Cardinal Ratzinger on Archbishop Lefebvre, Vatican II, and Tradition

[Ockham]

All the SSPX ever did was ordain priests to bishops. There was no reason the four priests could not be bishops. The applications were submitted properly. What was the reason the Vatican sat on the paperwork?

Other than that the clergy and laity of the SSPX follow the Church.

In contrast, consider the clergy and parishes that feel entitled to play fast and loose with the liturgy customizing it to their pleasure. There is often a near absence of the Sacrament of Confession in these parishes. Given the small number of children it’s likely contraception is wide spread. Surveys indicate the majority of these non-SSPX parishes don’t believe in Transubstantiation.

So who’s de facto schismatic?

 

[Pregustator]

Other than that the clergy and laity of the SSPX follow the Church.

Do they really? What are we to think of SSPX adherents who refer to Roman Catholic parishes as “non-SSPX parishes”? Do they follow the Church? Or do they follow the SSPX and call it the Church?

Is the SSPX outside of the Church? I think when they, themselves, talk and behave as though the Roman Catholic Church is outside of the SSPX, it becomes more and more evident that the answer is likely “yes”.

Surveys indicate the majority of these non-SSPX parishes don’t believe in Transubstantiation.

“non-SSPX parishes”. Wow. That speaks volumes.

 

[Ockham]

“non-SSPX parishes”. Wow. That speaks volumes.

To you it may. Although unscientific I am merely passing on my observations in the contrast between SSPX and FSSP congregations and shall we say Novus Ordo. It is common to see large families in the former.

 

[Pregustator]

I beg your pardon, Ockham, if I misinterpreted you. It seemed like you were naturally referring to all Catholic parishes as “non-SSPX parishes”. It was a bit jarring.

Well, I have to fly. As sacristan at my own non-SSPX parish, I have to unlock the sacristy for a pre-Baptismal class.

 

[Aramis]

All the SSPX ever did was ordain priests to bishops. There was no reason the four priests could not be bishops. The applications were submitted properly.

No secular clerical society has a right to bishops. Some have a privilege of having them. Only diocese has a right to a bishop, and even then, not of need one of their own choosing.

Submitting applications does not equate to having a right to ordination. Canon law explicitly states categorically that ordination is not a right.

Therefore, rome was under no obligation to grant permission, save for HH JP II having promised permission would be granted for one suitable candidate.

What was the reason the Vatican sat on the paperwork?

Because the pope was trying to decide which one would be the one ordained. HH JP II had promised permission for one candidate, not four.

Other than that the clergy and laity of the SSPX follow the Church.

Demonstrably false. Members of the society itself have claimed the V II council was not valid, that the church is using an invalid liturgy, that the rules in canon law do not apply to the SSPX.

Further still, any priest of the SSPX who hears any confession violates canon law. The excommunications were lifted; the suspensions were not.

In contrast, consider the clergy and parishes that feel entitled to play fast and loose with the liturgy customizing it to their pleasure. There is often a near absence of the Sacrament of Confession in these parishes. Given the small number of children it’s likely contraception is wide spread. Surveys indicate the majority of these non-SSPX parishes don’t believe in Transubstantiation.

So who’s de facto schismatic?

any who believe that Rome has no authority over their clergy.

 

[diggerdomer]

Can you name which specific authoritative teachings from Vatican II that the SSPX denies? Please name the dogmatically-defined or definitely-proposed teachings the Church made at Vatican II. Can you explain why the Church didn’t choose to condemn the then-present errors (see Pope John XXIII’s opening address)? Can you explain why the Church seemingly dropped Scholasticism like a bad habit, despite it being the then-canonically enforced theology of the Church (Pope John said they would instead use literary forms of modern man)? What influence, if any, did the “New Theology” have on the Council? Why was the teaching of Humani Generis seemingly ignored at the Council?

Look on the SSPX in the United States of America website sspx.org/sspxfaqs.htm.

Read the answers they give to the FAQs and it is obvious where they diverge from magisterial Catholic teaching; and as Popes have taught are therefore in schism.

The rest of your questions are off topic. Please start a new thread.

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

Apart from Benedict lifting the excommunication of certain individuals, when or where did the Vatican publicly state they are not in schism? thanks for the reference.

