Pushed to the SSPX

[NeelyAnn]

Yes, that is correct. As Supreme Pontiffs, both John Paul and Benedict are free to apply the law as they see fit.

If the SSPX will concede to Benedict’s other stipulations (which we do not know), they will be a welcome part of the Catholic Church. Until that pronouncement is made, we should all be attending Mass at facilities that are fully united to Rome.

As far as I am aware, there have been no other stipulations. Rome has made several offers to regularize the SSPX as is - but the SSPX prefers to wait until the theological discussions have come to a close. The theological discussions, by the way, seem to be going very well. Knowing that the SSPX is not one to compromise, for them to be happy with the way the theological discussions are going (to date) says a lot.

 

[surritter]

I too do not know the extra stipulations. But I would venture this: The SSPX must acknowledge the validity of ALL Vatican II documents, as well as acceptance of all elements of the Mass of Paul VI. Clearly some posters on this thread aren’t comfortable with that, but let’s hope that the SSPX superiors are moved to do so. Only then will we again have unity!

 

[EnchantedEve]

Excommunication was not a matter of “rough relations.” Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated by virtue of the law, and not by any penalty imposed by a judge. It was a plain violation of Canon 1013. Thus, Canon 1364(1) provides: “…a schismatic incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication…”

It is also clear from the language of Ecclesia Dei that John Paul II considered Archbishop LeFebvre and his followers to be in schism.

More about this whole thing can be found at an article that ran in Envoy magazine.

If they were considered in formal schism, why was relations with them not handeled by the Congregation of Christian Unity, like other groups?

LETTER OF THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY
Under signature of Edward I. Cardinal Cassidy, President (May 3,1994)

    "The situation of the members of this Society [SSPX] is
    an internal matter of the Catholic Church.  The Society
    is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the
    meaning used in the Directory.  Of course, the Mass
    and Sacraments administered by the priests of the
    Society are valid.  The bishops are validly ... consecrated."

If they were considered in formal schism, why were they not treated as a seperate “ecclesial community,” like the Orthodox?

 

[surritter]

That’s a good question. I don’t think there’s any question that they were guilty of an act of schism, however.

 

[ProVobis]

They’re back, now - it was only during the “emergency period” which ended just before Christmas.

Had I were ever to go to a Mass somewhere and found it cancelled just once, you can bet I wouldn’t put that church on my top priority list for a long time. I’ll bet there are others who would do the same.

 

[jmcrae]

Had I were ever to go to a Mass somewhere and found it cancelled just once, you can bet I wouldn’t put it on my top priority list for a long time. I’ll bet there are others who would do the same.

I understand your feelings. I was shocked and disappointed when I found out it had been cancelled - however, the situation is now resolved, and they are back.

In my personal opinion, the people who caused it to be cancelled were being rather more legalistic than necessary, which I find ironic, since they see themselves as the “reasonable” party.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Your phrasing betrays the precise problem (my emphasis added):

“From the viewpoint of Archbishop Lefebvre (and the SSPX)…”
“a preceived state of necessity…”
“He was, in his belief, acting…”

So you are trying to justify the disobedience of the SSPX to the lawful authority of the pope based on viewpoints, perceptions, and beliefs of those who are supposed to be subject to him; therein lies the problem.

That won’t do at all, surriter. Canons 1321, 1323, 1324 state quite explicitly that one is protected from sanction if one believes sincerely that there is a case of necessity - even if there is no objective necessity (look it up - that’s the law) – even if I should have known better – and even if it is my own fault that I do not know better. The New Code was promulgated by Pope John Paul II himself. To do him justice, Archbp Lefebvre was against the New Code! But being validly promulgated, he & the SSPX follow it, like the loyal Catholics they are. The Emergency Provisions are a necessary part of any rational system of law, & have always been part of the law of the church. The New Code is so lenient that it is hard to see how anybody can be excommunicated at all, provided his defence is that he thought there was a Case of necessity.

It is very bad legislation, but since it is there, why cannot Mgr Lefebvre invoke it?

Just to point out again the real problem with this: The New Code gives legal force to one’s subjective opinions. Under the Old Canon law, one could be excommunicated for an objective offence, and then, if you so wished, you were free to appeal. If the appeal is upheld, fine. if not, then the excommunication stands. But under the New Code, once you invoke the law, the onus is on the prosecutor to prove that you did not really think there was a state of necessity. Crazy! No wonder the 1988 decree of excommunication merely passes over Canons 1321 – 4 in silence. And no wonder Pope Benedict quietly lifted it.

 

[surritter]

But being validly promulgated, he & the SSPX follow it, like the loyal Catholics they are.

Oh please. Yes, they were so loyal on that fateful day in 1988.

Just to point out again the real problem with this: The New Code gives legal force to one’s subjective opinions. Under the Old Canon law, one could be excommunicated for an objective offence, and then, if you so wished, you were free to appeal. If the appeal is upheld, fine. if not, then the excommunication stands. But under the New Code, once you invoke the law, the onus is on the prosecutor to prove that you did not really think there was a state of necessity.

