Cardinal Ratzinger on Archbishop Lefebvre, Vatican II, and Tradition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris_Jackson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you really believe that without the SSPX coming back into the full grace of the Church we have no Sacred Mass? Odd, very odd and sad too.:confused:
A case can be made that without the SSPX the TLM would be locked away and unknown to the post-V2 generations.
 
Digger,

Why would you say the Society is in formal schism when there are public statements from the Vatican stating the opposite?

You are just giving your opposition a chance to point out you are wrong.
The excommunications have been lifted. If you read the words of Cardinal Ratzinger his las statement was:
If once again we succeed in pointing out and living the fullness of the Catholic religion with regard to these points, we may hope that the schism of Lefebvre will not be of long duration.
I am not going to argue one way or another on this, although I do think that it is best to stick to only what the Church is *saying *and avoid such terms as schism. However, there is a reason why people will still believe this and say this, as indicated by this quote.
 
It should be pointed out that one does not fulfill his Sunday obligation by attending a Mass offered by a priest of the SSPX.

This is a good resource for some interesting reading about the SSPX; you certainly won’t hear any of this from them…

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/
 
Can you back that up because it isn’t my understanding.
I beg your pardon; I may be mistaken. I understood that to be the case but a bit of research tells me I may have spoken too soon. I do present this, however…

From Ecclesia De, protocol N. 117/95:
The Masses [the SSPX] celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2).
It’s seems that attendance may fulfill the Sunday obligation in the strict sense, but it’s also not exactly smiled upon.
 
I beg you pardon; I may be mistaken. I understood that to be the case but a bit of research tells me I may have spoken too soon. .
No worries, thank you for the correction. It would be wonderful if more people had such integrity and respect for this forum.

How are things in Upstate NY? There is a strong EF community there although I think most are still Yankees fans for reasons I can’t talk them out of.
 
Beautiful sunny, warm autumn day, here on the Niagara Frontier; thanks for asking.

I can’t speak to the size or strength of the “EF” community, I’m afraid; I’m not a part of it. Although the way the “OF” is celebrated doesn’t exactly thrill me most of the time, it’s been a long time since I’ve mingled amongst traditionalists. I attend the regular Mass at my own parish.

I think adherence to the Yankee Rite transcends conservative and liberal!
 
Without knowing which city or area you live in here is a directory of Una Voce chapters in NY: unavoce.org/chapters/

I haven’t been to Buffalo for a few years, Bills games mainly. Still can’t understand why you all need four downs to get ten yards. The World Junior Hockey Championship is coming up so maybe I’ll get down to that.
 
Gloria be to our God. i can hardly wait for them to come back so we can have the Sacred Mass restored.
We have always had a sacred mass. The return of the SSPX to the Church will not make it any more sacred or holy than it already is.
 
I noticed this article is from 1988. I really think the best thing at this point, 22 years later, is to patiently await the outcome of the *current *talks under the current pontiff.
Thank you. Those on both sides should heed your advice 👍
 
It should be pointed out that one does not fulfill his Sunday obligation by attending a Mass offered by a priest of the SSPX.

This is a good resource for some interesting reading about the SSPX; you certainly won’t hear any of this from them…

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/
That is old, written in 1999. Since then the PCED has issued

This in 2001: latin-mass-society.org/perl-011803.htm

and

This in 2008: renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/080711

Also see this regarding “schism” in 2007…

renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/070410
 
There are some misconceptions here that in justice to all sides should be clarified.

The Society is not in schism.

The actions of the Archbishop were schismatic.

The excommunication had nothing to do with the form of the mass, but with the ordination of four bishops without the pope’s permission.

The mass is sacred, with or without the Society. The Society does not make it sacred.

The Society’s situation was influential in Rome’s decision to take a closer look at the status of the Tridentine form of the mass.

The abuses in the OF of the mass have nothing to do with Vatican II, but are the result of “creativity” in the minds of many priests.

The current status of the Society is that of having no canonical status in the Catholic Church. Therefore, their bishops cannot teach authoritatively except on matters that have already been established by the Church. In other words, they cannot make laws or rules for the faithful, because they are not Ordinaries.

Attendance at mass at an SSPX chapel is allowed to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation, but the faithful who attend are not to support the SSPX’s opposition to Church authority. The rule only sanctions the attendance at mass, not opposition to the authority of the pope and the local bishops. Catholics who attend mass at the SSPX chapels still fall under the jurisdiction of the local bishops, not the bishops of the SSPX.

The mass celebrated by the priests of the Society is valid, but illicit, because the priests are suspended. It would be the same as attending a mass by a priest who is suspended by the local bishop for other disciplinary reasons or who is on leave of absence. If you are suspended, you are not supposed to celebrate mass. If you do, the mass is valid, but your actions are illegal and those who deny the illegality of these actions are acting contrary to Church law.

