J
jmcrae
Guest
Obedience is extremely powerful. It’s amazing what happens, when you obey in the small things, even things that seem inconsequential. Great good comes about because of it.
Right, exactly!
- Status
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Sharonj, you are right that we must beware of getting heated. “the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God”. Yet I maintain we must continue to debate. the Catholic Faith has always respected the power of the intellect. Hence, let us continue…
One must beware. On the one hand, this is exactly right. The spiritual writers often enough say that there are those who beieve they are at the spiritual heights yet, if they fail in obedience, they have not even begun the journey.
But there are due limits to obedience. S. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica discusses it with his usual thoroughness in II-II-104…
Secondly, what applies to a Religious, under a voluntary vow of obedience, does not always apply to a layperson who is the primary carer of dependents. That is why a Religious must be celibate.
R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
W
wanner47
Guest
It was not necessary for the SSPX to take “emergency measures.” JPII was more than willing to work with the SSPX, but it was the archbishop who refused to listen to the Vicar of Christ:
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0304fea2.asp
It sure sounds to me as though Lefebvre absolutely rejected the authority of the Pope.
Now that Pope Benedict has issued a motu propio requesting more widespread use of the TLM, why hasn’t the SSPX rejoined the Church? Now that the alleged “state of emergency” no longer exists, why does the schism? That tells me that the SSPX did not schism due to an alleged “state of emergency,” but rather over a desire to disobey lawful authority and remake the Church in their own image (just like Martin Luther).
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
No, my friend, and it is a very hard thing to say, but we are now dealing with very hard things, and, on the basis of decades of bitter experience, Mgr Lefebvre [and I now speak as a layperson, not in any way as a spokesperson for the SSPX] did not have the confidence that Pope John Paul II would be able to enforce his will. Yet it could not wait for that. Lefebvre felt death approaching. That is why he called the bluff on the Vatican’s Waiting Game. They did not, even at that eleventh hour, provide a name, or even a short list, of candidates. And they had a decades-old record of reneging on their promises. Look it up if you don’t believe this.
I can only ask readers of this post to read the SSPX side and make your own decision how willing JPII really was to accomodate the traditionalists. In all honesty, I do think he tried - unlike his predecessor. But he was trapped in the mindset that the Pope must work with the consesnus of the other bishops. He did not fully accept that there were times when he had to face them head on and assert his superior authority (though he did great work ‘round the corner’ - maybe in another post I will tell you how he dealt with the English bishops in his visit to London in 1982, which I attended. I was so proud of him.) I do a bit of teaching to pay the bills, and I am not the only teacher who can tell you in 3 seconds what happens if you try to operate on the principle of Universal Consensus.
John Paul II did meet with Archbp. Lefebvre, but at the meeting, instead of asserting his authority, hie delegated the whole thing to a Cardinal who was known to be an adamant opponent of Lefebvre. I don’t want to open the can of worms, but despite the many great things this Pope did, he has a really dismal record of acting to curb abuses.
Actually, they never left it. See previous posts. And they are in the process of ‘regularising’ their position. In the process they are generating more than a few red faces. They are now proving to the Pope who his real friends are. (I do not mean they are his only friends). But these things simply cannot be done overnight.
They are not now, and never were, in schism, wanner.
You would not, I promise you, say that if you knew the facts about Lefebvre and Luther. But that would belong on another thread.
We are grateful to Pope Benedict XVI for affirming in his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum that (contrary to a widespread misconception) the Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated.
This would be an opportune moment to scotch, once and for all, some common false accusations against Archbp. Lefebvre: that he was excommunicated by Pope Paul II and is in schism, and that he declared the New Order of Mass to be invalid.