So I infer that, even under the old Code, Abp. Lefebvre would also have been guilty of episcopal ordinations without a papal mandate. Is that correct?

Another question: Do YOU believe that the Mass of Paul VI is valid?

 

[Lycorth]

Indeed, thankfully, Pope Benedict does not believe they are in schism and has overturned the excommunications. In the end, it is not for a mere layman as me to say, but it certainly appears that the Society is no longer thought of as being in schism.

No member of the Society should disobey the Pope, whether it was John Pau II or Benedict XVI. But, our traditions should never have been changed, even though of course hindsight is 20/20. I pray that the Society is restored to full communion with Rome (if and where lack of full communion exists, of course) and that the traditionalist spirit will revitalize the Church.

 

[numealinesimpet]

OK – he didn’t act out of malice. I will not question his motives. But what he did was WRONG. When will the SSPX followers who flock to this thread admit that?

This opinion is based on a non-Catholic attitude to Obedience. I and at least one other poster have cited S. Thomas Aquinas to show that Obedience does not necessarily mean obeying each and every command of a superior, nor is obedience the highest virtue in the hierarchy of duties. Indeed, this is the whole crux of the matter. Those who do not see this will not see the strength of the SSPX’s case.

There is the additional point that the action of Lefebvre & de Castro Meyer, whether it was right or wrong, was protected from sanction by canons 1321 – 4, as mentioned before.

The irony of it does not escape notice. It is a perfect example of the fallacies of liberalism. The fact is that the selective harshness of the Mainstream towards what are called the Traditionalists, while bending over backwards to all the other non-Catholic religions, up to and including Fire-Worshippers, was damaging the credibility of the church (to put it mildly). But it seems that Pope John Paul II was mis-informed about the real motivations of the trads. The Holy Year Procession through Rome to his feet in 2000 made a genuine and lasting impression on him, and on many others in Rome. Later that year, an American magazine – Time or Life or Newsweek, I forget which – ran a general article on the Catholic Church – and took a photo from this Procession as the illustration on the front page!

 

[surritter]

This opinion is based on a non-Catholic attitude to Obedience. I and at least one other poster have cited S. Thomas Aquinas to show that Obedience does not necessarily mean obeying each and every command of a superior, nor is obedience the highest virtue in the hierarchy of duties. Indeed, this is the whole crux of the matter. Those who do not see this will not see the strength of the SSPX’s case.

It would seem to me that a Protestant mindset would say that “I am obedient to truth, but that truth is defined by me, not an objective source.” In other words, truth is as I see it, not the Pope.

A Catholic would say “I am obedient to truth, and that truth is defined by an objective source, which is the Church.”

Now which situation seems to smell like liberalism?
At any rate, I will look into the St. Thomas stuff.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Oh please. Yes, they were so loyal on that fateful day in 1988.

Unquestionably they were. That is the whole point.

So I infer that, even under the old Code, Abp. Lefebvre would also have been guilty of episcopal ordinations without a papal mandate. Is that correct?

There were 52 infringements in the Old code of Canon Law that were punished by excommunication. Some of them would look surprising today, and there would be a terrible lot of excommunications. It’s worth looking up. Interestingly, “consecrating a bishop without Papal mandate” was not one of them until the mid-50s, in response to the eruption of the Chinese Patriotic Church. The New Code cut them down to five (but keeping the one about the consecrations).

Under the Old code of Canon Law, there would have been excommunications, all right! But it would have been the perpetrators of the errors of Modernism who would have got the bullet, not the faithful ones who upheld the Faith! Check the Old code and you will see that this is a correct statement!

Another question: Do YOU believe that the Mass of Paul VI is valid?

I reply with Archbp Lefebvre: we are in no position to state that the Novus Ordo, celebrated in Latin and following the rubrics, is anything but valid. any contrary decision can be made only by the Pope himself or an Ecumenical Council approved by the pope. those in his Fraternity who refused this, and declared on its validity, were expelled by Mgr Lefebvre. His objections were not about its validity.
The further a “Eucharistic Celebration” moves from such laws as there are, the more daoubt there is about its validity. and they depart unbelievably far, don’t they? that’s an excellent reason for sticking with the TLM – although not the only one.

 

[NeelyAnn]

I too do not know the extra stipulations. But I would venture this: The SSPX must acknowledge the validity of ALL Vatican II documents, as well as acceptance of all elements of the Mass of Paul VI. Clearly some posters on this thread aren’t comfortable with that, but let’s hope that the SSPX superiors are moved to do so. Only then will we again have unity!

I am 100% certain that that will not be the case when all is said and done.

It is more likely that the troubling issues of Vatican II will be clarified and ammended. I say this with confidence. The outcome of whether or not the old Mass was abbrogated debate and the outcome of the correct translation of ‘for all/for many’ debate inspire me with this confidence. Not to mention the many other positive changes the Pope is making.

