SSPX communique to Rome

[Justin_Swanton]

In getting back to the subject of the SSPX, the issue of the signing of DH by Archbishop Lefebvre seems to be an important one, IMO. Because if the Archbishop signed the document, and all the others, could that be possibly interpreted as meaning that he thought that all of those documents could be interpreted in light of tradition? It seems important to me because the SSPX says that certain documents contain error. But if they contain error (which I don’t personally believe) then why would the Archbishop sign them?

Here is the photocopy of the Archbishop’s signature. This was not an attendance register (although the Council Fathers were required to sign one on the same day), as the Archbishop also signed for an absent friend, Augustinus Grimault. Neither do these signatures represent a vote in favour of the Council documents in question. They are an acceptance of and participation in their enactment by the Supreme Pontiff, which would, however, seem to imply that the Archbishop at that time did not see the documents as irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine. The signatures were not obligatory and a number of Council Fathers did not sign.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1608&pictureid=13367

 

[Lormar]

Here is the photocopy of the Archbishop’s signature. This was not an attendance register (although the Council Fathers were required to sign one on the same day), as the Archbishop also signed for an absent friend, Augustinus Grimault. Neither do these signatures represent a vote in favour of the Council documents in question. They are an acceptance of and participation in their enactment by the Supreme Pontiff, which would, however, seem to imply that the Archbishop at that time did not see the documents as irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine. The signatures were not obligatory and a number of Council Fathers did not sign.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1608&pictureid=13367

Justin, I get a blank page when I click your link.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Justin, I get a blank page when I click your link.

That’s strange - I see it in my post on my PC.

Dee S did the spadework finding the site where the photocopy was pasted. Just go to it and scroll down to the bottom of the page: culturewars.com/CultureWa…ives/SSPX8.htm

 

[Lormar]

That’s strange - I see it in my post on my PC.

Dee S did the spadework finding the site where the photocopy was pasted. Just go to it and scroll down to the bottom of the page: culturewars.com/CultureWa…ives/SSPX8.htm

This one works for me. Thanks!

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Originally Posted by JReducation forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
* A parent cannot prohibit what the Church allows, even if you’re speaking about a minor.*

JoeBowen7:

I don’t believe that this is true. A parent can prohibit his son from drinking Pepsi Cola, even though the Church allows it.

It is true, believe it or not. No parent has the right to interfere or influence a child in the spiritual domain (I can’t think of a better word right now), for the reason that even though they are a child under the law… under the Law of God once a person has achieved the age of reason they are considered spiritually and morally as an individual, whose conscience and religious conduct cannot be dictated to.

Take an obvious example - the Sacrament of Reconciliation - where no parent has any rights at all! Neither do they have the right to say when the child should or should not receive Communion. Neither can they say how they should receive, be it in the hand, on the tongue or taking the Precious Blood.

Yes, they must obey their parents in all that is not sin, but are not bound to adopt their spiritual preferences.:getholy:

 

[Dee_S]

" A parent cannot prohibit what the Church allows, even if you’re speaking about a minor. If that minor is a baptized Catholic, he has rights under the law. One of those rights is to take advantage of what the Church allows. To prohibit one’s child from receiving in the hand is as wrong as trying to prohibit anyone else. One is placing oneself as an equal to the hierarchy. " Br JR

JoeBowen7:

I don’t believe that this is true. A parent can prohibit his son from drinking Pepsi Cola, even though the Church allows it.

It is true, believe it or not. No parent has the right to interfere or influence a child in the spiritual domain (I can’t think of a better word right now), for the reason that even though they are a child under the law… under the Law of God once a person has achieved the age of reason they are considered spiritually and morally as an individual, whose conscience and religious obligation cannot be dictated to.

Take an obvious example - the Sacrament of Reconciliation - where no parent has any rights at all! Neither do they have the right to say when the child should or should not receive Communion. Neither can they say how they should receive, be it in the hand, on the tongue or taking the Precious Blood.

