False Traditionalists and the Indult Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter DavidJoseph
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Malleus:
Unlike the Orthodox who do not recognize the universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff or that he is the Vicar of Christ, the SSPX BELIEVES in BOTH. Disobedience to innovations suggested but the Vatican is NOT the SAME thing as schism; at least FORMAL Schism.
Ah, so as long as you pay LIP service to those two concepts, you can disobey legitimate church authority on any concept you want and still not be in schism. How convenient for you.
 
40.png
Malleus:
Pope Paul VI might have BELIEVED that it was abrogated BUT where is that DECREE. None exists.
There’s Missale Romanum, which replaced Quo Primum.
His so-called “Promulgation” of the NEW RITE mass is not even a promulgation.
Since it was included in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, it *is *a promulgation, so say both Codices (1917 and 1983).
He does NOT COMMAND its use or the abolishon of the PREVIOUS Missal as I recall.
You need to look closer. Both Pontiffs wish their rubrics to be said throughout the latin church, both say “everything else notwithstanding” (which effects abrogation or obrogation), both their wishes have the force of law (and this is no mere wish, it is a will [volumus]).
**Traditional Rite NEVER Abrogated declare Cardinals **
His Eminence’s terminology is very confusing, because both the Tridentine Mass and the Pauline Mass are the same rite, the roman rite. Second, the Tridentine Mass was never suppressed completely, Paul VI permitted old priests to use it and he granted the Agatha Christie Indult. So that “the traditional rite was never abrogated” doesn’t make much sense. What does make sense is that the bull Quo Primum is no longer in force. Newer laws replace old ones if they are contrary. Clearly Missale Romanum was contrary to Quo Primum, as they both imosed certain rubrcis on the whole latin church. The fact that Paul VI never corrected the Roman Congregations that imposed the new Mass is evidence that that is what he wanted.
 
Amado de Dios wrote:

…absolutely spot-on commentary!

Not wishing to be boring, but the following from Post #45 at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=86780 confirms:
**
Re: Traditional Rite NEVER Abrogated declare Cardinals
ByzCath wrote:

Quote:
Doesn’t really matter what one Cardinal says.

Spot on!!!
Quote:
I believe it was abrogated as any promulgation of a new missal, as was done with the Missal of 1970, automatically aborgates the old one.

The Law “Quo Primum”] was abrogated: the Pian liturgy of Mass was derogated.

To be derogated means to be replaced. The Pian liturgy was lawfully REPLACED as the normative Liturgy of Mass for the Roman Missal by the Pauline liturgy.

Quote:
Also, if this was so then the Holy Father would not have granted the Indult because it was not needed.

But, because the Pian liturgy was replaced by the Pauline liturgy, there was no need for it to be abrogated - for the Law “Quo Primum” was abrogated by the law of Paul VI: “Missale Romanum”.

Thus an Indult became necessary for the derogated liturgy of St Pius V to be performed strictly and precisely as per the liturgy approved as at 1962. Not as per 1576, 1776, 1958 - but, precisely 1962.

Making gleeful claims that the “Traditional Rite [was] NEVER abrogated” is false for the very reason that there is no such lawful liturgy that is accurately described as “the Traditional Rite”, and secondly, it is moot as to wheter or not the Liturgy of Mass authorized by Pope St Pius V and the variations of that liturgy as approved by subsequent popes, and properly set out in the authorized versions of “The Roman Missal” (“Missale Romanum”) has or has not been abrogated - for it certainly HAS BEEN lawfully and authoratively derogated (replaced) by the liturgy contained in the present “Roman Missal”**

So-called “traditionalists” ought to appreciate that Christ gave to His Church, acting in the person of “Peter” the “Power of the Keys” - to carry out His command to “do these things in commemoration of Me”. These “things” comprised those things which existed within the Last Supper context; and those essential words and acts which effected transubstantiation, and those which comprised the Eucharistic Communion.

Every Pope from St Peter to Benedict XVI has possessed precisely the same power to carry out Christ’s “simple” command to “do these things” in whatsoever ways that each or any pope might command. That “these things” have been done within a variety of liturgical “garments” is proven from the varying liturgical rites which have emanated from all of the Apostles, and variations down the ages. Pope Paul VI exercized precisely the same power as Pope St Gregory the Great and Pope St Pius V.

At no time did Christ guarantee that any of His Vicars would always make prudential decisions; but, when those decisions ARE imposed - Catholics must respect them.
 