On 1st July 1988 Cardinal Gantin - not Pope John Paul - declared Mgr Lefebvre excommunicated under Canons 1382 & 1364 New Code of Canon Law, that forbid consecration of a bishop without papal mandate. This Canon was promulgated in the 1950s in response to the schismatic Chinese Patriotic Church (CPA), a stooge organisation established according to classic Marxist principles: these bishops declare publicly & loudly that The Party over-rides the pope. Strangely, however, none of the 150+ CPA bishops has ever been excommunicated since VAtican II, even though the Canon is there for the purpose. Before consecrating his bishops, Mgr Lefebvre gave a public sermon in June 1988 clearly explaining that he was invoking Canons 1321-4 of the New Code of Canon Law, which provide for emergency situations by indemnifying from any sanction if one genuinely believes an emergency has arisen. The emergency was the spreading of false doctrine, and the illegal attempt to suppress the traditional liturgical life when it had not been abrogated. Significantly the Vatican has never refuted this correct usage of Canon Law by Mgr Lefebvre.
The SSPX insist that this alleged excommunication by Cdl Gantin - which Pope John Paul referred to in Ecclesia Dei but never issued on his own authority - is not legally binding: you cannot invoke one law while ignoring another. That would be like prosecuting a motorist for parking on a [no-parking] yellow line, while ignoring that it was a Sunday afternoon [when the yellow Line Law is suspended].
Likewise, Mgr Lefebvre categorically refused to declare the 1969 (Novus Ordo) Missal invalid (which would mean that the priest was holding a piece of bread after the Consecration instead of the Body of Christ) and he disciplined those of his followers who made such judgments which, he insisted, can be made only by a Pope or an Ecumenical Council. What he did assert is that the New Mass glosses over many important truths of the Faith that are clearly stated in the Old Mass, and that it breeds a certain casual irreverence, dangerous to keeping the Faith.
Unlike the CPA bishops, Mgr Lefebvre at no time rejected the authority of the Pope. He insisted that the widespread promotion of error and the de facto suppression of the Traditional Liturgy was illegal, and refused to comply. That is saying, “Father, in this case I cannot give in to your demand!” He did not add, “And therefore you are not my Father”.
This was brilliantly demonstrated in the Holy Year of 2000, when thousands of “Traditional” religious and lay Catholics, organised by the SSPX, processed into S. Peter’s Square, to the feet of the Holy Father, who was visibly impressed, “and all Rome with him”. It was after this that Pope John Paul II began in earnest to look for a way to normalise the position of the SSPX established by Mgr Lefebvre. They are among the Papacy’s most loyal supporters.
J
jmcrae
Guest
They refuse to be under the authority of their duly appointed Bishops; instead, they appoint Bishops for themselves, outside of the regular chain of command.
What does that make them, if not “in schism”?
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
No, that’s precisely what they don’t do. They have provided 4 ‘emergency’ bishops’ without diocese, to provide the spiritual services that the regular bishops at present are not providing. That is the very definition of ‘emergency’: when one is deprived of what is a necessity, and has no hope of having it provided by ‘ordinary’ means.They refuse to be under the authority of their duly appointed Bishops; instead, they appoint Bishops for themselves, outside of the regular chain of command.
What does that make them, if not “in schism”?
At every single SSPX Mass, at the correct place in the Canon, they pray for the local diocesan bishop - and for the pope.
The local bishops are disobeying Canon Law by stifling the traditional life of the Church – which goes beyond the Traditional Liturgy – and the Vatican has not corrected them. We owe the SSPX an incalculable debt of gratitude for their fortitude.
R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
wanner47
Now that Pope Benedict has issued a motu propio requesting more widespread use of the TLM, why hasn’t the SSPX rejoined the Church?
Rory
The Society does not acknowledge itself to be in need of rejoining that from which they have continued to be joined.
wanner47
Now that the alleged “state of emergency” no longer exists, why does the schism?
Rory
The Society does not acknowledge that the state of emergency no longer exists. The Motu Proprio does acknowledge that the Traditional Latin Mass was never suppressed. That is important information, because it contradicts what virtually the entire episcopate has been saying for almost 40 years.
When the seminary of the Society was first begun, the French bishops were angered because all of the priestly vocations were coming to Abp. Lefebvre. They protested to Rome that this was what they called “a wildcat seminary” and petitioned Rome to investigate the seminary and to suppress it. This was in 1974. When the Apostolic Visitors came from Rome, it turned out that they were a couple of liberal Belgians who were opposed to mandatory priestly celibacy and held heretical views on the Lord’s Resurrection. Although it scandalized the seminarians to be investigated by heretics, the Visitors nevertheless issued a surprisingly favorable report of the seminary at Econe.
