Cardinal Siri: Godfather of Papist Traditionalism?

[The_Inquisitor]

So I was reading about the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest and it seems they represent a new strand of traditionalism, one that from its very inception is unfailingly and lovingly obedient to the Holy Father. The founders of the Institute received their training from Cardinal Siri which I found to be very interesting and of note (not to mention, perhaps, providential…). This Cardinal, who, regarding Vatican II, remarked "“If the Church were not divine, this Council would have buried it” yet nevertheless was loyal and obedient to the reforms of the Council (while rightfully rejected the so-called “Spirit” of Vatican II), submitted to each Holy Father in succession, and even though he held staunchly conservative views, refused labels and rebuked factionalism, saying he was “an independent, a man who walks alone and is not a member of any group.” What are your thoughts on this? Frankly, I think the traditionalism of Cardinal Siri and those of his pupils are to be admired for their unfailing allegiance to the Holy Father. It can be found in various lives of the saints that their obedience pleased the Lord more than if they had done things the way they supposed to be right!

ICRSS and the FSSP (are there others)…perhaps Cardinal Siri was a positive fore-runner of this movement and a good role model for traditional Catholics?

 

[ProVobis]

Most of what I’ve read about Cardinal Siri was flattering but it wasn’t his obedience to any Popes but that he himself turned down the Papacy not once but twice (or at least made it known that he wouldn’t accept.) This was all in the Siri Thesis, an unofficial document that was spread by many traditionalists, to show how possibly rigged the Papal process was and that Vatican II had not been legitimately convened.

That said, it appears the Cardinal was a realist, that the Popes and Vatican II were legitimate and to be accepted by all Catholics.

More on wikipedia.

 

[Chatter163]

So I was reading about the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest and it seems they represent a new strand of traditionalism, one that from its very inception is unfailingly and lovingly obedient to the Holy Father.

And how is this a new strand of traditionalism?

 

[damooster]

Most of what I’ve read about Cardinal Siri was flattering but it wasn’t his obedience to any Popes but that he himself turned down the Papacy not once but twice (or at least made it known that he wouldn’t accept.) This was all in the Siri Thesis, an unofficial document that was spread by many traditionalists, to show how possibly rigged the Papal process was and that Vatican II had not been legitimately convened.

That said, it appears the Cardinal was a realist, that the Popes and Vatican II were legitimate and to be accepted by all Catholics.

More on wikipedia.

It’s not fair to pin the Siri Thesis on traditionalists. You would have been more accurate to give this credit to outright sedevacantists. Most traditionalists I know do not subscribe to the Siri Thesis, and for good reason.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

So I was reading about the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest and it seems they represent a new strand of traditionalism, one that from its very inception is unfailingly and lovingly obedient to the Holy Father. The founders of the Institute received their training from Cardinal Siri which I found to be very interesting and of note (not to mention, perhaps, providential…). This Cardinal, who, regarding Vatican II, remarked "“If the Church were not divine, this Council would have buried it” yet nevertheless was loyal and obedient to the reforms of the Council (while rightfully rejected the so-called “Spirit” of Vatican II), submitted to each Holy Father in succession, and even though he held staunchly conservative views, refused labels and rebuked factionalism, saying he was “an independent, a man who walks alone and is not a member of any group.” What are your thoughts on this? Frankly, I think the traditionalism of Cardinal Siri and those of his pupils are to be admired for their unfailing allegiance to the Holy Father. It can be found in various lives of the saints that their obedience pleased the Lord more than if they had done things the way they supposed to be right!

ICRSS and the FSSP (are there others)…perhaps Cardinal Siri was a positive fore-runner of this movement and a good role model for traditional Catholics?

I am pretty confident that Abp. Lefbvre’s seminary at Econe more closely followed the Vatican II reforms that insisted on the continued primacy of the philosophy and theology of St. Thomas Aquinas in priestly formation than most of the seminaries in France or even the world. For this, (and because unlike their own, Abp. Lefebvre’s seminary was full) his seminary was libelled by the French bishops as a “wildcat” seminary and the Holy Father became persuaded in a whole series of misunderstandings that the SSPX priests should be suspended. Was it disobedience to continue to say the Traditional Mass throughout the 70’s and 80’s and taking the position it had never been abrogated? Many say yes, it was disobedience. I am not so sure.

Again, his decision to consecrate the bishops was not undertaken without an agony of indecision. Ultimately, he was persuaded when he was shown by a canon lawyer a clause in the Code of Pope John Paul of 1983, whereby under conditions of emergency, bishops could be consecrated without permission of the Holy See. Was it disobedience to avail himself of the law against the wishes of the Pope. Many say yes, it was disobedience. Again, I am not so sure.