If I wanted a lesson in Roman Catholic canon law, reason would dictate that I recieve that lesson from someone who is in Communion, being that you claim to be Anglican after my reading your public profile. As well as from someone who cites sources, such as the 1983 Code of Canon Law. It is apparent you don’t meet these criteria.
Very droll. Rather than refute what I have said, you resort to an* ad hominem attack.* If I were to make my submission to the Holy See, would my arguments then have possible merit?

In any case, I refer you to the following:

Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:

4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

7/ a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present.

So, unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that Abp Lefebvre was culpably negligent in believing that a necessity for his actions existed, he is not definitively subject to the latae sententiae excommunication. It is, then, the conscience of the archbishop which is in question, and this is a matter of the internal forum.
In any case there have been canon law arguments thrown out by SSPX advocates in all directions to justify their position, but this 1988 Apostolic Letter by John Paul II is the last word from legitimate Church authority in my opinion.
I am not sure which arguments in particular you are referring to, or whether they are in any way similar to the argument which I have put forth, so I cannot comment on their merits or lack thereof. That said, no one is contesting what is put forth in* Ecclesia Dei,* and my argument (like the others, I would suppose) is based on analysis of that document. It may well be incomplete or incorrect, but to dismiss it without consideration seems to lack charity.
 
40.png
pgoings:
So, unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that Abp Lefebvre was culpably negligent in believing that a necessity for his actions existed, he is not definitively subject to the latae sententiae excommunication. It is, then, the conscience of the archbishop which is in question, and this is a matter of the internal forum.

I am not sure which arguments in particular you are referring to, or whether they are in any way similar to the argument which I have put forth, so I cannot comment on their merits or lack thereof. That said, no one is contesting what is put forth in* Ecclesia Dei,* and my argument (like the others, I would suppose) is based on analysis of that document. It may well be incomplete or incorrect, but to dismiss it without consideration seems to lack charity.
Well, I don’t wish to be lacking in charity, but that seems to me to be a sophistry. The man signed an agreement, he was about to be given in large part what he wanted, yet he reneged, abrogated, repudiated the document that he signed. The Pope bent over backwards. There is no reasonable doubt here. The Archbishop and the four are excommunicate, the society in schsim.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Well, I don’t wish to be lacking in charity, but that seems to me to be a sophistry. The man signed an agreement, he was about to be given in large part what he wanted, yet he reneged, abrogated, repudiated the document that he signed. The Pope bent over backwards. There is no reasonable doubt here. The Archbishop and the four are excommunicate, the society in schsim.
If its your opinion that Lefebvre et al are excommunicated, that’s your opinion and it was the previous pope’s opinion as well. I can respect the fact you have an opinion about the matter.

But it isn’t a fact, much less a dogma or a doctrine. John Paul II didn’t excommunicate them, what he did was state that they had already excommunicated themselves by their actions.

Unless someone can actually read the soul of Lefebvre or the others, there isn’t any way to know whether or not he actually believed that it was a case of necessity or not.
 
Archbishop Lefebvre and company must have KNOWN what they were doing.
 
40.png
Kielbasi:
If its your opinion that Lefebvre et al are excommunicated, that’s your opinion and it was the previous pope’s opinion as well. I can respect the fact you have an opinion about the matter.

But it isn’t a fact, much less a dogma or a doctrine. John Paul II didn’t excommunicate them, what he did was state that they had already excommunicated themselves by their actions.

Unless someone can actually read the soul of Lefebvre or the others, there isn’t any way to know whether or not he actually believed that it was a case of necessity or not.
And what is your basis in tradition for holding to such an assertion that it was merely the Pope’s “opinion”? Besides the fact that it was quite, quite clear to Lefebvre that the Pope had ordered him not to ordain the Bishops, you once again fall into the fallacy of believing that unless a Pope formally proclaims a dogma or doctrine, you don’t have to believe in it.

Cases of necessity are judged on an objective, not subjective, basis. Canon law, unless I’m mistaken, is quite clear on this.

But that aside, you are just further demonstrating my point about the hypocrisy of traditionalists. They’ll claim that they’re following tradition, when in fact they are following their own personal opinions rather than submitting to the Vicar of Christ.

Even if the Pope does not speak ex Cathedra, he is required to be submitted to. Lumen Gentium 25 clearly says this.