“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.” (Cardinal Ratzinger - Address to the Bishops of Chile, July 13th, 1988)

As for Pope Paul VI’s Mass, I know you have seen the many quotes from Cardinal Ratzinger which indicate that there are indeed problems with that Mass and it’s development. Not to mention, I doubt that any parish in the US offers what is indeed Pope Paul VI’s Mass (with the possible exception of St. John Cantius - and I am not even sure they do).

 

[ProVobis]

I pray that the Society is restored to full communion with Rome (if and where lack of full communion exists, of course) and that the traditionalist spirit will revitalize the Church.

The current communion is as full as many of us Catholics here have with Rome. The proper canonical status for these bishops and priests is what needs to be achieved, no small task. In fact the lack of this canonical status may have been the main problem all along and why they were excommunicated in the first place. I said maybe because I don’t have the proof but it sure didn’t appear that the Archbishop had his own diocese in mind where his consecrated bishops would control. Only to consecrate bishops who could ordain TLM priests and keep the old customs alive.

But again, no new bishops have been consecrated since 1988. This is not consistent with unnecessary and repeated disobedience to proper authority.

 

[surritter]

Well, folks, I think posts #749 and 750 say it all:

• Vatican II – the twenty-first ecumenical council – is not a part of the Church’s Tradition
• The documents of Vatican II will not need to be recognized by the SSPX in order for them to rejoin FULL communion
• No parish in the US truly offers the Mass of Paul VI
• Abp. Lefebvre was loyal to the Church in 1988 when he defied the Supreme Pontiff
• The “Novus Ordo” is not a valid Mass
• Under both the New and old Code of Canon Law, Abp. Lefebvre would have been excommunicated, yet he is to be lauded for what he did

While I acknowledge the appeal of the TLM (and I too support it and attend whenever I can), the above points are not exactly a list I would wish to defend.

With that, I think all of us reading this need to redouble our prayers “that they may all be one.”

 

[ProVobis]

As for Pope Paul VI’s Mass, I know you have seen the many quotes from Cardinal Ratzinger which indicate that there are indeed problems with that Mass and it’s development. Not to mention, I doubt that any parish in the US offers what is indeed Pope Paul VI’s Mass (with the possible exception of St. John Cantius - and I am not even sure they do).

Are you speaking about the Latin OF? If so, you’re right, the one at St. John Cantius is about as close to what was promulgated by Pope Paul as it gets. With most of the old customs. And it’s very well attended too.

 

[ibkc]

Well, folks, I think posts #749 and 750 say it all:

• The “Novus Ordo” is not a valid Mass

That is NOT what Abp Lefebrve was quoted as saying. The quote is:

“We are in no position to state that the Novus Ordo, celebrated in Latin and following the rubrics, is anything but valid. any contrary decision can be made only by the Pope himself or an Ecumenical Council approved by the pope.”

 

[ProVobis]

That is NOT what Abp Lefebrve was quoted as saying. The quote is:

We are in no position to state that the Novus Ordo, celebrated in Latin and following the rubrics, is anything but valid. any contrary decision can be made only by the Pope himself or an Ecumenical Council approved by the pope."

The SSPX attackers disingenuously seem to leave off the key words here.

 

[NeelyAnn]

Well, folks, I think posts #749 and 750 say it all:

• Vatican II – the twenty-first ecumenical council – is not a part of the Church’s Tradition
• The documents of Vatican II will not need to be recognized by the SSPX in order for them to rejoin FULL communion
• No parish in the US truly offers the Mass of Paul VI
• Abp. Lefebvre was loyal to the Church in 1988 when he defied the Supreme Pontiff
• The “Novus Ordo” is not a valid Mass
• Under both the New and old Code of Canon Law, Abp. Lefebvre would have been excommunicated, yet he is to be lauded for what he did

While I acknowledge the appeal of the TLM (and I too support it and attend whenever I can), the above points are not exactly a list I would wish to defend.

With that, I think all of us reading this need to redouble our prayers “that they may all be one.”

The quote about Vatican II was from Cardinal Ratzinger. If you have a problem with it, write him - he is now the Pope.

The theological discussions between Rome and the SSPX are centered around the problems with Vatican II. The point of the discussions is to bring clarity to what Vatican II did and did not teach and to clarify that which is misleading. There have been a number of interviews over the last year or two where the Pope himself has indicated that clarification may be needed. The Pope agreed to these discussions.

You are correct, it is highly unlikely that any parish offers the Mass of Pius VI as it was supposed to originally be. The only parish I have first hand knowledge of is St. John Cantius’ Latin NO. The Pope Benedict, as Cardinal Ratzinger, has made similar comments. He even contributed part of the devastation in the Church to the Liturgy. Again, take it up with him. They are not my words, but his.

 

[NeelyAnn]

Are you speaking about the Latin OF? If so, you’re right, the one at St. John Cantius is about as close to what was promulgated by Pope Paul as it gets. With most of the old customs. And it’s very well attended too.

Yes, that is the one I was speaking of.