ever thought of. Etc.
Quote:
I have yet to see a Novus Ordo fully celebrated/offered as the rubrics of Paul VI actually proscribe.
I suspect that each of the televised Masses celebrated recently by Pope Benedict -- for instance, yesterday on the first anniversary of John Paul II -- has been offered correctly according to the rubrics.
But, perhaps more to the point of this thread, for real rubrical precision, I might suggest viewing the Solemn Pontifical Mass from the Throne that Bishop Rifan celebrated last November at the 10th anniversary conference of Una Voce America. (Although, actually, I myself wondered about his green episcopal gloves worn with gold vestments.) The DVD can be ordered from the conference web site (here).
It is good to hear a bishop with the church's full seal of approval state that in some cases, it is better for a Catholic to attend Mass at a SSPX chapel, as opposed to the local diocese approved Novus Ordo chapel.
In case this may be of assistance to any who might profit by reading Bishop Rifan's statement three times:
Quote:
If we consider the New Mass in itself, in theory or in practice, as invalid or heretical, sacrilegious, heterodox, sinful, illegitimate or not Catholic, we would have to hold the theological conclusions of this position and apply them to the Pope and the entire episcopate residing in the world -- that is, the whole teaching Church: that the Church has officially promulgated, maintained for decades, and offers every day to God an illegitimate and sinful worship -- a proposition condemned by the Magisterium -- and that, therefore, the gates of hell have prevailed against her, which would be a heresy. Or else we would be adopting the sectarian principle that we alone are the Church, and outside of us there is no salvation, which would be another heresy. A Catholic, either in theory or in practice, cannot accept these positions.
Quote:
If we consider the New Mass in itself, in theory or in practice, as invalid or heretical, sacrilegious, heterodox, sinful, illegitimate or not Catholic, we would have to hold the theological conclusions of this position and apply them to the Pope and the entire episcopate residing in the world -- that is, the whole teaching Church: that the Church has officially promulgated, maintained for decades, and offers every day to God an illegitimate and sinful worship -- a proposition condemned by the Magisterium -- and that, therefore, the gates of hell have prevailed against her, which would be a heresy. Or else we would be adopting the sectarian principle that we alone are the Church, and outside of us there is no salvation, which would be another heresy. A Catholic, either in theory or in practice, cannot accept these positions.
Quote:
If we consider the New Mass in itself, in theory or in practice, as invalid or heretical, sacrilegious, heterodox, sinful, illegitimate or not Catholic, we would have to hold the theological conclusions of this position and apply them to the Pope and the entire episcopate residing in the world -- that is, the whole teaching Church: that the Church has officially promulgated, maintained for decades, and offers every day to God an illegitimate and sinful worship -- a proposition condemned by the Magisterium -- and that, therefore, the gates of hell have prevailed against her, which would be a heresy. Or else we would be adopting the sectarian principle that we alone are the Church, and outside of us there is no salvation, which would be another heresy. A Catholic, either in theory or in practice, cannot accept these positions.
I have to say, that I have met some SSPX hierarchy and Bishop Rifan. The latter is much more charitable and has a healthier outlook towards Tradition. He has a way of still telling the truth of things without rancor. I was very impressed with him and think he is a blessing for the traditionalist movement!
I suspect that each of the televised Masses celebrated recently by Pope Benedict -- for instance, yesterday on the first anniversary of John Paul II -- has been offered correctly according to the rubrics.
I didn't see the entire Mass but, from what I saw, the Holy Father still offered the Mass facing the congregation not ad orientum. The rubrics of Paul VI at times call for the priest to "turn and face the congregation" much as the priest does in the Traditional Mass.
Unless someone wants to read that as the priest does a 360 degree spin, I don't know how you can face the congregation and celebrate the Novus Ordo in accordance with the rubrics and their original public intent.
From what I've heard Fr. Fessio is the only priest that I know of who has attempted to offer the Novus Ordo in as much a line as possible.
But we still have the offensive loud voiced consecrations and the washing machine responses from the congregation. You can only polish up the Novus Ordo so much, it intrinsically is a weaker liturgical expression of the faith. Severely weaker.
The rubrics of Paul VI at times call for the priest to "turn and face the congregation" much as the priest does in the Traditional Mass.
Unless someone wants to read that as the priest does a 360 degree spin, I don't know how you can face the congregation and celebrate the Novus Ordo in accordance with the rubrics and their original public intent.
Agreed. I pointed this out myself in a previous thread, but forgot it here. Benedict himself has stated plainly and forcefully, numerous times, the importance of ad orientem celebration. Now I wish he would just do it.
Quote:
You can only polish up the Novus Ordo so much, it intrinsically is a weaker liturgical expression of the faith.
Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 314 Location: New Jersey, circa 1950
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:37 pm Post subject:
With respect to both the person and office of Bs. Rifan I have complied seven reflections based on my 65 years as a Roman Catholic. I state these thoughts as someone who accepts the validity of the hierarchy while lamenting their betrayals. The problem is not the rite, the problem is not the sermon; the problem is the abandonment of all that is sacred, holy and Catholic to the altar of modernism and ecumenism.