Or do you not accept Vatican II? Could this be a “modernist” invention designed to deceive the faithful? Did Bl. John XXIII, Paul VI, and Archbishop Bugnini concoct this “false” doctrines during one of their secret meetings as Freemasons? Could it be that Lumen Gentium 25, which specifically states that the faithful are to adhere to the Pope’s pronouncements, even if they are not “ex Cathedra” is a communist, masonic invention?

Hardly. Just look at what Pius XII, the supposed “last traditional Pope,” wrote in his encyclical “Humani Generis”:
  1. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
Now, while this is referring to Encyclicals, it is quite clear that it is not limited to just that form of publication by the Holy Father. Pius XII quite clearly says that the Supreme Pontiff is to be obeyed in exercising his ordinary teaching authority. This can surely extend to specific matters, like whether someone violated Canon Law. It is amazing that so-called “traditionalists” ignore this teaching when they reject the current teachings of JPII and Benedict XVI.

It is not an “opinion.” It is a fact that Lefebvre excommunicated himself. Now, I do not judge the state of his soul, or where he is now. Only God can do that. But you cannot disagre with John Paul II’s pronouncement on the matter.

Reference to “personal opinions,” etc., only further shows that ultra-traditionalism is nothing more than Protestantism in disguise.
 
40.png
ThomasMore1535:
Reference to “personal opinions,” etc., only further shows that ultra-traditionalism is nothing more than Protestantism in disguise.
Yes! Right on!👍
 
40.png
Kielbasi:
If its your opinion that Lefebvre et al are excommunicated, that’s your opinion and it was the previous pope’s opinion as well. I can respect the fact you have an opinion about the matter.

But it isn’t a fact, much less a dogma or a doctrine. John Paul II didn’t excommunicate them, what he did was state that they had already excommunicated themselves by their actions.

Unless someone can actually read the soul of Lefebvre or the others, there isn’t any way to know whether or not he actually believed that it was a case of necessity or not.
Not at all. It’s absurd to say that he didn’t know there was an agreement, in which, by his submission to the Holy Father, he was going to be given a great deal of what he desired. It’s a fiction, a fairy tale, and a fantasy to say that he and they were not excommunicate AND even if they weren’t by the act itself, in some weird legal way, they were still in schism, which basically excommunicates you anyway (if you were an adult Catholic, as opposed to a material schismatic)!!! For him to believe that this was a necessity, in the face of the agreement, would basically mean he was not sharp enough to be an Archbishop in the first place.
 
On “necessity”:

Extract from Brian O’Neel
catholic.com/this rock/2003/0304fea2.asp
SSPX apologists will tell you that the consecrations did not constitute a schismatic act but were merely an act of disobedience. Indeed, they claim that no one in the Society ever denied the Pope’s authority. But again consider the definition of schism: refusal of submission to the pope or of communion with members of the Church subject to him. When did Lefebvre and the Society submit to the authority of the pope? It is one thing to say one recognizes the pope’s authority; it is another thing to submit to that authority.

The Society says also that Lefebvre acted out of fear and a state of necessity
. But fear does not apply when willfully ordaining bishops without the requisite papal mandate. Plus, the Pope had promised the Society a bishop; how could there be any state of necessity?

The Society claims it has several noted canonists on its side, such as Fr. Gerald Murray, Rosalio Jose Cardinal Castillo Lara, and Prof. Karl-Theodor Geringer, who teaches canon law at the University of Munich. But take a look at the quotes the Society uses from these men and compare them with what these men actually said, and you see the art of quoting out of context at its finest.

Regarding published a brochure backing the claims of the Society that quoted Fr. Murray in a tendentious manner (the brochure can be found at www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9463/noschism.html)), Fr. Murray wrote to it, “You have intentionally misquoted me and even worse put words into my mouth . . . in support of your propagandistic assertions. . . . You have fabricated and falsified my remarks . . . [in] a shameful attempt to legitimize your claims. . . . I demand you withdraw this publication . . . [in which you leave] out the things I did say, but which you wish I had not said.” Fr. Murray is still waiting for satisfaction.

The SSPX is a morality tale, an example of what happens when a group sets out to be faithful to the Church but along the way decides it is a better arbiter of true Christianity than the Church it claims to follow. If we decide we know better than the Church on this or that subject, then our private judgment creeps in and we become our own magisterium. The result is that we inevitably find ourselves ever more distanced from the Church.

See also extract at geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9463/noschism.html

from Rev. Gordon F.Read
Fr. Michael Brown, Assistant Judicial Vicar, Hexham & Newcastle Diocesan Tribunal

Fr. Michael Brown was not one of the authors of the British Commentary on the text, rather he was the one who put it into e-text and sent it out to the other Traditional canonists on the net.)