 

[diggerdomer]

Thanks for the article Chris. We should all pray for normalized relations between the Vatican and SSPX. Archbishop Lefebvre was a brilliant man and I have found his writings informative and enlightening. People who belong to SSPX parishes are some of the most devout Catholics I’ve ever met. Unfortunately, as shown in this thread, there is quite a lot of hostility, prejudice, and misinformation on this subject. If we are to form opinions we owe it to ourselves and fellow Catholics to promote the truth.

Devout, of course.

Catholic? Of course not.

 

[diggerdomer]

False

Care to share any evidence to support your claim?

 

[diggerdomer]

Pope John Paul II did a few things which raised the eyebrow like kissing a Koran. If he said the SSPX was schismatic I doubt it was infallible.

Of course it wasn’t infallibly taught.

Popes (and the Church) do not teach the truth only when they teach infallibly. Thank God!

You’re not suggesting, I hope, that Catholics only (minimally) need to adhere to what has explicitly been taught infallibly?

 

[ProVobis]

Apart from Benedict lifting the excommunication of certain individuals, when or where did the Vatican publicly state they are not in schism? thanks for the reference.

You decide.

“Regarding the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, Castrillón said:
“They are not schismatics, the priests are under a suspension for illicit exercise, and the Bishops are excommunicated because the ordination of new bishops without a permission from Rome received this punishment latæ sententiæ.””
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/200…nterviews.html

“CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism.”

“The Fraternity has always recognized in John Paul II, and now in Benedict XVI, the legitimate successor of Saint Peter. That is not a problem.”
30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360

“Later in the March 17 interview, Cardinal Castrillón affirmed once again publicly, “The Fraternity of St. Pius X is not a consolidated schism per se, but its history has included some schismatic actions…””
ecclesiacatholica.blogspot.co…in-latino.html

“We are not facing a heresy. One cannot say in correct, exact, precise terms that there is a schism [here]. There is a schismatic attitude in the consecration of bishops without a pontifical mandate. They are inside the Church; there is only lacking a full, a more perfect — as was said in the meeting with Msgr. Fellay — a fuller communion, because there is communion”
qien.free.fr/2005/200511/20051113_hoyos_eng.htm

“We take care of those who did not wish to follow Archbishop Lefebvre – which is not exactly a schism [sic].”
qien.free.fr/2007/200702/20070204_rorate.htm

This from a letter from Monsignor Perl:
“While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St Pius X does not of itself constitute “formal adherence to the schism”, such adherence can come over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church…”
“It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St Pius X.”
matt1618.freeyellow.com/schism.html

Note the faithful has consistently been “discouraged,” not “forbidden.”

 

[Ockham]

No secular clerical society has a right to bishops. Some have a privilege of having them. Only diocese has a right to a bishop, and even then, not of need one of their own choosing.

Submitting applications does not equate to having a right to ordination. Canon law explicitly states categorically that ordination is not a right.

Therefore, rome was under no obligation to grant permission, save for HH JP II having promised permission would be granted for one suitable candidate.

Because the pope was trying to decide which one would be the one ordained. HH JP II had promised permission for one candidate, not four.

When has the Vatican denied an application for bishop? What is the normal amount of time to make a ruling?

My suspicion is certain high ranking members of the Vatican were simply waiting for Archbishop Lefevbre to die and the SSPX to fade away. What’s your theory?

Demonstrably false. Members of the society itself have claimed the V II council was not valid, that the church is using an invalid liturgy, that the rules in canon law do not apply to the SSPX.

All the SSPX has to do is agree that V2 was a valid pastoral council. It didn’t define or change doctrine. As the EF is a valid liturgy there shouldn’t be problems - just let them offer that Mass exclusively. The vast majority of other orders offer the OF exclusively so there shouldn’t be a double standard.

Further still, any priest of the SSPX who hears any confession violates canon law. The excommunications were lifted; the suspensions were not.

All the more reason to get the SSPX normalized asap. Their parishioners actually go to Confession.

any who believe that Rome has no authority over their clergy.

Is that your only criteria? What about those who reject Church doctrine?

 

[Aramis]

When has the Vatican denied an application for bishop? What is the normal amount of time to make a ruling?

often. Many bishops suggest canidates who NEVER get ordained. In point of fact, most of those suggested by bishops and councils (and EC synods/councils) never get ordained.

For every bishop ordained to fill a vacancy, at least 3 were nominated.

And bishops and councils may suggest other men to the pope for ordination to the episcopacy besides those filling a vacant see. It is from this huge list of candidates that Rome selects new bishops. In cases of vacancies, If Rome agrees to a specific nominee, fine; if not, another on the ternia might be or might not be; if all three are rejected, Rome will pick from the rest.