Seven reflections on why I worship as a "Traditional" Catholic.
1. Pride: The feeling of honor and dignity given to Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The holy delight and gratification received from worshiping in the time-honored rite of the Catholic Church.
2. Charity: Altruism, benevolence, and compassion conferred by the holy, traditional practices of the Catholic Church. The spirit of unity with 2000 years of holy heritage.
3. Judgment: The spirit, soul and essence of unity with all that has been handed down thru the centuries. Seeing that opening windows to the smoke of modernism results in death of the Faith by smoke poisoning.
4. Scandalmongering: Ah, the outrage and indignity resulting from the scandal of Asissi and other like ecumenical events.
5. Spirit of dispute: The rightful anger at the hierarchy, priests and nuns who stole the practice of my religion when they were duty bound to protect it.
6. Group spirit - "no salvation outside of us”: I always believed there was only one Ark of Salvation. The new, modern, interpretation seems to include an armada of arks, each with a different flag hoisted to the place of honor.
7. Pessimism, abnormality of one’s situation - and with errors by the human part of the Church: Having been educated and Confirmed in the Church of the 1940s and 1950s to reflect upon the abnormality of Vatican II and the consequences thereafter seem as a logical and rational thoughts and do, in fact, justify one’s own position.
A short narrative I would tell my nontraditional and protestant friends when they protested or inquired concerning my attendance at the TLM. If a person really believed in the real presence of Christ in the Tabernacle they wouldn’t: turn their back on Him, received him in the hand and standing, put Him to one side or worse in another room.
Allegedly, a Protestant minister being shown around a Catholic church once said, "If I really believed what you Catholics say you believe -- that Christ himself is in that Tabernacle -- then I wouldn't just genuflect or kneel, I'd prostrate myself on the floor before it."
Bishop Rifan: I think that the present crisis is mainly a crisis of Faith, of Hope and or Charity. Lack of Faith in the Church, in his divinity and indefectibility – to look too much the human part or the Church, forgetting his divine part. Because of that, lack of hope and, consequently lack of love of God, lack of love for the Church as our family and lack of charity for the brothers. Prayer and spirit of Faith, this is the solution.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No, I don't agree! If this were so, Archbishop Lefebvre would never have had to found the SSPX and a seminary in the first place. We are in a silent apostasy and the faith has changed and the crisis is much deeper then Bishop Rifan seems to think.
There is NO lack of charity in staying true to the traditions that were always taught and Bishop Rifan is not doing that by concelebrating the new mass which is protestant.
Joined: 22 Mar 2005 Posts: 387 Location: Massachusetts
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:44 pm Post subject:
I was impressed with this interview. He seemed forthright and unapologetic. Bishop Rifan gives very good witness to a regularized traditional situation. And his "seven capital sins of the traditionalists" are worth noting.
Joined: 22 Feb 2005 Posts: 1373 Location: Orlando, Florida
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:44 pm Post subject:
How can a bishop wear a chasuble, have a mitre on, and not concelebrate a Mass? Chasuble's are to be worn by priests offering Mass and not outside of Mass, correct?
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:45 pm Post subject: Thank you
I am grateful to his Excellency for his interview and interesting answers. I note with interest His Excellency's reasons for the Tridentine Mass :
" The real reasons are:
for a question of better and more precise expression of our Faith in Eucharistic dogmas,
for safety, for protection against abuses,
for the good of whole Church, in contribution for liturgical crisis’ reform,
for wealth and solemnity of rites,
for better precision and rigidity of rubrics (giving no space to “ambiguities, liberties, creativities, adaptations, reductions and instrumentalizations”, as complains the Pope – Ecclesia of Eucharistia, n. 10, 52, 61),
for the sense of sacredness,
more wealth and precision of prayers’ formulas, in reverence,
for personal and ritual humility,
for elevation and nobility of ceremonies,
for respect, beauty, good taste, piety, sacred language, tradition
and legitimate right recognized by Church’s Supreme Authority. "
I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE YOU, YOUR EXCELLENCY, TO MY BYZANTINE-RITE MASS I ATTEND EVERY SUNDAY. And I'm sure you WILL FIND ALL THAT YOU WISH IN A MASS, IN MY RITE. The criteria for an ideal post-Vatican II Mass had been available even before the APOSTOLIC ADMINISTRATION was erected.
Joined: 22 Feb 2005 Posts: 1373 Location: Orlando, Florida
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:49 pm Post subject:
6. Cultish group spirit - "no salvation outside of us”.
Us? Meaning "Catholics?" The SSPX, being a part of the Catholic Church, are correct in saying outside of the Church there is no Salvation. Reaffirmed many times. The quote from the Council of Flourance is killer to the ecumenists.