From this point on, seeing themselves thwarted with regards to the investigation, the French bishops had to make the Mass, the Mass of Paul VI, THE ISSUE. The reason is that the only weapon to be wielded against Abp. Lefebvre at this point was his unwillingness to offer the Novus Ordo Mass. It was this illegitimate objection alone which fueled the eventual disciplinary actions against him and the seminary. It did no good for him to ask for proof that the Traditional Mass had been suppressed.
Now, with everyone dead and buried that pitted themselves against the completely orthodox seminarians at Econe and Abp. Lefebvre, we are finally told that no Latin Rite priest can be forced to say the New Mass:
It is not the Society of St. Pius X which has ever imagined that the Mass is the only problem. That has been the brainchild of the enemies of Tradition who thought that they could browbeat the good Archbishop and the seminary into submission contrary to church law.
The emergency remains when the vast majority of the episcopate only begrudgingly or not at all acknowledges Pope Benedict’s call to be generous in permitting those who wish it, the Traditional Latin Mass and the rest of the Sacraments according to ancient usage. But that disobedience is only symptomatic of the majority of prelates who control seminaries in their own dioceses that routinely dismiss orthodox candidates in favor of those like the Apostolic Visitors of 1974, or worse. The Motu Proprio justifies all of Abp. Lefebvre’s actions, but it does nothing to mitigate the current emergency. 2009 may be an improvement on 1974, but it is no “Springtime.”
wanner47
That tells me that the SSPX did not schism due to an alleged “state of emergency,” but rather over a desire to disobey lawful authority and remake the Church in their own image (just like Martin Luther).
Rory
I could not be comfortable with your conclusion. It seems to be based on debatable assumptions that don’t even consider the whole long history of the movement along with recent developments which do seem favorable to full regularization anyway. I can understand a knowledgable objection to the consecrations of the bishops. I have respect for anyone who might fear to be associated with the Society because of the jurisdictional questions. I do not suggest that it is hands down easy to overcome every objection to the Society of St. Pius X.
I have listened carefully to some of these objections and do not dismiss them lightly. But I could never in good conscience level the accusation you have laid upon the SSPX. Have you ever read the literature? David White’s short but very effective biography? Michael Davies three part apologia? The same Michael Davies who Cardinal Ratzinger eulogized as a faithful son of the Church who had written many good books? It seems to me that if you had, while still disagreeing, it couldn’t help but make you a little more symptathetic. Comparing him to Luther? That seems like crazy talk to me. In any event, it would be impossible for me to reconcile the life, letters, and acts of the good missionary and Abp. Marcel Lefebvre with “a desire to disobey lawful authority and remake the Church in their own image (just like Martin Luther).” I don’t think his most able opponents ever make such far-reaching accusations. For good reason.
Regards,
Rory
Now that Pope Benedict has issued a motu propio requesting more widespread use of the TLM, why hasn’t the SSPX rejoined the Church?
Rory
The Society does not acknowledge itself to be in need of rejoining that from which they have continued to be joined.
wanner47
Now that the alleged “state of emergency” no longer exists, why does the schism?
Rory
The Society does not acknowledge that the state of emergency no longer exists. The Motu Proprio does acknowledge that the Traditional Latin Mass was never suppressed. That is important information, because it contradicts what virtually the entire episcopate has been saying for almost 40 years.
When the seminary of the Society was first begun, the French bishops were angered because all of the priestly vocations were coming to Abp. Lefebvre. They protested to Rome that this was what they called “a wildcat seminary” and petitioned Rome to investigate the seminary and to suppress it. This was in 1974. When the Apostolic Visitors came from Rome, it turned out that they were a couple of liberal Belgians who were opposed to mandatory priestly celibacy and held heretical views on the Lord’s Resurrection. Although it scandalized the seminarians to be investigated by heretics, the Visitors nevertheless issued a surprisingly favorable report of the seminary at Econe.