All the SSPX has to do is agree that V2 was a valid pastoral council. It didn’t define or change doctrine. As the EF is a valid liturgy there shouldn’t be problems - just let them offer that Mass exclusively. The vast majority of other orders offer the OF exclusively so there shouldn’t be a double standard.

And prohibit their members teaching that the OF is invalid, and stop granting faculties to their priests for confessions of anyone besides their own, and get permission for every oratory, parish, and house that they didn’t get permission for…

And admit that they were wrong. It’s that that is the big problem.

 

[ProVobis]

My suspicion is certain high ranking members of the Vatican were simply waiting for Archbishop Lefevbre to die and the SSPX to fade away.

Reasonable theory as the Archbishop did die 3 years later.

 

[Ockham]

often. Many bishops suggest canidates who NEVER get ordained. In point of fact, most of those suggested by bishops and councils (and EC synods/councils) never get ordained.

In this particular case there was one bishop in the order who was at an advanced age. Getting more than one bishop to continue was essential. The Vatican turns a blind eye to all sorts of improper actions so why was this application set aside?

And prohibit their members teaching that the OF is invalid, and stop granting faculties to their priests for confessions of anyone besides their own, and get permission for every oratory, parish, and house that they didn’t get permission for…

I heard a lot worse taught from the pulpit. If the Vatican were to prohibit the SSPX from teaching against the Novus Ordo a lot of other orders would have to clean up their acts too.

And admit that they were wrong. It’s that that is the big problem.

Is that charitable? Was the Vatican wrong in causing the entire issue?

The vitriol shown to the SSPX is shocking. The history books will describe this period in Church history for what it is - chaotic and decline. The SSPX will be described as a life raft along side the mother ship weathering a terrible storm.

 

[pnewton]

What about those who reject Church doctrine?

A small point - That would be (or could be) heresy, not schism. I do not think anyone here endorses heresy.

 

[pnewton]

The vitriol shown to the SSPX is shocking. The history books will describe this period in Church history for what it is - chaotic and decline.

I have found the SSPX website far more shocking. As to what history will say, that will be written by the next generation. Since the Church has been in far worse straits before, I suspect you are mistaken. As to how the SSPX will be viewed, it is best to take that one step at a time. They need to be regularized before anyone here canonizes them.

 

[ProVobis]

I have found the SSPX website far more shocking.

Methinks one of the terms of reconciliation would be to redo their website. We shall see.

 

[Ockham]

I have found the SSPX website far more shocking. As to what history will say, that will be written by the next generation. Since the Church has been in far worse straits before, I suspect you are mistaken. As to how the SSPX will be viewed, it is best to take that one step at a time. They need to be regularized before anyone here canonizes them.

They certainly don’t like the Novus Ordo and although it is a valid liturgy, I see many of their points. There are still many unanswered questions surrounding the events post V2.

Conversely, I’ve learned quite a bit from their website about Catholic culture and identity.

When has the Church experienced a decline like we’ve endured these past forty years?

 

[Aramis]

In this particular case there was one bishop in the order who was at an advanced age. Getting more than one bishop to continue was essential. The Vatican turns a blind eye to all sorts of improper actions so why was this application set aside?

What you don’t seem to get: The SSPX have no right to any bishops.

I’ll say it again: Ordination is NOT a right.

Secular Clerical Societies are not particular churches; they have no right to an ordinary for the society, nor to a bishopric, nor to grant faculties.

Marcel Lefebvre was a bishop not because of the society, but because he was a titular bishop already. He had no right to a successor. Only an ordinary has a successor, and that successor comes due to the office, not due to the ordination required for the office.

He was the founder of the SSPX, but a secular clerical society can be founded by any cleric; no bishop required.

After he was relieved as Archibishop-Bishop of Tulle (I have no idea why), he was named Titular Archbishop of Synnada in Phrygia. Tulle had a right to a replacement bisop, not Abp Lefebvre, nor the SSPX.

Is that charitable? Was the Vatican wrong in causing the entire issue?

The issue was caused by Abp Lefebvre not obeying the rules. HH JP II was sympathetic to his cause, but moving cautiously. Abp Lefebvre, in acting how he did, showed HH JP II to have been justified in that caution.

As for needing to admit their error: that’s been publicly called for by Popes JP II and B XVI…