Take this versus the open heresy in diocesean publications. Recently, a priest set to celebrate his 50 year anniversary and had this to say;
"The document on ecumenism published by the bishops at the Second Vatican Council was so inspiring," Father Wallace said. "One idea put forth was that we call members of other Christian churches our brothers and sisters in Christ and not heretics. We were not looking for everyone to become Catholic, but rather brothers and sisters in Christ; family in Christ. I am thankful to have been a part of spreading this good news."
Father Harry C. Wallace
AN OPEN LETTER
to the Priests of the Diocese of Campos
By Dr. David Allen White, PhD
Dr. Allen White is the author of the renowned book, The Mouth of the Lion [available from the Angelus Press], which details the resistance of Catholic Tradition (led by the late Bishop de Castro Mayer and his faithful priests) against Modernism in the diocese of Campos, Brazil.
In addition to his book, Dr. Allen White is a professor of literature at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD and also gives occasional lectures at Saint Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, MN, many of which have been recorded are available via www.aquinas tapes.com.
My Brothers in Christ and My Friends,
With great sorrow I read today that you are now "considered perfectly inserted in the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church." I never knew you left. During those memorable days when I visited you in 1991 while doing research for my book on your great and honored Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, I had the privilege of witnessing the Catholic life of your diocese, the most perfect embodiment of the Catholic life in a contemporary setting which I have ever witnessed and so much more than I could ever imagine. What a blessing you have been granted! What extraordinary graces you have received, undoubtedly through the prayers and sacrifices and work of the unique Bishop who tended the flock of Campos as shepherd for so many decades. In what way were you not then Catholic? In what way were you separated from the Church?
Your announcement that the Holy Father has signed a "letter of entrance," welcoming you "in full ecclesial communion" along with "the Catholic faithful (you) assist" suggests that there had been some separation with Rome, that you were in fact in some sort of schism. Had not the Catholic Faith been handed down intact and in perfect fullness from Our Lord Jesus Christ through His Apostles and through the Bishops of His Church until it came to be passed throughout the Diocese of Campos in our time by the fully Catholic Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer? What did he teach you which was not Catholic? Where did he lead you that left you separated from Rome and thus needing to "return"?
The sad fact is clear, even though the details are not yet fully revealed. You have signed an agreement with Modernist Rome and thereby turned your back on the great legacy of your great and beloved Bishop who left you in April of 1991, left you because God called him home, left you secure and Catholic and well provided for. His legacy has now been compromised through the compromise which must have been made with the current power players in Modernist and Progressive Rome, distinct and separate itself from Eternal Rome. To affect a compromise, one must assume leaving one’s position and moving toward a middle ground. The position you must leave is the fullness of the Tradition of the Catholic Faith; the new position you must reach is closer to the outskirts of the New Rome, the Rome of bureaucrats and ambiguous talk and ecumenism and collegiality and religious liberty, all the temptations and errors against which your good pastor so courageously and so comprehensively warned and instructed you.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his memorable and insightful address at the Harvard commencement ceremonies in 1978 stated that "a decline in courage may be the most striking feature which an outsider observer notices in the West in our days." For many years the name of the Diocese of Campos has brought to Catholic souls battling error and decay in their own parishes, the clear and resounding call to Catholic courage. In our apostate times, perseverance becomes an act of courage. The colossal moral and spiritual stature of the small human man who was your Bishop stood as a model for Catholic courage. Do you now cut his memory and legacy down to merely human size? Will the name of Campos no longer loudly ring with courage but echo distantly with compromise?
Who can doubt your discomfort or not sympathize with the loneliness you must have felt over the years? A small group of priests, organized together as the Priestly Society of Saint Jean Marie Vianney, carrying on the work of Mother Church in isolation, unnoticed, ignored, except when vilified by the voices of those who long ago made their compromises. But what could be more indicative of your true role as alter Christi if not your work in loneliness and sorrow, with those mocking and derisive voices assailing you? To imagine yourselves now "inserted in the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church" is no solution. You may have a few moments in bonhomie with red and scarlet and purple in the cool marble palaces of the Eternal City, but will Tradition continue in the Diocese of Campos after the compromising and celebrating? How have all other traditional groups fared once they have put themselves under the sway of Modernist Rome? I will not give you the litany of loss and change for you are already aware of it; I will just ask you where is the Traditional Bishop promised to the Fraternity of Saint Peter fourteen years ago? Are the prelates in Modernist Rome to be trusted? Will they deliver to you on the promises they have made? I quote the wise Solzhenitsyn again, "Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?"