I respect the opinions and consciences of those who take a dim view of how the Society of St. Pius X has proceeded throughout the years. I would be dismayed if anyone should think that a bishop may lightly disregard the wishes of the Pope in favor of his own agenda. If Abp. Lefebvre is guilty before God of disobedience to the Pope, it isn’t a simple case. Anyone who has studied his life knows how deeply grieved he was to know that the popes of his later years were displeased with him. He died before his case could be pleaded before an ecclesiastic court and so we will have to wait. I think a strong case could be made that Abp. Lefebvre, far from being a disobedient rebel, weaved his way through a tumultuous time in the Church without disobeying a single pope of this century or any other. He preserved the Catholic faith with courage and conviction at a time when 99% of seminarians were being trained contrary to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council to which we was explicitly obedient.

That is why I don’t think obedience to the pope is unique to either of the two fine priestly orders mentioned in the opening post, but was begun shortly after the Council by a much maligned and misunderstood prince of the Church, who if he is guilty as charged, has never had his day in court. This “juror” has clearly voted “not guilty”. I understand that we probably need to deliberate a few more generations before a final verdict is reached.

 

[MarkThompson]

That is why I don’t think obedience to the pope is unique to either of the two fine priestly orders mentioned in the opening post, but was begun shortly after the Council by a much maligned and misunderstood prince of the Church, who if he is guilty as charged, has never had his day in court. This “juror” has clearly voted “not guilty”. I understand that we probably need to deliberate a few more generations before a final verdict is reached.

Lefebvre was not a “prince of the Church.” Cardinals are so called because they hold the diplomatic rank of princes royal.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Lefebvre was not a “prince of the Church.” Cardinals are so called because they hold the diplomatic rank of princes royal.

Mark. Hi.

I might have expected more disagreement than that from you. I thought that it was the bishops. I did not intend to unduly exalt his status. Thank you for that correction.

 

[MarkThompson]

Mark. Hi.

I might have expected more disagreement than that from you. I thought that it was the bishops. I did not intend to unduly exalt his status. Thank you for that correction.

There’s no need to argue every issue every time it comes up. Your post displayed the same amoral consequentialism (“But he helped preserve the TLM!”) and inverted conception of authority (“But if Lefebvre, or I, instead of the Pope, got to judge his case …”) that I’ve seen a hundred times. There’s not too much more to say about it, except that I really hope for his soul’s sake that the reports of his deathbed repentance are true. Perhaps we’ll never know.

So I thought instead that I’d bring to your attention something you might actually find it interesting to learn.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

There’s no need to argue every issue every time it comes up. Your post displayed the same amoral consequentialism (“But he helped preserve the TLM!”) and inverted conception of authority (“But if Lefebvre, or I, instead of the Pope, got to judge his case …”) that I’ve seen a hundred times. There’s not too much more to say about it, except that I really hope for his soul’s sake that the reports of his deathbed repentance are true. Perhaps we’ll never know.

So I thought instead that I’d bring to your attention something you might actually find it interesting to learn.

Mark. Hi again.

Good strategy.

By the way, allow me to protest your apparent evaluation of my post, now that I have coaxed it from you. I did not say that the results prove the correctness of his behavior. I pointed out that with regards to the original issue that landed Abp. Lefebvre in hot water, seminary training, it was his persistent adherence and obedience to the norms of Vatican II that aroused the French bishops to slander him. Regarding the question of the TLM, it seems very probable that we must admit now that it had never been abrogated. And even regarding the more difficult question of the consecration of bishops, a case could be made that he was obedient to the law of the Church, a law of which Pope John Paul approved.

Regarding all three separate questions that I raised there are important questions of obedience. Abp. Lefebvre was regading seminary training, certainly obedient, regarding the TLM, probably obedient, and regarding the consecration of the bishops, questionably obedient. In relation to the original post, I was maintaining that SSPX, like the Traditionalists mentioned, take pains to prove obedience to lawful authority in the Church. I am not attempting to dismiss without due deliberation accusations of disobedience againt anyone. An argument can be made that Abp. Lefebvre was disobedient, in regards to the consecrations. But there is no arguing about his ardent desire to do it lawfully. He cannot be accused of rashness, or of taking slight notice of the instructions that were coming from Rome at the time. Why? Because even though his work was at the time marginalized, and he was considered by many to be outside of the fold, he never wanted anything than to be a good son of the Church.