From this point on, seeing themselves thwarted with regards to the investigation, the French bishops had to make the Mass, the Mass of Paul VI, THE ISSUE. The reason is that the only weapon to be wielded against Abp. Lefebvre at this point was his unwillingness to offer the Novus Ordo Mass. It was this illegitimate objection alone which fueled the eventual disciplinary actions against him and the seminary. It did no good for him to ask for proof that the Traditional Mass had been suppressed.
Now, with everyone dead and buried that pitted themselves against the completely orthodox seminarians at Econe and Abp. Lefebvre, we are finally told that no Latin Rite priest can be forced to say the New Mass:
—Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007
It is not the Society of St. Pius X which has ever imagined that the Mass is the only problem. That has been the brainchild of the enemies of Tradition who thought that they could browbeat the good Archbishop and the seminary into submission contrary to church law.
The emergency remains when the vast majority of the episcopate only begrudgingly or not at all acknowledges Pope Benedict’s call to be generous in permitting those who wish it, the Traditional Latin Mass and the rest of the Sacraments according to ancient usage. But that disobedience is only symptomatic of the majority of prelates who control seminaries in their own dioceses that routinely dismiss orthodox candidates in favor of those like the Apostolic Visitors of 1974, or worse. The Motu Proprio justifies all of Abp. Lefebvre’s actions, but it does nothing to mitigate the current emergency. 2009 may be an improvement on 1974, but it is no “Springtime.”
wanner47
That tells me that the SSPX did not schism due to an alleged “state of emergency,” but rather over a desire to disobey lawful authority and remake the Church in their own image (just like Martin Luther).
Rory
I could not be comfortable with your conclusion. It seems to be based on debatable assumptions that don’t even consider the whole long history of the movement along with recent developments which do seem favorable to full regularization anyway. I can understand a knowledgable objection to the consecrations of the bishops. I have respect for anyone who might fear to be associated with the Society because of the jurisdictional questions. I do not suggest that it is hands down easy to overcome every objection to the Society of St. Pius X.
I have listened carefully to some of these objections and do not dismiss them lightly. But I could never in good conscience level the accusation you have laid upon the SSPX. Have you ever read the literature? David White’s short but very effective biography? Michael Davies three part apologia? The same Michael Davies who Cardinal Ratzinger eulogized as a faithful son of the Church who had written many good books? It seems to me that if you had, while still disagreeing, it couldn’t help but make you a little more symptathetic. Comparing him to Luther? That seems like crazy talk to me. In any event, it would be impossible for me to reconcile the life, letters, and acts of the good missionary and Abp. Marcel Lefebvre with “a desire to disobey lawful authority and remake the Church in their own image (just like Martin Luther).” I don’t think his most able opponents ever make such far-reaching accusations. For good reason.
Regards,
Rory
J
jmcrae
Guest
Our regular Bishop provides a Tridentine Mass every day of the week and twice on Sundays; yet we still have an SSPX “chapel” (which is actually a school gymnasium), with at least one SSPX priest, operating within the boundaries of our Diocese, who answers to an SSPX-appointed “Bishop,” rather than to the Pope’s appointed Bishop of this Diocese.
So, what’s the “emergency”?
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
There are families that have moved into an area because there was an SSPX Mass Centre nearby. They had reason to be confident that the Mass Centre would still be there while their children grew.Our regular Bishop provides a Tridentine Mass every day of the week and twice on Sundays; yet we still have an SSPX “chapel” (which is actually a school gymnasium), with at least one SSPX priest, operating within the boundaries of our Diocese, who answers to an SSPX-appointed “Bishop,” rather than to the Pope’s appointed Bishop of this Diocese.
So, what’s the “emergency”?
There are other families that have moved to a parish or a diocese because the priest, or bishop, was favourable to tradition, against the current. As soon as the priest or bishop was replaced, the traditional Mass, with the formation that went with it, vanished.
If there has been a forest fire, one watches carefully to ensure that it is really out. One does not walk away and dismantle the equipment the moment the flames die down.
Under the present pope, a slow movement towards recovery has begun, but there are decades of ingrained damage to rectify.