Source: petersnet.net/browse/1224.htm and
ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/eccldei.htm
… A third line of argument is that an erroneous view that necessity justified his action would have made his action culpable, but removed canonical malice and therefore liability to excommunication (canon 1323 7o). His argument in effect is that the provisions of the 1983 Code are so exigent for imputability to be proved >and a penalty incurred, that the Archbishop and his followers escape by virtue of the very postconciliar legislation they so oppose.
continued:
 
“On the other hand, Canon 209 prescribes: ‘Para. 1. Christ’s faithful are bound to preserve their communion with the Church at all times, even in their external actions. Para.2 They are to carry out with great diligence their responsibilities towards both the universal Church and the particular Church to which by law they belong.’ It is obvious that a lay person who exclusively frequents chapels directed by suspended priests of the Society of St Pius X, which operate without the permission of either the local or the universal Church, is not, in fact, at the very least, living in external communion with the Church. Thus we have the anomalous situation of a group of faithful who are in fact in some real way living apart from real communion with the Church, but who are almost certainly not subject to the canonical penalties intended to discourage and punish such behaviour.” (cited from Terenzio, art. cit. p.61).

The Note was clearly prepared as a reply to the arguments of this kind (cf. n.4). The suggestion that there might be any doubt cast upon the excommunication declared by the Congregation for Bishops in the case of the Archbishop and those he consecrated is given short shrift.

It might be worth remembering that the penalty was raised to excommunication because of the creation of the Patriotic Catholic Association in China, and consecration of Bishops without a mandate. The 1917 Code (canon 2370) had provided only for suspension.

Historically the situation had arisen in Latin America when difficult travel conditions had delayed the arrival of the mandate, and a planned consecration had gone ahead without it, but with no schismatic intent. Here the situation was quite different, and although the intention might not have been to set up an alternative jurisdiction, only to provide for the sacraments, de facto that is what was already happening. Moreover since the protocol originally signed by Archbishop Lefebvre actually provided for the consecration of one Bishop, necessity could hardly be argued.

The Note then turns to those whose excommunication has not been declared; the clergy and faithful associated with the Society of St Pius X. The Council prescind from any decision that might be made by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but sets out two general legal criteria that would be required for “formal adherence.”

The first is an internal criterion, one of intention. An external violation of a law cannot incur a penalty where there is inculpable ignorance, inadvertence or error with regard to violating the law (can. 1323 2°). Equally the penalty must be reduced where the person was unaware of the penalty, through no fault of their own, or lacked full imputability (can. 1324 9° & 10°). There is a requirement of schismatic intention, that is freely and consciously accepting the substance of the schism, that is putting one’s personal choice above obedience to the Pope. Generally, this will be characterised by an habitual stance contrary to the Magisterium of the Church.

The second criterion is external, the external effect given to this choice. The most obvious sign of this is to attend solely and exclusively those celebrations conducted by followers of Archbishop Lefebvre, and eschewing those of the mainstream Church, not only local Bishop and clergy, but, for example, those legitimately using the 1962 liturgical books, such as the Fraternity of St Peter.
continued:
 
To a degree the Council is accepting the argumentation presented by Fr.Murray in that an external violation of the law is required not simply a supposed internal attitude of mind, and that more is required subjectively than attendance even habitually at Lefebvrist centres or celebrations. The latter is compatible with an internal disposition which still accepts the authority of the Pope. However, it parts company with him in that it argues that the disobedience involved in aligning oneself with the Lefebvrists itself implies a schismatic intention, even though one might not formally reject the authority of the Pope or local
Bishop. Such a position is logically inconsistent, and one must ask what is the prevalent intention in a particular case.
The Note points out that one must distinguish between the moral question of the sin of schism, and the legal question of a delict and its imputability. Once there has been an external violation, imputability is presumed until it appears otherwise (can. 1321 para 3). The onus is on the person to establish elements removing or reducing imputability. In the internal forum there is no such presumption. This means that in the case of lay people, their position will often be difficult to discern. In this situation one must have a mind to the liberty guaranteed by canon 18. In the case of clergy, their external involvement in the ministry in the ambit of the schismatic movement is itself sufficient evidence that both internal and external criteria for formal adherence have been fulfilled. However, such a censure is undeclared and therefore subject to the limits mentioned in canons 1331 and 1335.
While the document speaks of Lefebvrists, it does not refer by name to the Society of St Pius X, and so the criteria should be applied also to other similar groups that are associated with the Archbishop’s followers, religious communities, the dissident clergy of the Diocese of Campos in Brazil, but also others, such as those mentioned above, who hold similar positions, even though their hierarchs may not have been declared excommunicated.
The Supreme Pontiff, who is/was also the Supreme Legislator and Supreme Interpreter of the Law declared Lefebvre & Co. to be in schism. Multiple statements to that effect have followed. All the documents may be viewed at jloughnan.tripod.com/schmex1.htm
 
I just don’t understand the profit of labeling these people, particularly the lay people in attendance as schismatic.

