Christ the King Abbey

[James0235]

James,

Don’t worry. Abuse does not render a Mass illicit in itself. Unless of course, the consecration was changed, but then it would be invalid as well. A liturgical abuse is illicit but it doesn’t render the entire Mass illicit. A Mass itself is said to be illicit when it is either invalid or is valid but is performed illicitly by a priest who is suspended or has no faculties.

Are you sure about that?

Illicit means illegal. And any deviation from the liturgy is illegal (but is still the norm in many dioceses). Therefore it would be an illicit Mass - but like you said, if the consecration were changed then it would be invalid.

James

 

[Catholic_Hammer]

From ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/Christ-the-King.htm

When I arrived in Birmingham in May 1994, I visited Father Leonard. On my first visit, as well as on subsequent visits, I asked Father Leonard to be in union with me and with our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II. He refused to be in communion with us or under our authority.

My question is: did Father Leonard actually refuse to put himself under the authority of the Bishop of Rome, or just the Bishop of Birmingham in Alabama?

Does the Bishop of Birmingham in Alabama really even have authority over an abbot in his diocese?

 

[James0235]

From ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/Christ-the-King.htm

My question is: did Father Leonard actually refuse to put himself under the authority of the Bishop of Rome, or just the Bishop of Birmingham in Alabama?

Does the Bishop of Birmingham in Alabama really even have authority over an abbot in his diocese?

I would think that since he is not a Territorial Abbot he is subject to the local bishop. Therefore he would need to submit to him.

James

 

[Catholic_Hammer]

I would think that since he is not a Territorial Abbot he is subject to the local bishop. Therefore he would need to submit to him.

James

No, I think the difference is that a “regular abbot” has authority over his own abbey, whereas a “territorial abbot” has authority over a territory outside of his own abbot, and functions more like a bishop - at least, that’s what I gathered from the Wikipedia article…

 

[Ham1]

Are you sure about that?

Illicit means illegal. And any deviation from the liturgy is illegal (but is still the norm in many dioceses). Therefore it would be an illicit Mass - but like you said, if the consecration were changed then it would be invalid.

James

When an act within the Mass is abused, that action is illicit. For instance, if a priest made an error in the TLM and skipped a specific gesture at a specific time, that action would be illicit. Also, if a priest saying a NO Mass were to skip a gesture, that would be illicit. We would not say that the entire Mass is illicit but merely that the specific action was illicit. One tiny mistake in the rubrics would not render the ENTIRE Mass illicit.

Now, the circumstance of a priest who is suspended, every action done by the priest in the Mass is in and of itself illicit because he is forbidden from saying Mass. Therefore, the entire act of saying the Mass is illicit. Even though he may follow the rubrics correctly his acts are made illicit by his state of suspension.

Hope that helps to clarify.

God bless.

 

[TNT]

As with many good ends, there are good means and bad means of going about it. The Benedictine abbey in this thread does it the wrong way, while this Benedictine monastery does it the right way:

Our Lady of the Annunciation

From what I saw, the “IT” was 2 very different “things” in the first place.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Has this abbot been excommunicated?

If not, then he is functioning as a valid, licit abbot.

It shouldn’t be up to lay persons to “play politics” and decide who and what is “valid and licit”. One should assume things are “valid and licit”, until told otherwise.

The presumption we should make in this case is actually pretty obvious in favor of illiceity - the man was made an abbot by a rogue bishop, i.e. one who was himself illicit, carrying no canonical authority. While one would be justified in holding out the possibility that the “abbot” has since been reconciled with the Church, one would not be justified in assuming his activity was now licit when the only information we have indicates the opposite. There are plenty of ways to perform plenty of actions illicitly without being excommunicated, so if that is your only test of (il)liceity you’re going to make lots of erroneous judgments.

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/Christ-the-King.htm

The only problem I see in the bishop’s letter is that in the same bullet point where he states that the Masses at the Abbey are illicit he also states that they do not fulfill the Sunday obligation. Including these in the same bullet point implies that the bishop is saying that the faithful do not not fulfill their obligation at an illicit Mass.

And this is a bit problematic. I have attended illicit Masses at many parishes in the diocese of Columbus, the diocese of Cleveland, …

There are many ways you could play with the text of canon 1248 as we see it in the English: §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass, but it should be obvious that the liturgical books themselves are not sufficient. After all, if that were the case, one would fulfill one’s obligation by attending the Orthodox church down the street (using, as it almost invariably would, books of a rite used by Catholics, and thus a “Catholic rite”), which we can all agree is not the case outside of those bound by the canons for Eastern churches. When one argues that an illicit Mass does not fulfill the obligation it is, as has been mentioned, not on the basis of some illiceity within the Mass but on the basis that the very celebration of that particular Mass is illicit, often by dint of the suspension or excommunication of the cleric involved.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

I saw Midnight Mass on Christmass day here; and it was the most beautiful thing that my eyes have ever beheld. This kind of abbey answers only to Rome, not to the other bishops.
In this regard one could safely say that he is not under the local Alabamian bishop.