You have announced that in a solemn ceremony to be held in the Cathedral of the Most Holy Savior by His Eminence, Cardinal Msgr. Dario Castrillon, Prefect of the Holy Congregation for the Clergy, in the name of the Holy Father, the Pope, on the 18th January, there will be a reading of documents and the singing of the "Te Deum." The 18th of January also begins the "Week of Prayer for Christian Unity" decreed by Rome which will culminate in the Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi on January 24th, the second such ecumenical outrage in recent years, a kind of gathering condemned, as you well know, by earlier popes. Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer in a joint statement with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre spoke with the voice of Roman Catholic Tradition in condemning the gathering of religions at Assisi in October of 1987 [sic; the event actually occurred in 1986], the first such outrageous ecumenical prayer venture. Have you forgotten his wise and proscriptive words? Will you now join your hands in prayer with Modernist Rome as it openly violates the First Commandment of God and prays with Lutherans and Anglicans and Muslims and Deists and animists in defiance of Catholic Tradition and then will you pretend still to be Traditionalists? Have you forgotten your own words when in your public Profession of Faith in 1982 you rejected "the ecumenism that makes the Faith grow cold and makes us forget our Catholic identity, seeking to negate the antagonism between light and darkness, between Christ and Belial..." ?
You may protest that you will maintain Traditionalism in your diocese, that you will still celebrate the Mass of All Time and teach the old catechisms and carry on in the Traditional ways. But do you not understand that in compromising you accept an absurd contradiction, an illogical proposition that any sane mind must condemn —that Mother Church in Her Divine Authority can teach contradictory ideas at different times and pretend they are both true. How can your Traditionalism co-exist with Modernism? How can the Mass of All Time be equivalent with the newfangled human contrivance? How can Catholics be forbidden from ecumenical prayer at one time and then encouraged in such actions at a later time? As Hamlet says, when staring at the skull of Yorick, the "gorge rises at it." Such a stark and deadly affront to reason is horrifying. Are you now willing to play this absurd Modernist game with Modernist Rome? Many weary and troubled Catholics will feel the weight of your decision. Already the remarks are circulating that you have "sold out" and "caved in" and "given up". The truth is you have abandoned reason. May I remind you of the words of a prayer you have often prayed? "...Sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum..." As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end.
In his courageous statement of June 30, 1988, in Econe, on the occasion of the consecration of Traditional Bishops by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, your courageous Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer in his message of support and unity spoke the following words:
"It is sorrowful to see the lamentable blindness of so many confreres in the Episcopacy and the priesthood, who do not see, or who do not wish to see, the present crisis in order to be faithful to the mission which God has confided to us, to resist the modernism at present ruling."
You no longer "wish to see the present crisis"; you no longer wish "to resist the modernism at present ruling." By your action of compromise with the "modernism at present ruling," you have increased the sorrow of your great Bishop; you have increased the sorrow of your devoted friends. Our Lord in His agony in the garden certainly suffered from the hatred of His enemies, but such suffering was nothing compared to the certain knowledge that He would be betrayed and denied by His friends and disciples.
First of all I would like to thank his excellecy bishop Rifan for taking the time and having the consideration to this audience. Second of all thank you, Servitium, for bringing us yet another good interview!
The only one thing I notice that may cause problems, and the one thing I pray the SSPX will not have, is having any sort of clause that would require them to have the permission of a local Ordinary in the areas they operate. An Apostolic Administration should be one that protects against potentially hostile local bishops, as was the purpose of it of Cluny.
I can understand them wanting to work with the local ordinaries, which should be strived for, but at least they wouldnt have to depend on their permission. Otherwise they'd be at their mercy, and that would be suicide in many, if not most, diocese here in the United States.
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:57 pm Post subject: Agreement
Gerard wrote:
liturgeist wrote:
Quote:
I suspect that each of the televised Masses celebrated recently by Pope Benedict -- for instance, yesterday on the first anniversary of John Paul II -- has been offered correctly according to the rubrics.
I didn't see the entire Mass but, from what I saw, the Holy Father still offered the Mass facing the congregation not ad orientum. The rubrics of Paul VI at times call for the priest to "turn and face the congregation" much as the priest does in the Traditional Mass.
Unless someone wants to read that as the priest does a 360 degree spin, I don't know how you can face the congregation and celebrate the Novus Ordo in accordance with the rubrics and their original public intent.
From what I've heard Fr. Fessio is the only priest that I know of who has attempted to offer the Novus Ordo in as much a line as possible.
But we still have the offensive loud voiced consecrations and the washing machine responses from the congregation. You can only polish up the Novus Ordo so much, it intrinsically is a weaker liturgical expression of the faith. Severely weaker.
Now please don't faint, but I want you to know that even though I might have expressed this differently, I agree wholeheartedly with the message contained herein.
I know of a Benedictine priest and some others who offer private Masses ad orientem, and our parish priest (who offers the indult) uses some special feast day "excuses" to offer the Novus Ordo publicly ad orientem (like Christmas and other holidays), but...
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:00 pm Post subject: Heresy
EddieArent wrote:
6. Cultish group spirit - "no salvation outside of us”.
Us? Meaning "Catholics?" The SSPX, being a part of the Catholic Church, are correct in saying outside of the Church there is no Salvation. Reaffirmed many times. The quote from the Council of Flourance is killer to the ecumenists.