I am speaking in generalities now. Not just about the case of Abp. Lefebvre. All of this is why I think it is important to note that a correct view obedience cannot always be summarized with merely doing what we are told by our superiors, even the highest ones. If the word of a superior is law, what must we do or what may we do if the words conflict or permit a liberty that goes against the superior’s wishes? In my opinion, we cannot rightfully consider a man guilty of disobedience for taking advantage of freedoms that the law arguably permits.

 

[The_Inquisitor]

I am pretty confident that Abp. Lefbvre’s seminary at Econe more closely followed the Vatican II reforms that insisted on the continued primacy of the philosophy and theology of St. Thomas Aquinas in priestly formation than most of the seminaries in France or even the world. For this, (and because unlike their own, Abp. Lefebvre’s seminary was full) his seminary was libelled by the French bishops as a “wildcat” seminary and the Holy Father became persuaded in a whole series of misunderstandings that the SSPX priests should be suspended. Was it disobedience to continue to say the Traditional Mass throughout the 70’s and 80’s and taking the position it had never been abrogated? Many say yes, it was disobedience. I am not so sure.

Again, his decision to consecrate the bishops was not undertaken without an agony of indecision. Ultimately, he was persuaded when he was shown by a canon lawyer a clause in the Code of Pope John Paul of 1983, whereby under conditions of emergency, bishops could be consecrated without permission of the Holy See. Was it disobedience to avail himself of the law against the wishes of the Pope. Many say yes, it was disobedience. Again, I am not so sure.

I respect the opinions and consciences of those who take a dim view of how the Society of St. Pius X has proceeded throughout the years. I would be dismayed if anyone should think that a bishop may lightly disregard the wishes of the Pope in favor of his own agenda. If Abp. Lefebvre is guilty before God of disobedience to the Pope, it isn’t a simple case. Anyone who has studied his life knows how deeply grieved he was to know that the popes of his later years were displeased with him. He died before his case could be pleaded before an ecclesiastic court and so we will have to wait. I think a strong case could be made that Abp. Lefebvre, far from being a disobedient rebel, weaved his way through a tumultuous time in the Church without disobeying a single pope of this century or any other. He preserved the Catholic faith with courage and conviction at a time when 99% of seminarians were being trained contrary to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council to which we was explicitly obedient.

That is why I don’t think obedience to the pope is unique to either of the two fine priestly orders mentioned in the opening post, but was begun shortly after the Council by a much maligned and misunderstood prince of the Church, who if he is guilty as charged, has never had his day in court. This “juror” has clearly voted “not guilty”. I understand that we probably need to deliberate a few more generations before a final verdict is reached.

I don’t think this paints an accurate picture of Lefebvre’s actual attitude about the whole situation. I mean, he bluntly said at various times that he believed the Holy Father was taking part if idolatry, “worshipping false gods” and said to then-Cardinal Ratzinger that being excommunicated was a “matter of indifference” to him. In any case, one look at the SSPX website really shows that they seem to have little regard for for Church outside of themselves. Whether its an article saying that NFP is evil (???), or how the “FSSP exposed”, or even a full-length report on how Opus Dei is “modernist” and “progressive”…I prefer a realistic traditionalism that doesn’t act silly to its own detriment.

 

[pnewton]

Mark. Hi.

I might have expected more disagreement than that from you. I thought that it was the bishops. I did not intend to unduly exalt his status. Thank you for that correction.

But there is some truth. I took your statement, since you didn’t capitalize, to be like he was a prince of a guy. However, that title Prince of the Church is specific to Cardinals.

A priest may be holy, but to call him the holy father of the church would be confusing.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s not fair to pin the Siri Thesis on traditionalists. You would have been more accurate to give this credit to outright sedevacantists. Most traditionalists I know do not subscribe to the Siri Thesis, and for good reason.

You’re probably right. However this thread seems to be another slam against the Archbishop rather than against sedevacantists or to give Cardinal Siri his rightful due.

 

[The_Inquisitor]

You’re probably right. However this thread seems to be another slam against the Archbishop rather than against sedevacantists or to give Cardinal Siri his rightful due.

I was giving Cardinal Siri his rightful due. He is often ignored while Lefebvre and his sect are too often admired. Cardinal Siri, I believe was heroic in maintaining his traditionalism while never succumbing to the anti-papal nonsense that Lefebvre unfortunately succumbed to. I think Cardinal Siri needs to be more honored and take the place of Lefebvre in traditionalist circles because of his inspiration of the traditional but obedient spirit. If that’s slamming the Archbishop, I am guilty. But my intentions were pro-Siri rather than anti-anyone. Anti-anyone never gets you anywhere.