The old Mass was never abrogated, so, there is not really any thing wrong with their celebrating the old mass; besides, it was good enough for every pope but the last five; all the saints were made saints through the old mass; so really, this is no real problem.

The Abbot and the other priests there do not speak often about their positions, in fact, the never do, one has to pry it out of them. They spend all of their time on spirituality, and that is their major emphasis.

 

[NMJenny]

This is the group that I meant when I expressed some doubts concerning the monks at Clear Creek on another thread. All of their materials claim that they “just want to be monks”, which is an admirable intention, but when their abbot accepted ordination as a bishop from an unauthorized prelate, no matter how beautiful their services are, the basis of their life is not obedience to the structure of the Church established by Christ…

 

[bpbasilphx]

Over 20 years ago on two different, separated occasions I attended Mass celebrated by Fr. Leonard for the Tridentine group in Birmingham (at that time, meeting in a Methodist chapel which actually contravened the 1917 Code, but we won’t go there!).

The first time, he was affiliated with SSPX.

The second time, he had broken with them and was basically a Tridentine rite congregationalist, under no bishop.

I don’t know who he’s under now–if anyone.

However, he said something in a sermon that has really stuck with me: “We need to remember that patience, charity, and not judging others are all traditional, too.”

 

[Caesar]

This is the group that I meant when I expressed some doubts concerning the monks at Clear Creek on another thread. All of their materials claim that they “just want to be monks”, which is an admirable intention, but when their abbot accepted ordination as a bishop from an unauthorized prelate, no matter how beautiful their services are, the basis of their life is not obedience to the structure of the Church established by Christ…

As far as I know, Clear Creek Monastery is completely in union with Rome.

 

[proud2bcatholic]

As far as I know, Clear Creek Monastery is completely in union with Rome.

There is no doubting the Clear Creek Monks union with Rome. Bishop Slattery of Tulsa, brought them to the US, has blessed their Monastery, regularly visits them and helps them raise money for their monastery.

He regularly mentions Cleark Creek and encourages his flock to visit the Monastery.

There has never been any doubt Clear Creek’s fidelity to Rome.

 

[OLRansom]

Regarding Bishop McKenna’s stance, it is called sede-privationism.

 

[OLRansom]

I have been to Christ the King Abbey, having stayed there for a few days as a guest. It is a very nice place, and the monks are most kind.

 

[Lee1440]

Hi. This is my first post here and it’s also a couple of hours after New Year’s, Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. As to why I chose this thread, an old one, for my first post, the reason is because I stumbled upon it when I Googled the abbey and I imagine other people will continue to do the same, so I thought I’d add a little something to what’s already been said.

I’ve been to Cullman many times; I’ve visited St. Bernard’s and the Grotto, and knew of Sacred Heart, but I’d never heard of Christ the King Abbey. I found the letter from Bishop Foley and read it before I found this thread. Since I live near Birmingham-- and since he became our Bishop while I was studying the faith before being received into the Church-- I was very interested to learn of this controversy (not the only one, I’m afraid) so close to my home. I’m also somewhat embarrassed that I didn’t know about it long before now.

I’m aware that this is a very touchy subject and that there are valid complaints on both sides of the issues. But it really does seem to me that those of Christ the King Abbey have separated themselves from the Church by the actions they have taken. They may be wonderful people and their liturgical celebrations may be beautiful, but I’m not sure that’s enough. I heard Bishop Sheen the other night say that Christianity (he might’ve said, the Church) does not exist to make us “nice” but to bring us to union with God. That’s a paraphrase but it’s close enough.

The point is that being nice or good or even wonderful isn’t enough. Being beautiful isn’t enough. We do not separate ourselves from the Body of Christ because without Him we are nothing. Or else why be Catholic at all? Why even bother? Because the Church is the Body of Christ and we are the branches in the Vine and without Christ living within us, we are without life. Union with God is union with Christ is union with the Church that Christ founded. He told us that He would be with us until the end of the world and that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church.

It seems to me that the only way one can claim that the Church has gone astray is to say that Christ lied. I admit that there are things which I would like to change. I’d love to see more reverence at Mass, for instance. I’d love to see beautiful churches, beautiful art. I’d love to hear songs that were in some measure musical. But to separate myself from Holy Mother Church in the name of faithfulness seems misguided at least. And to be a sin against charity at best.