Take this versus the open heresy in diocesean publications. Recently, a priest set to celebrate his 50 year anniversary and had this to say;
"The document on ecumenism published by the bishops at the Second Vatican Council was so inspiring," Father Wallace said. "One idea put forth was that we call members of other Christian churches our brothers and sisters in Christ and not heretics. We were not looking for everyone to become Catholic, but rather brothers and sisters in Christ; family in Christ. I am thankful to have been a part of spreading this good news."
Father Harry C. Wallace
The obvious intent of Bishop Rifan's words were "extra ecclesia nulla (traditionalists)" or put in SSPX or whatever moniker you would like. He is right. We do give off that air quite frequently.
As for the bulletin announcement. You're right. That is heresy. Much of the Novus Ordo contains heresy. Don't think you'll get an argument from Bishop Rifan or any traditionalists here.
So what is your point in showing us this? To show how much you were scandalized, and then to spread it to others?
Bishop Rifan: I think that the present crisis is mainly a crisis of Faith, of Hope and or Charity. Lack of Faith in the Church, in his divinity and indefectibility – to look too much the human part or the Church, forgetting his divine part. Because of that, lack of hope and, consequently lack of love of God, lack of love for the Church as our family and lack of charity for the brothers. Prayer and spirit of Faith, this is the solution.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No, I don't agree! If this were so, Archbishop Lefebvre would never have had to found the SSPX and a seminary in the first place. We are in a silent apostasy and the faith has changed and the crisis is much deeper then Bishop Rifan seems to think.
There is NO lack of charity in staying true to the traditions that were always taught and Bishop Rifan is not doing that by concelebrating the new mass which is protestant.
Deo Gratias for the SSPX!
It is not 1988 any more. Fr. Aulagnier (who FOUNDED the SSPX), Bishop Fellay and Fr. Schmidberger (Bishop Lefebvre's handpicked successor) seem to disagree with you.
Who knew the mind of the Archbishop better than they? It is no longer 1988.
The other point that is fully Orthodox is that the Novus Ordo has been inflicted on the Church as a punishment from God for the lack of faith and corruption of Modernism. God is using and allowing by his permissive will the Church to disintegrate in many places.
As Fr. Malachi Martin said, "Christ may be saying to the Council Fathers, 'Okay. You can have it your way and you'll see where it gets you. In the end, I'll bring back my grace and restore the Church. "
Fr. Martin was a very wise man, and there is much Scriptural precedent for God disciplining His wayward children in the way that he suggested.
When God got angry with Israel he would send them signs, prophets and punishments, but when He got really angry with them, He would "give them up to their sins" and allow them to reap the consequences.
If that is what the Church has been going through for the last 40 years, then we need to seriously reflect on what went so wrong with the Church before the Council that could merit such a punishment from God.
One of the greatest weaknesses I see in the Traditionalist cause is a desire to restore the status quo ante. If that were ever to be achieved, the Church would have failed to learn from her history and we would be right back at the same brink of disaster as before.
Joined: 23 Aug 2005 Posts: 2324 Location: Mid-West
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject: Re: AQ Exclusive: An Interview with His Excellency Bp. Rifan
Bishop Rifan wrote:
There not exists this document, signed by nobody. There exists a list of reasons against the Novus Ordo, created many years ago, collected by a priest of Campos from many different sources. This document is not official. The reasons must be considered each one, and its authority depends of the document from where they have been collected. Most of these reasons are really artificial, saying, for instance, about the apostasy of priests, etc, with no necessary causal relationship with the Novus Ordo.
Then why was this document for so many years on the SJV's website and handed out by the SJV priests? Why did he not raise this objection earlier leaving us, the faithful, to believe it was an official document? And now, wishing to distance himself from the past that so many of us remember. I remember.
Bishop Rifan wrote:
In this day, September 8, 2004, it was a great feast of the centenary of the Coronation of the Patroness of Brazil, Our Lady Aparecida, for which all bishops of Brazil were invited, with a official representation of the Brazilian Government, and so I judged necessary to be present, mainly to show our public devotion to Our Lady, attacked by the protestant sects in Brazil ...
... And, of course, we lament profoundly with the Holy Father that the Liturgical Reform has given room for "ambiguities, liberties, creativities, adaptations, reductions and instrumentalizations" ... Above all, we reject every profanation of the Liturgy, for example the Masses in which the "Liturgy degenerates into a 'show,' where one is tempted to make religion interesting with the help of silly changes in fashion...with momentary successes for the group of liturgical fabricators", as Cardinal Ratzinger criticized (Introduction to the book La Réforme Liturgique by Mgr. Klaus Gamber, p. 6).
We have photos and video. This celebration was avery bit an abuse as he "laments".
If it was not a sin for him to concelebrate then why did he not do so? _________________ Is. 12:3 ... I Cor. 15:25
When God got angry with Israel he would send them signs, prophets and punishments, but when He got really angry with them, He would "give them up to their sins" and allow them to reap the consequences.
If that is what the Church has been going through for the last 40 years, then we need to seriously reflect on what went so wrong with the Church before the Council that could merit such a punishment from God.