One of my cousins was attached to an SSPX chapel for a number of years, and just had a change of heart, and now believes that the English mass is valid and copasetic. Today she leads a youth group at her neighborhood parish, and even serves as a EMHC.

People change , putting up psychological barriers such as “schismatic” just seems to be counterproductive.
 
40.png
Kielbasi:
I just don’t understand the profit of labeling these people, particularly the lay people in attendance as schismatic.

One of my cousins was attached to an SSPX chapel for a number of years, and just had a change of heart, and now believes that the English mass is valid and copasetic. Today she leads a youth group at her neighborhood parish, and even serves as a EMHC.

People change , putting up psychological barriers such as “schismatic” just seems to be counterproductive.
There isn’t any profit. None whatsoever. I’m sure, however, you can see how dangerous it would be for people to come to this site and go away thinking,“Oh, I guess the SSPX is okay with the Church.” They constantly attack the Mass of Paul VI. Shouldn’t a Catholic who loves the Church and the Mass defend them? Fortunately, those who defend the Church have truth on their side, objective truth in history AND the witness of four papacies. They only have consipiracy theories (Bugnini and the protestants writing the Mass, Bugnini as a Mason, John XXIII as a Mason, Paul VI as a Mason) and their re-writes of history. Should the Church stand by while the flock is picked off one at a time and scattered?

As for the lay people, the Old Holy Father cautioned them of the danger of schism. Whether they are in it or not is beyond my thinking, apparently. I mean, if you’re born into it, then I think the distinction we make for Protestants and the Orthodox (“cannot be charged with the sin of seperation”) applies. What about those who leave the Church to “go with” the SSPX, are confirmed by them, go to confession (invalid as well as illicit), are married by them (invalid as well as illicit), knowing that this is a schismatic group? I’d say that’s pretty formal adherence.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
There isn’t any profit. None whatsoever. I’m sure, however, you can see how dangerous it would be for people to come to this site and go away thinking,“Oh, I guess the SSPX is okay with the Church.” They constantly attack the Mass of Paul VI. Shouldn’t a Catholic who loves the Church and the Mass defend them? Fortunately, those who defend the Church have truth on their side, objective truth in history AND the witness of four papacies. They only have consipiracy theories (Bugnini and the protestants writing the Mass, Bugnini as a Mason, John XXIII as a Mason, Paul VI as a Mason) and their re-writes of history. Should the Church stand by while the flock is picked off one at a time and scattered?

As for the lay people, the Old Holy Father cautioned them of the danger of schism. Whether they are in it or not is beyond my thinking, apparently. I mean, if you’re born into it, then I think the distinction we make for Protestants and the Orthodox (“cannot be charged with the sin of seperation”) applies. What about those who leave the Church to “go with” the SSPX, are confirmed by them, go to confession (invalid as well as illicit), are married by them (invalid as well as illicit), knowing that this is a schismatic group? I’d say that’s pretty formal adherence.
I agree with everything you said.
 
are married by them (invalid as well as illicit)
As an aside: Is the marriage of two S.S.P.X. adherents who were never Roman Catholics invalid? If so, why? They surely cannot be bound to the prescriptions of Canon 1108, can they? And also the confessions of those in the same position? Or does the Church teach that the confessions of the Orthodox are invalid?
 
40.png
pgoings:
As an aside: Is the marriage of two S.S.P.X. adherents who were never Roman Catholics invalid? If so, why? They surely cannot be bound to the prescriptions of Canon 1108, can they? And also the confessions of those in the same position? Or does the Church teach that the confessions of the Orthodox are invalid?
No idea. Confessions/marriages are linked to faculties, given by bishops (though if you are in danger of death, confession/absolution by an SSPX is valid, even as it is by a laicized, married man). I know that we don’t question the validity of either for the Orthodox. The line of reasoning is there, maybe someone else can answer it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top