Yes, they must obey their parents in all that is not sin, but are not bound to adopt their spiritual preferences .:getholy:

 

[Denise1957]

Here is the photocopy of the Archbishop’s signature. This was not an attendance register (although the Council Fathers were required to sign one on the same day), as the Archbishop also signed for an absent friend, Augustinus Grimault. Neither do these signatures represent a vote in favour of the Council documents in question. They are an acceptance of and participation in their enactment by the Supreme Pontiff, which would, however, seem to imply that the Archbishop at that time did not see the documents as irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine. The signatures were not obligatory and a number of Council Fathers did not sign.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1608&pictureid=13367

But the Rev. Brain Harrison, author of the Culture Wars piece, claims that the Archbishop was prepared to share in the official promulgation of the documents. The piece is a lengthy but worthwhile read. Scroll about a third to halfway down to read this part:

"What happened was that after the individual voting on all these last four documents, they were promulgated together and signed together, bt the pope and over 2,000 council fathers. The main pages necessary for all the signatures bore the titles of all four documents (the other three being the Constitution on the Church in the modern world (also frequently denounced in subsequent years aby Lefebvre), The Decree on Missionary activity, and the Decree on Ministry and Life of Priests). It is among these pages that the signatures of Archbishop Lefebvre and Archbishop de Castro Mayer are found, and not only on the relatively unimportant attendance sheet which Lefebvre recalled in his interview.

The fact that art (all?) four documents were signed together does not mean the bishops were faced with the alternative of signing all or none. The fathers were informed that if they wished to sign one ot more of the documents but not all of them, they could make a marginal annotation beside their name, specifying which documents they did or did not wish to sign. No such annotation is found beside the names of either Lefebvre or de Castro Mayer, which proves that they were prepared to share in the official promulgation of the Declaration on Religious Liberty which they later publically rejected."

 

[Mrs_Sally]

JoeBowen7:

I don’t believe that this is true. A parent can prohibit his son from drinking Pepsi Cola, even though the Church allows it.

Pepsi is not related to communion or any Church laws in any way.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Since we are all waiting until after the summer holidays in Italy, I have a question to whiwe away the time.

We hear quite a bit about the positions and statements of Bishop Fellay, as we should. And of Bishop Williamson, because he makes himself heard. What of the other two? Have either of them made any kind of public statements? Do we know if they have made any individual overetures to the Vatican?

 

[Dee_S]

In getting back to the subject of the SSPX, the issue of the signing of DH by Archbishop Lefebvre seems to be an important one, IMO. Because if the Archbishop signed the document, and all the others, could that be possibly interpreted as meaning that he thought that all of those documents could be interpreted in light of tradition? It seems important to me because the SSPX says that certain documents contain error. But if they contain error (which I don’t personally believe) then why would the Archbishop sign them?

That is the million dollar question Yes it is an important one for many reasons, but mainly at present because the subject of Religious Liberty is causing serious division within the SSPX.

The following extract found on an SSPX website is an example of the long standing belief in his (the Archbishop’s) claim to the contrary.

Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre
by Michael Davies

Appendix IV

Archbishop Lefebvre and Religious Liberty

Mgr. Lefebvre’s opponents have accused him of rejecting the documents of Vatican II. The truth is that he signed fourteen of the sixteen documents and declined to sign two. The first of these, the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes)…
Mgr. Lefebvre also refused to sign the Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae). In this case his objections were doctrinal.
sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Appendix_IV.htm

When it was discovered that the Archbishop did in fact sign these two documents, he was asked about it. This is quoted from his reply in an interview in The Angelus:
“The large sheets which were passed from hand to hand among the Fathers of the Council and upon which everyone placed his signature, had no meaning of a vote for or against, but signified simply our presence at the meeting to vote for four documents.”
Archbishop Lefebvre
angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=1855

I think the best explanation is this one, which is produced here in full.
A very good question has been directed to Ecclesia Militans regarding the Ven. Archbishop Lefebvre and why he signed some of the Vatican II documents. This question has been brought up in other Traditional circles and it is certainly worthy of an educated and sufficient response. For this reason we will post here the answer to this question given by the Rev. Father Peter Scott, Rector of the SSPX Holy Cross Seminary in Austrailia. Fr. Scott was ordained by the Archbishop and is quite respected by this writer as a bright light in the darkness of this decadent age.
The reply follows Professor Romero’s question below.

Professor Romero:
I noticed once that the great Archbishop Lefebvre’s signature is on the official documents of Vatican II. Now, I would not argue that V2 is heretical, but it is certainly puzzling how this super champion of tradition could ever sign such ambiguous and suspicious documents. What’s your two cents on this?-Mr. R.
June 3, 2006**
Dear Mr. Protomanni,
I thank you for your message concerning the question of whether or not Archbishop Lefebvre signed the documents of Vatican II. Here is what I can say. He himself constantly and repeatedly stated that he signed all but two documents, but did not sign the two worst documents, namely those on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae) and the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et spes). When it was pointed out that his signature was on these documents, he responded that what he signed was the list of the bishops present for the vote, but not the documents themselves.