The statements made about the Holocaust, racism, sexism, etc. are those of individuals and should not be attributed to the entire Society.

The members of the Society who claim that the OF is invalid or sacrilegeous are wrong. The Church cannot err in such matters. The OF was approved by the Church and the approval and appreciation for the OF was repeated by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. Such approval does not include the abuses that people have committed. The approval is for the form, not the abuse of the form.

It would be rude and uncharitable to label and make disparaging remarks about the clergy of the SSPX as it would be rude and uncharitable to do the same about the clergy of any other orgianization or diocese. Like every human organization, I would imagine that the SSPX has lose canons, saints and people in the middle.

It would be prudent for Catholics to hold their speculation until the dialogue between the SSPX and the Sacred Congregation for the Faith to be concluded. Speculations often sound as if they were facts, which trigger arguments and hostilities. So far, none of the hositlities and arguments from either side has done any good for the spiritual life of Catholics.

On a personal level, I pray for a fraternal dialogue between the leadership of the Society and the Sacred Congregation and a solution that is just for all parties involved.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Just for the sake of clarification, as it doesn’t seem that it has been mentioned, and as it seems that some posting here are not familiar with him, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is dead, and has been for many years. He incurred automatic excommunication by his illicit consecration of forur bishops in 1988. He never reconciled with the Holy See, and died outside of the Church.

I’m not so sure, actually. I’m not so sure it’s feasible, for one thing, and I’m not sure sure that it’s even desirable. I was once a part of the SSPX; I studied at their seminary in Winona for a couple of years and later worked at their retreat center in Ridgefield.

The SSPX will never accept the validity of Vatican II. They routinely savage the Vatican II liturgy as “evil” and “sacrilegious” and declare that participation at it is “mortally sinful”. If they were to suddenly accept the Vatican II Mass and Vatican II, in general, the SSPX would cease to have a reason for existing.

Priests and adherents of the SSPX frequently call into question the doctrinal orthodoxy of the pope (John XXIII through Benedict XVI), freely refer to the “Vatican II popes” as “modernists”, and even hint about papal Masonic associations. The SSPX, particularly in the person of Bishop Richard Williamson, routinely blame the Jews for the worlds ills, deny the holocaust, and generally hold to a world view shaped by a conspiracy theory mentality.

Williamson once tried to persuade us, in fact, that Adolf Hitler was not such a bad guy as the “modern world” makes him out to be. That wasn’t the only instance, however, in which the Nazis were sympathized with; one came across that sort of remark semi-regularly. The SSPX also paint the Confederacy as the good guys. Slavery wasn’t so awful, they say, and I was even told by an SSPX priest that it was perfectly okay to use the “N” word when referring to blacks (just so long as you don’t say it in front of them).

Furthermore, for the SSPX, there is a crisis everywhere to be found, and the end is nigh. The “Three Days of Darkness” are going to happen. I was told by Bishop Williamson in 1989 that the world would end in ten years time. This is the same bishop, incidentally, who publicly stated that the world was a better place when men were allowed to beat their wives.

This is only a small sampling of the things I experienced during my time with the SSPX, and just at the seminary, alone. Never mind the SSPX’s college/academy in St. Mary’s, Kansas or at the retreat house in Ridgefield.

In light of everything I have witnessed, heard, and experienced, I honestly do not see how drawing the SSPX in closer would actually benefit the Church in any way. My hope is that adherents will continue to “escape” the Society, as I have done, and I am pleased to see the number of people who have done. But the institution, itself, is a truly pernicious thing, and the Church would be better off being rid of it, not embracing it. There is little about it that anyone could truly describe as “Christian”.
The amount of slander, innuendo, and gossip you’ve spewed against one bishop in one post is amazing. The moderator must be taking a nap. It is no wonder you were expelled from the seminary and/or St. Mary’s.
 
Please remember the rules for discussing the SSPX. Reread them on the sticky if you have forgotten. Everyone deserves to be spoken about respectfully.

Thank You

Thomas Casey
Moderator
 
The amount of slander, innuendo, and gossip you’ve spewed against one bishop in one post is amazing. The moderator must be taking a nap. It is no wonder you were expelled from the seminary and/or St. Mary’s.
Yes, and if all this were true, why would our beloved Pope be conversing with them with the hopes of reconciliation? He treats them with charity and respect. That should be an example to us, (as if we should need examples to treat others with charity).
 
I have to admit that it really gave me hope to read this; especially post 3, paragraph 5. It’s always nice to get this kind of reassurance that the Holy Father really understands the problems that the church faces, and is working on a solution that will be best for the church entrusted to him by its founder; our blessed lord.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top