One of the greatest weaknesses I see in the Traditionalist cause is a desire to restore the status quo ante. If that were ever to be achieved, the Church would have failed to learn from her history and we would be right back at the same brink of disaster as before.
What are your ideas about precisely what did go wrong with the Church before the Council?
I'm sorry, but His Excellency has compromised on the Faith. "No" to the Novus Ordo and Vatican II. I thank God for the SSPX! _________________ Ecclesia Militans!
If it was not a sin for him to concelebrate then why did he not do so?
I cannot imagine a more pointless or offensive question to ask the good bishop. If a traditional bishop prefers not to concelebrate at a Novus Ordo Mass, why ask him to tell me or you why not? If I'm so dumb I can't figure it out for myself, it's not likely I'd understand any answer he might give.
I think it was very kind of His Excellency to take the time to offer answers to the serious questions posed by AQ.
Something that concerns me about the general drift of the interview is the tendency to play down problems with the novus ordo church. After many years in the indult, I have NEVER heard any issues raised from the pulpit about current problems. It is almost like it is 1955!
And we should never forget that there would be no indult were it not for the courage of Abp. Lefebvre and Bp. Antonio Castro de Mayer. And don't forget the indult is meant to destroy the SSPX etc--hence the reason why one can find FSSP outposts in places like Post Falls Idaho, which already has 3 different traditional mass sites!
Unity in diversity is also I think problematic. From what I have read about Campos pre-regularization, the position was not we are traditionalists because it is our charism or we happen to like the old mass better. It was simply that the new mass is pernicious and the old mass is the way to stay Catholic. I have to say I think the old attitude is superior.
I pray that the good God will preserve the SSPX from the spirit of delusion.
In thanks to His Excellency for addressing this forum, perhaps all forum members could pray for His Excellency.
It would be impossible for me to improve upon the insight and the eloquence of a writer like Dr. David Allen White, but there is one significant detail that I would like to add to the commentary about Bishop Rifan. I have known Bishop Rifan personally since he was still a seminarian in 1973, and I have no animosity toward him after the ending of his collaboration with the SSPX. But when I last saw His Excellency in October of 2004, he manifested very clearly how he departed from a principle of his mentor, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer. In a letter that I received from the then Father Rifan not long after Bishop de Castro Mayer’s death, he told me the following detail about the bishop’s final days. Bishop de Castro Mayer was visited by a German priest on the part of the Vatican, who wanted him to sign a statement containing a hypothetical apology to the Holy See for any offense that he might have committed against the Holy Father. Bishop de Castro Mayer refused to sign, and in the letter Father Rifan explained why. If he signed such a statement, Bishop de Castro Mayer told the German priest, they would use this to drive a wedge between him and Archbishop Lefebvre, something which he would never allow to happen. When I cited this to the now Bishop Rifan in 2004, in view of the fact that at the time of the Campos agreement with Rome the Campos clergy signed a virtually identical statement, Bishop Rifan suggested that it was no longer applicable. In other words, whereas Bishop de Castro Mayer refused to sign a statement that would be used to separate him from Archbishop Lefebvre, the Campos clergy at the time of their agreement with Rome did exactly what Bishop de Castro Mayer was unwilling to do. And the result has been exactly what Bishop de Castro Mayer wanted to avoid. He didn’t want to drive a wedge between himself and Archbishop Lefebvre, but the Campos clergy have done exactly that by breaking relations with the Society of St. Pius X, by signing a hypothetical apology to the Holy See for offenses that they did not commit.
Joined: 12 Jul 2005 Posts: 350 Location: South Bend, IN
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 7:26 pm Post subject:
I too wish to thank his Excellency for the interview. He certainly did not have to agree to the interview and he has discharged his mind to us in a fairly straightforward manner, for which I am whole heartily grateful.
However, I disagree with the good bishop's general assertion of "unity in diversity" as though NOM and associate sacraments and the TLM can exist side by side without causing problems. The severe issues with NOM cannot peacefully coexist with the TLM. We cannot serve two masters. Invariably we will love one and hate the other. The way the NOM was promulgated is irrelevant. I don't know of anyone who goes to the NOM, as it promulgated - nobody. Instead I know of many good Catholics who loathe it, yet have not come to tradition.
The fight for the soul of the Church in her liturgy and doctrine is not going to be won by a peaceful coexistence. That will only serve to placate some and marginalize others. Our cause is not Tradition per se, but salvation.
Do we serve the cause of the salvation of souls (supreme law of the church) by giving legitimacy to that which has lost so many souls? The bishop has by his actions given legitimacy to the "spirit of VII" by the claim that there can be peaceful coexistence with the NOM and the TLM. The NOM, as is widely practiced, is dangerous to the faith. To seek a peaceful coexistence is not possible without accepting error, or at best not resisting error. Words to the contrary are not actions and the actions of the bishop are an acceptance of the NOM.