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais in his biography of the Archbishop maintains
that he had a memory lapse, and that he did in fact sign those documents, but afterwards forgot about it. Although this could be comprehensible after a 20 year interval, it does seem a little much that the Archbishop would have erred on such an important point.

Be that as it may, the Archbishop did not state that Vatican II was openly and explicitly heretical, but simply that it contained dangerous errors that favored heresy. It was for this reason that he was willing to accept Vatican II “interpreted in the light of Tradition” - which means excluding those errors that are contrary to the Church’s Magisterial teaching (such as religious liberty and ecumenism). Consequently, it would not have been in contradiction with his principles to have signed documents that could be “interpreted in the light of Tradition”. This is the explanation of his certainly having signed other documents that also contain errors, such as Dei Verbum, which contains serious errors on the sources of revelation and Lumen Gentium, which contains serious errors on the Church. Furthermore, the fact that he constantly and unchangingly stood up against the errors of Vatican II, from the very time of the Council, indicates that he cannot be incriminated for a moment in adhering to these errors or professing his Faith in an ambiguous manner. The question of whether or not he actually signed these documents is consequently a rather irrelevant historical detail.

Yours faithfully in Christ Our King and Mary our Queen,
**Father Peter R. Scott
ecclesia-militans.blogspot.com/2006/06/rev-father-peter-scott-on-archbishop.html

 

[Denise1957]

I noticed once that the great Archbishop Lefebvre’s signature is on the official documents of Vatican II. Now, I would not argue that V2 is heretical, but it is certainly puzzling how this super champion of tradition could

that he had a memory lapse, and that he did in fact sign those documents, but afterwards forgot about it. Although this could be comprehensible after a 20 year interval, it does seem a little much that the Archbishop would have erred on such an important point.**

Be that as it may, the Archbishop did not state that Vatican II was openly and explicitly heretical, but simply that it contained dangerous errors that favored heresy. It was for this reason that he was willing to accept Vatican II “interpreted in the light of Tradition” - which means excluding those errors that are contrary to the Church’s Magisterial teaching (such as religious liberty and ecumenism). Consequently, it would not have been in contradiction with his principles to have signed documents that could be “interpreted in the light of Tradition”. This is the explanation of his certainly having signed other documents that also contain errors, such as Dei Verbum, which contains serious errors on the sources of revelation and Lumen Gentium, which contains serious errors on the Church. Furthermore, the fact that he constantly and unchangingly stood up against the errors of Vatican II, from the very time of the Council, indicates that he cannot be incriminated for a moment in adhering to these errors or professing his Faith in an ambiguous manner. The question of whether or not he actually signed these documents is consequently a rather irrelevant historical detail.

Yours faithfully in Christ Our King and Mary our Queen,
**Father Peter R. Scott
ecclesia-militans.blogspot.com/2006/06/rev-father-peter-scott-on-archbishop.html

Though it was admitted in the above quote that the Archbishop did in fact sign all of the documents, I find the arguments for doing so to be weak. It is stated that…“The question of whether or not he actually signed these documents is consequently a rather irrelevant historical detail.”

The reason given for this is that the Archbishop was really only giving his signature to those things that could be interpreted according to tradition, while “excluding those errors that are contrary to the Church’s Magisterial teaching (such as religious liberty and ecumenism).”

So it still doesn’t make sense that the Archbishop would sign a document that he believed “contained dangerous errors that favored heresy.” I mean, he gave his signature to it, showing that he favored its promulgation, so he was, in essence, favoring the promulgation of what he believed to be errors. I don’t agree that this is irrelevant. Though maybe there’s another explanation that I don’t see or understand, as yet.

 

[Moore11]

Mrs_Sally:

The difference being in those items that the Bishop, Major Superior or even pastor has the choice before the faithful.

So the Bishop can say he will not allow an EF Mass because it means the priest will have to give up an OF Mass that is better attended. A pastor can say no altar girls in my parish. A superior can say this priest and not that one says the community Mass.

None of them can dictate how a person (even an 8yo) should receive communion. As a parent, you can certainly encourage your children to receive one way or the other (or standing or kneeling, etc.),but you can’t actually say “If you don’t receive in the hand/on the tongue, you may not receive at all.”