Work for reform, yes, by all means. But within the Church, as did the great reforming Saints. To separate while keeping the outward appearance of Catholicism… Well, I don’t think that’s what St. Francis or St. Catherine or St. Teresa or St. John of the Cross would have done. It isn’t, in fact, what they did. And I imagine they would be horrified by the thought.

Of course, they would be horrified by some of the abuses within the Church too, as they were in their own lifetimes, which is why they undertook the difficult task of reform. And because they loved the Church. And because they practiced virtue. And because they were heroes. Real heroes. And models for us to imitate.

So let us imitate them and work toward holiness in our lives and in our parishes. With the Church. In the Church. In union with the Church. In union with the Holy Father. Not turning a blind eye to heresy, which we must combat, but also not allowing ourselves to be misled by outward appearances either. Just because something looks or sounds Catholic doesn’t mean it is.

 

[liberalcatholic]

Well put.

 

[EdFoust]

Lee1440:

It seems to me that the only way one can claim that the Church has gone astray is to say that Christ lied.

I don’t believe they are saying the Church has gone astray…that would be wrong and heretical…so no one is saying this. They very specifically say the opposite. Notice that they do not do what heretics do…change the liturgy to suit their errors.

Since you are close to them, can you calmly tell us what their doctrinal errors are?

EF

 

[Lee1440]

Can I calmly tell you what their doctrinal errors are? Did I give the impression that I wasn’t calm? Don’t get the impression that I was jumping up and down here, foaming at the mouth while I was typing, cuz I wudden.

But I do believe that breaking away from a legitimate monastery and legitimate authority, and forming your own, is itself a huge error, no matter how “Catholic” it is made to look, no matter how beautiful the buildings and landscape, no matter how lovely the liturgy. And this was the whole point of my post. The refusal to acknowledge legitimate authority, even when, especially when, you don’t like what that authority says, is rebellion.

And that, in itself, is–is it not?–what happened in the Reformation. Instead of working for much needed reform (work that was already in progress, I might add), some rather notorious figures entered into rebellion and finally into schism. Breaking away. Turning one’s back. Deciding that one knows better than the Church. Deciding that one’s own thinking is a higher authority than the authority that Christ gave His Church.

I’m still calm, by the way. These may be my first posts here, but they are not my first conversations on these topics, and not my first writings either. Just so’s you don’t get the idea that I’m frothing at the mouth yet. Cuz I ain’t.

But this is something to which I have given a great deal of thought over the years, this notion of authority, legitimate and otherwise, and what it means to submit. What helped me in my understanding of it most were the writings of St. Faustina in her Diary. Revolutionized my thinking on the subject.

Please note that I am not saying that we should bow to illegitimate authority or obey illicit laws or anything of that sort. I am speaking of what it is to be a member of the Church as a disciple of Christ. How easy it would be if we could all run away and form our own churches. And how vain.

I don’t need to get my own way all the time. What I do need is to follow Christ as a faithful member of His Church because He is the Way. I am not a conservative Catholic or a liberal Catholic or a traditional Catholic or a non-traditional Catholic or a modernist Catholic. I am a Catholic. Things happen that I don’t like, and I certainly recognize that there is a serious problem in Catholic education and in religious orders. All the more reason to stay and pray and work for better conditions.

Our whole society is infected with the notion that commitment means nothing; that if things don’t suit us, we can just walk away. This is individualism gone mad. So where does this lead us if we do this as Catholics? Will we end up with 45,000 “Catholic” denominations? Can we be “independent” Catholics? Then, what, pray tell, will that Catholicism mean?

This is apparently (and I do say, apparently) what the abbey in question has done, become “independent” Benedictines. All Benedictine monasteries have certain amount of independence, but it sounds like this claim is a bit more than that. Quite a bit more than that.

As for my closeness to the abbey…if you mean that in the sense of geographical closeness, well, I suppose you could call it that. It’s probably a couple of hours or so up the road. I’m not sure where it is, I’ve never been there. I’ve been to St. Bernard’s (an abbey that is in union with the Bishop and Rome, as far as I know) and to the Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament, which is also in union, as far as I know. Once my Bishop has made a public pronouncement telling the faithful to stay away from a certain place or group, I adhere to his words. I don’t tremble or panic, I just stay away. Being a faithful Catholic is a full-time job and a lifelong journey, and I constantly find that I have further to go along that road than I realized.

So I hope you see that all I’m saying is that the separation itself is the error. And a very grave one, at that.

 

[EdFoust]

Lee1440:

Can I calmly tell you what their doctrinal errors are? Did I give the impression that I wasn’t calm? Don’t get the impression that I was jumping up and down here, foaming at the mouth while I was typing, cuz I wudden.

No, and my apologies. What I meant by “calmly” was just to state the errors as you see them…I should have chosen a different way of expressing that.