Quote:
If we consider the New Mass in itself, in theory or in practice, as invalid or heretical, sacrilegious, heterodox, sinful, illegitimate or not Catholic, we would have to hold the theological conclusions of this position and apply them to the Pope and the entire episcopate residing in the world -- that is, the whole teaching Church: that the Church has officially promulgated, maintained for decades, and offers every day to God an illegitimate and sinful worship -- a proposition condemned by the Magisterium -- and that, therefore, the gates of hell have prevailed against her, which would be a heresy. Or else we would be adopting the sectarian principle that we alone are the Church, and outside of us there is no salvation, which would be another heresy. A Catholic, either in theory or in practice, cannot accept these positions.
If we consider what the bishop has written, then anyone who holds that the NOM is bad for the faith is saying that the "gates of hell have prevailed", which is not what Traditionalist are saying. I note that this argument has the effect of marginalizing those who protest the NOM as not really faithful Catholics. I am saddened that any bishop, let alone a traditionalist one, would use this kind of reasoning.
Again, I thank his Excellency Bishop Rifan for discharging his mind and I pray for his work - Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis. _________________ Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Posts: 918 Location: Guildford, UK
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 7:29 pm Post subject:
Congratulations are in order for this auxiliary bishop from Campos who has managed to cleverly steer a group of traditional priests out of 'schism' into the waiting arms of a church whose main raison d'etre is to achieve "unity in diversity". Such an achievement has been accomplished at the expense of the glorious memory of Bishop de Castro Mayer, now quickly forgotten or maliciously misrepresented to further a new political position. So far, the SSPX has refused to follow suit; to do so would render the same fate for Archbishop Lefebvre.
Joined: 03 Jan 2006 Posts: 190 Location: Belmont, NC
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 7:40 pm Post subject:
Good interview, though I do disagree with Bishop Rifan on a lot of points.
What would be great for the next AQ exclusive would be a "Round Table Discussion " of sorts between Bishop Fellay, Bishop Willaimson, Bishop Rifan, another well known Traditionalist(maybe a BLEEP!?) and a NO Bishop. Lol I am sure it would be pretty hard to get all those together for such a discussion though.
again again I say to you SSPXers. If you don't relish the Apostles Creed-you get a punch in the nose for your ideologies that Msgr L did not have. You are interlectual (intertlects) wimps and mostly pompous parents of a couple of three.
signed (parent of 7ea none home schooled but they get it! butt you don't)
adios
Senor Construction Worker
Adios, amigo. _________________ TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI
What are your ideas about precisely what did go wrong with the Church before the Council?
I am sure His Excellency would have far more pertinent things to say on this subject than me - I was being baptised in a Presbyterian chapel at about the same time the Council was commencing its 2nd year!
However, I believe he correctly identifies the root of the crisis as a crisis of Faith, Hope and Charity. Sins against Faith, Hope and Charity are all sins against the First Commandment and hence justly incur the wrath of Almighty God.
Rather than a lack of faith in the Church, though, I would say it was primarily a lack of faith in God and far too much faith in man - man both inside and outside the Church. Once faith in God was elbowed out by idolatrous attachments to man, the world and false religions, loss of faith in the Church was just an inevitable consequence.
But as FlickLives suggested, this may not be the best thread to start into this subject. I'm sure many posters won't want it to be sidetracked from their intention of manifesting their lack of charity towards the Bishop.
Whether we agree with everything he says or not, we should be thankful that His Excellency considers that the readers of this forum merit his time and attention. If the other 3,000 bishops thought our concerns were that important, the world would be a very different place.
servitium, congratulations on winning your 2nd episcopal interviewee! All we want to know now is when you're signing up the Pope for membership???!!!
really the good Bishop says that some traditionalists are just as bad as the modernists-neither understand the Apostles Creed. Modern SSPXers are outside the AC
More typical SSPX bashing and slandering. What arrogance to claim they don't understand the Apostles' Creed. And you parrot this with no evidence whatsoever!!
[
Does the SJV operate under the same restrictive circumstances as the FSSP? If they do, they do good in a limited sense. However if the SJV is not upholding and adhering fully to tradition, a continued erosion of the faith will be the outcome.
It seems to me that Bishop Rifan has chosen to be silent on the doctrinal errors originating in the Vatican II documents although preserving some of the liturgical traditions. Unlike the the great St Athanasius who chose to disobey Pope Liberius and not repent of his disobedience, Bp Rifan has chosen not to teach truth and rebuke error.
His Excellency's comments about "NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH" also troubles me. Does he accept the new definition of universal salvation or he is bashing those who are truthful to tradition. [/b]
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:15 pm Post subject: Re: AQ Exclusive: An Interview with His Excellency Bp. Rifan
Quote:
[b]In the SSPX, the anti-roman ambiance must be considered and in some cases avoided.
What is he talking about! Anti-Roman ambiance in the SSPX! It is he that has accepted the Novus Ordo which is far from Roman! It is the Novus Ordo that has been adapted to every particular culture in the world other than Roman one!