The SSPX are prudent not to simply pack up shop the moment one priest or one bishop shows favourable moves back to tradition.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
There is doublespeak, all right, but it wasn’t mine or Mgr Lefebvre’s. When it came time to withdraw the Decree of Excommunication, they remembered clearly enough who issued it: Cdl Gantin.
Alert Vatican-watchers have, against their will, been well educated in this kind of thing. There is a whole art of saying a thing that most people take to mean one thing, but which is actually vague enough that it can always be retracted afterwards.
As the old Irish story-tellers used to conclude: “Ní mé a chum nó a cheap é” : 'tis not myself that invented it or thought it up".
But he didn’t explain why he was ignoring the ‘let-out clauses’ that he himself had promulgated in the New code of Canon Law, did he? The SSPX had every right to insist that this ‘excommunication’ was invalid.
All Bp Fellay asked for was the withdrawal of the Decree, “without prejudice” to its original validity. He did know it was too much to expect the Vatican to say (or, perhaps, admit) “Yeah, we made a mistake and then took twenty years to rectify it”.
1
123defiant
Guest
Achbp Lefebvre was right on the mark, there is a reason why SSPX/FSSP/ICKSP/IGS seminaries are overflowing, its becasue they cut the **** that infected the Church post V2.
Sancta Marcel óra pro nóbis
Sancta Marcel óra pro nóbis
4
4EverHis
Guest
I agree with this…
M
MarthaTherese
Guest
Well, I guess all of us who desire the Latin Mass should all move to Calgary. Unfortunately, for most of us it takes an 160 mile round trip to FIND a Latin Mass. I’m no cannon lawyer, and have no desire to compete with all those of you who are apparently are scholars of the Church.Our regular Bishop provides a Tridentine Mass every day of the week and twice on Sundays; yet we still have an SSPX “chapel” (which is actually a school gymnasium), with at least one SSPX priest, operating within the boundaries of our Diocese, who answers to an SSPX-appointed “Bishop,” rather than to the Pope’s appointed Bishop of this Diocese.
So, what’s the “emergency”?
I only know how it feels to not have a Latin Mass available, and on the contrary, only find the most “modern” (lazy), and offensively and inappropriate behaviour by both priests and parishioners in my area. They offer the Mass (NO) in SPANISH, but not in Latin.
I do not belong to SSPX, nor do I want to enter the debate whether anyone was excommunicated, but in the area that the Archbishop of San Bernardino County is responsible for, there truly is an EMERGENCY.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Yes, but what are these pronouncements? Many times over the years when I (& millions of others) have asked this question, we don’t get a straight answer. I have, in the past year, asked it several times on threads of CAF, and have never been answered. The reason lies in the texts of the Documents themselves.
Mgr Lefebvre himself ‘defended’ Vatican II in affirming it was a validly-convoked ecumenical council, and he pledged to abide by it ‘in the light of tradition’, which is precisely what the Church has done all these centuries since the apostles. The loyalty of what we will call the Trads’ (yes, I too dislike labels) was demonstrated during the Holy Year of 2000, when thousands came in solemn procession, organised and led by the SSPX, to the very feet of Peter in the person of Pope John II.
Anyone who has read the documents of Vatican II can surely see that they are open to widely differing interpretations. Perhaps the Council Fathers were just too trusting and naive; perhaps not.
May I quote from a very recent interview of Bp Fellay, quoted elsewhere in CAF (sorry, but I’ve lost the link) … you will see, I hope, that he is not “refusing to follow” either the Pope or Vatican II; he is simply asking for a clear statement of what it is we are supposed to follow, given the confusion over what it actually says. Is that too much to ask?
There are those who accuse Bp Fellay of “arrogance”, “lack of humility, etc.” I believe that these are hasty judgments based solely on the fact that he is seen to disagree with the official line of the Vatican. Please listen to his quietly-reasoned words in this interview, and reconsider.
Bishop Fellay gives Austrian Interview
Original in Die Presse
[shortened, but no re-writing]
There are two points of conflict: on one hand your thesis, the deposit of the Faith is generally in danger, and your rejection of specific documents of the Second Vatican Council. Do you want Rome to to take back or modify these documents, or is a “we agree to disagree” possible?