But I do believe that breaking away from a legitimate monastery and legitimate authority, and forming your own, is itself a huge error, no matter how “Catholic” it is made to look, no matter how beautiful the buildings and landscape, no matter how lovely the liturgy. And this was the whole point of my post. The refusal to acknowledge legitimate authority, even when, especially when, you don’t like what that authority says, is rebellion.

I don’t disagree with this at all. It is certainly true as a principle…the question is really if it is applied properly and prudently or rashly in this case.

And that, in itself, is–is it not?–what happened in the Reformation. Instead of working for much needed reform (work that was already in progress, I might add), some rather notorious figures entered into rebellion and finally into schism. Breaking away. Turning one’s back. Deciding that one knows better than the Church. Deciding that one’s own thinking is a higher authority than the authority that Christ gave His Church.

No, I don’t think this is a fair comparison. What it shows though is that a true schism always involves doctrinal errors (along with distorted truths). The “reformation” became heretical rather quickly and had many political elements as well.

But this is something to which I have given a great deal of thought over the years, this notion of authority, legitimate and otherwise, and what it means to submit. What helped me in my understanding of it most were the writings of St. Faustina in her Diary. Revolutionized my thinking on the subject.

The proximate rule of faith for a Catholic is hearing the Church. That’s the traditional Catholic teaching on the subject.

Please note that I am not saying that we should bow to illegitimate authority or obey illicit laws or anything of that sort. I am speaking of what it is to be a member of the Church as a disciple of Christ. How easy it would be if we could all run away and form our own churches. And how vain.

But you do admit here, at least implicitly, that there can be illegitimate “authority” and illicit “laws’. It is prudence that causes one to flee the wolf.

I don’t need to get my own way all the time. What I do need is to follow Christ as a faithful member of His Church because He is the Way. I am not a conservative Catholic or a liberal Catholic or a traditional Catholic or a non-traditional Catholic or a modernist Catholic. I am a Catholic. Things happen that I don’t like, and I certainly recognize that there is a serious problem in Catholic education and in religious orders. All the more reason to stay and pray and work for better conditions.

Not if it destroys your faith.

Our whole society is infected with the notion that commitment means nothing; that if things don’t suit us, we can just walk away. This is individualism gone mad. So where does this lead us if we do this as Catholics? Will we end up with 45,000 “Catholic” denominations? Can we be “independent” Catholics?
Then, what, pray tell, will that Catholicism mean?

Yes, exactly. The fact is that we already have this situation in the post-Vatican II church. Everybody can believe to whatever degree that they please and no one is reprimanded…unless they break with the political unity…not the unity of Faith, mind you…but the political unity.

This is apparently (and I do say, apparently) what the abbey in question has done, become “independent” Benedictines. All Benedictine monasteries have certain amount of independence, but it sounds like this claim is a bit more than that. Quite a bit more than that.

Well, what is this “quite a bit more” that you infer? Can you tell us…or is it a secret?

As for my closeness to the abbey…if you mean that in the sense of geographical closeness, well, I suppose you could call it that. It’s probably a couple of hours or so up the road. I’m not sure where it is, I’ve never been there. I’ve been to St. Bernard’s (an abbey that is in union with the Bishop and Rome, as far as I know) and to the Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament, which is also in union, as far as I know. Once my Bishop has made a public pronouncement telling the faithful to stay away from a certain place or group, I adhere to his words. I don’t tremble or panic, I just stay away. Being a faithful Catholic is a full-time job and a lifelong journey, and I constantly find that I have further to go along that road than I realized.

Okay, so you don’t know much about them.

So I hope you see that all I’m saying is that the separation itself is the error. And a very grave one, at that.

It could be an error, I’ll grant you that. But you’ve shown no doctrinal errors on their part and you can’t really claim schism because they specifically deny any schism with legitimate authority. You need to show some positive reason to believe they are in error…as they appear in all ways to be Catholics, as you admit yourself…a negative reason is not legitimate.

EF

 

[Lee1440]

Breaking away, I thought, is the very definition of schism. It is the doctrinal error. The Holy Father in union with the Bishops is the legitimate authority. Unity is not uniformity nor is it agreement. My agreement is not necessary. I don’t agree with the Church, I follow the Church and accept and adhere to her teachings. Agreement and disagreement belong to a different categorical order altogether. And the faith which I read about in St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans is the “obedience of faith.” It is the obedience of Abraham when God asked him to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac.

This is precisely why I mentioned St. Faustina’s writings. Have you read them? That’s just a question, not a dig; I’ve met a great many people who haven’t.

I don’t need to know anything else about the abbey other than this: are they or are they not in union with Rome? If the answer is yes, then that’s good and I will pray that this matter comes to a rest for them. If the answer is no, then I will pray for them, but I won’t seek them out for help in my spiritual life.