Serv, please stick with doing interviews with Bishop Williamson - a true Catholic and Roman bishop. _________________ Ecclesia Militans!
Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 7071 Location: San Diego
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:27 pm Post subject: Re: AQ Exclusive: An Interview with His Excellency Bp. Rifan
Quote:
The pope told me he is happy with the peace in Campos, between the local diocese and his bishop and us. Cardinal Castrillon told me that the existence of Campos and the life of the Apostolic Administration, with its independent churches and proper rite, in perfect co-living with the local diocese – unity in diversity – shows that this is possible. I think demonstrating that co-living is possible is a useful point both for progressives and for traditionalists. For progressives believe such is not possible, fearing unity of Church would be undermined if they open the door for traditionalists, and traditionalists fear the may loose their identity with this co-existence. No! Peace is possible with liturgical diversity, disciplinary diversity and of course fidelity to doctrine.
Strain out everything but this. This is the strategic principle of Modernism at work right here: the presentation of two balancing forces. If the proposal of a two-principle construct is accepted, the game is always and everywhere inevitably lost. It is lost because a compromise can constructed, a middle position, which spells death for Catholic truth. If the truth is "traditional", then centrism can only be a progressive position, no matter how "far left" and a "little to the right" of progressivism it comes to rest. The immutable is made reference to in the last line, underlined portion when he says "...and of course, fidelity to doctrine." However, that last assumption of a mutual fidelity to doctrine is what ISN'T a reality at this time; it is NOT the common denominator of the two supposed balancing forces.
What is necessary to pull this off the synthesis, the sale of cognitive dissonance to the prospects at the table:
1. First, of course, posit the two balancing principles. Acceptance of the coxistence of two valid yet opposing principles is necessary in order to arrange a centrist position. Cognitive Dissonance requires two mutually opposed "valid" principles. Bring them to the table to seek common ground in some sort of synthesis. Call it unity in diversity.
2. Next, pretend that the entire problem exists in only the liturgical realm. This will bring the liturgical traditionalists to the table, leaving aside the dogmatic traditionalists. Never deal with what can't legitimately change, but only what can.
3. Strain out any supposed doctrinal differences by making the assumption that there are, in fact, no differences. This will strain out the question of the immutable, which would have been the basis for a true unity in truth.
4. Scold the progressives in only the liturgical department; selective scolding. Do not scold them on any point of doctrinal failure.
5. Scold the thesis-holders, or let's say, the weakest examples of thesis-holders you can bring to the table, and in the broadest terms possible, lay charges upon them in terms which can be levied against just about anyone at any time, including one's relatives and pets, and be true to one degree or another:
Quote:
1. Pride – feeling like we have some exclusive and personal knowledge of truth, cultic idea that we are the only Catholics, the Church’s savers.
2. Systematic lack of charity - “See how they hate each other” That’s the contrary of what pagans said about the first Christians. The art of changing one’s friends into enemies. The spirit of division.
3. Rash judgement - Spirit of suspicion. Conspiracy theory.
4. Scandalmongering – Criticism as a sytem. Ministery of criticism.
5. Spirit of dispute - Systematic disobedience. Independence toward hierarchy and Church’s Magister.
6. Cultish group spirit - "no salvation outside of us”.
7. Pessimism - against Christian hope (In spe gaudentes). To some point, satisfaction with the anormality of one’s situation - and with errors by the human part of the Church – like if this could justify one’s own position.
There. Welcome to the centrist's world. Not too liberal, not too traiditional. Bye-bye, thesis. The thesis, of course, is Catholic truth. This is the danger of liturgically-based traditional Catholicism... it's just what the Modernists need to keep moving. We've got the weaker traditionalists hanging their head in shame over their many sins of truth-telling, effectively silenced in the name of an illusive unity. We've got the progressives hanging their heads in a token shame, ready soon to lift them up again more arrogantly than before, being rid of the troublemaking loudmouthed liturgical traditionalists for a time.
However, our problem is our lack of belief in pure and untainted Catholic dogma, something both the progressives and the liturgically based traditionalist both have a common problem with.
Joined: 23 Aug 2005 Posts: 2324 Location: Mid-West
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:03 pm Post subject:
liturgeist wrote:
Quote:
If it was not a sin for him to concelebrate then why did he not do so?
I cannot imagine a more pointless or offensive question to ask the good bishop. If a traditional bishop prefers not to concelebrate at a Novus Ordo Mass, why ask him to tell me or you why not? If I'm so dumb I can't figure it out for myself, it's not likely I'd understand any answer he might give.
"Pointless" and "offensive"? Let's not be so melodramatic. The point was clear and that's what hurts. The inherent contradiction: this Mass is good enough for me to be here (appearing to concelebrate) but not good enough to actually celebrate.
The TLM vs. NOM is not about preference. There is a principle at work that never changes with time or circumstances or the whims of people ... TRADITION. _________________ Is. 12:3 ... I Cor. 15:25
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