Fellay: The current confusion comes in large part from a cultural crisis of our world and not just the church - a crisis of thought, of philosophy. Some points of the crisis however also took concrete form in the Council. We see some causes of the crisis in the Council. Rome should be prepared to foster clarity, because there are many interpretations of the Vatican Council. What exactly should we recognize? Every theologian interprets the documents so differently. The Holy Father has already had to condemn the interpretation of the Council as discontinuity and a break with the past. But 80% of bishops and theologians want this fracture. In this matter, we are not the problem.
You not only reject certain interpretations, but some Council documents themselves - when it comes to religious freedom and respect for other religions.
Fellay: One example: The Declaration on the Collegiality of the bishops (Conciliar document, Lumen Gentium) which was even corrected during Vatican II by Pope Paul VI… The Conciliar text can only be interpreted in a Catholic sense with a text that the Pope issued, a so-called Nota praevia. (Pope Paul VI stated that the bishops can only lead the Church, as a collegial group, only “under and with the Pope”.) Sadly some read the Council without the Nota praevia.
Would a papal Nota praevia about these two contentious statements satisfy your requirements?
Fellay: We cannot pretend that we dictate how and what we in the Church thinks. That’s never been our view. We say: The church has until now taught such and such, and there now arises something that is not clear. We ask for this clarification.
A reconciliation with Rome, you probably need to give some kind of declaration of loyalty. Can you give this even if the church does not in all points return to dressing herself in the pre-Vatican II garment?
Fellay: I would rather say: If Catholic principles have been clarified, even though not everything has been resolved, then it is possible.
O
otjm
Guest
Both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 have repeatedly said that the work of implementing the documents of Vatican 2 have not been completed. Given the length of time that it took the Church to implement the documents of Trent, that should come as no surprise.
Both have also repeatedly said that the documents of Vatican 2 need to be understood and interpreted, as well as implemented, in light of the 2000 year history and tradition of the Church.
And most recently, Benedict 16 took the negotiations with the SSPX from the dicastery that had been doing the work, and set it up with the Cnogregation for Doctrine of the Faith.
That should in and of itself indicate that at least some of the issues between the SSPX and the Church are doctrinal in nature, and the answers ultimately will pass through, if not come from, the noted dicastery. The good bishop shall have his answers; and they will come from the Congregation that used to be headed up by then Cardinal Ratzinger.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
The reasons are completely different. Look at the conditions under which Trent sat and it is amazing that anything was done at all. The bishops were hounded from city to city , with gaps of up to eight years between sittings. The actual council was spread over twenty years. Few of those at the final sitting can have been there at the beginning. Yet the calm and clear statements – and anathemas – of the Council give no hint of it.
The implementation took many years, not because of lack of clarity, but because of lack of will. In fact, they were threatening to become a dead letter until Pope St Pius V transformed the World in seven short years.
That is because of their unsatisfactory nature, notably their using terms without defining them, and also their virtual ignoring of previous pronouncements on the same or related issues. Look at any Council before this, and you will see that every single relevant previous pronouncement is duly noted; the new council now proceeds from there. Now look at Vatican II. There is a deafening silence on previous statements. Now look up these statements and you will see that sometimes (as with ‘Ecumenism’ and ‘Religious Liberty’) the statements of Vatican II have previously been condemned almost word for word. I’m not making this up. Instead of noting the change and explaining it, the previous teaching is simply ignored. That is no way to do business. All this is in contrast to the entire 2000 - year tradition of Church Councils. Yet it can all be sorted out, given the will to do so. In this the SSPX will play a cardinal role.
Refer to Michael Davies’ “Pope John’s Council” and many other sources. Some of the council Periti (guiding experts) are actually in print as saying that they left certain things ambiguous so that they could be interpreted more liberally later on. These are the famous “time-bombs” of the Council.
I have never, in the literature, seen any evidence that the people of the 16th Century did not know what the council of Trent actually said.
Yes, this is what the SSPX have been asking for all these years. At last, confrontation and ostracism are being replaced with intelligent debate.
C
Califman831
Guest
amen may he look down from heaven and help save the weak false ecumenical ones.His Excellency was NOT a heretic. He will be a saint someday I hope !
- Status