I absolutely CAN say that. I shouldn’t but I can.
If the child refuses to cooperate and are willfully disobedient exactly how would they be able to receive?
I think we are talking about 2 different types of authority here and that is why I wanted Brother to clarify. I CAN as a parent say, you may not receive communion a certain way. It is not binding in theological law except in the honor your father and mother way. BUT it is binding in my house and the Church actually wants it that way. However it is binding in the way of authority. And the Church recognizes that authority. An example would be the Church’s usual denial of the sacrament of marriage or holy orders to minors. Marriage is a great example of this because it requires the consent of the parents if the Child is a minor. And while I am certain the Church is not absolute in this deferment it is obvious they recognize the state and parents as legitimate authorities.
I can tell my child they cannot go to a friends house to play and I can tell a child that they are to receive a certain way.

Question for another thread?
Is the only legitimate reason for a bishop to deny the MP one of taking away from onther mass? The reason given to us was because it creates disharmony in the neighboring parishes.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

That is interesting. I have read the quote in numerous works old and new. I will research this. However, not everything is contained in Denzinger, so one would not expect it to be contained there necessarily. I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that are no authentic documents from the reign of Sixtus I - I think all documents from Popes before the 6th century were considered dubious by some writers at some time.

I find out again and again that things I took for granted were true, and were repeated in and out of print by people I respected, are simply false - like Archbishop Lefebvre’s signing of Dignitatis Humanae . When I read that supposed quote from Sixtus I immediately did a double-take, because I know there is so little material that survived from the Popes of that era. There really and truly isn’t any extant document or letter from him, and even that extract from the Liber needs to be taken with a few grains of salt, as in its original form the Liber gave only the names of the early Popes and the years of their reigns.

However, it does not affect my position which is based on an evaluation of all writings from the Church fathers on this issue in general.Regards

It would be worthwhile to compile all texts relating to COTT and CITH and reproduce them on this thread. But I doubt they will add up to a censure of CITH by the early Church.

Interestingly however, it could be argued that if the Pope declared that the “sacred vessels” were to be touched only by the ministers then we could argue that this applies even more so to the sacred species contained therein which make these vessels so important.Regards

Not really. All one can argue is that functions that are the proper domain of liturgical ministers, like handling the sacred vessels, must not be performed by just anybody. One thing the early Church always had was a hierarchy and exclusivity in her liturgical functions. Women, for example, never gave out Communion in church .

 

[thewanderer]

Stylites:

It makes perfect sense to me. Being the primary teachers of the faith, parents have a responsibility to their children to teach them what the Church teaches and not one’s own opinions or preferences as if they are the Law.

I’ve got to admit, I’m not quite seeing it either. I mean, I understand that the parent must explain the laws of the Church as they actually exist, and not distort them. Obviously it would be wrong for a parent to teach their child that it is immoral to receive in the hand or that the Church doesn’t allow such a thing. What I don’t quite understand is why the parent doesn’t have the authority to say, "While the Church allows both of these things, I am putting you under obedience, as my child who must obey and respect me, to receive via hand/tongue (whichever the parent chooses). Isn’t it true that a child is supposed to obey their parents unless their parents are telling them to sin? I mean, isn’t that the way authority works? I think Moore11’s idea to start a new thread is a good one, because this isn’t quite on topic, but it is an interesting question.

 

[Dee_S]

I find out again and again that things I took for granted were true, and were repeated in and out of print by people I respected, are simply false - like Archbishop Lefebvre’s signing of Dignitatis Humanae .

:knight2:The SSPX feel that they were fighting for a just cause, saving the Church from ‘auto-demolition’ by the Modernists, and it could be that to them ‘the end justified the means’

When I read that supposed quote from Sixtus I immediately did a double-take, because I know there is so little material that survived from the Popes of that era. There really and truly isn’t any extant document or letter from him, and even that extract from the Liber needs to be taken with a few grains of salt, as in its original form the Liber gave only the names of the early Popes and the years of their reigns.

The internet is inundated with sites (almost exclusively Traditional) quoting Pope Sixtus I (2nd cent) forbidding Communion in the hand. Thank you for pointing out these authorative books and facts that prove he never said anything of the kind!

 

[Thomas_Casey]

All of the parenting posts are now here

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Dee S;9604605:knight2::

The SSPX feel that they were fighting for a just cause, saving the Church from ‘auto-demolition’ by the Modernists, and it could be that to them ‘the end justified the means’

No, I don’t think so. An misapprehension can spread easily with no bad will involved, as was the case of the signature. I think most people who take a stand about something are sincere about it. People also tend to believe other people they respect: children their parents, parishioners their priest, and so on. If one is part of a group or movement that is going in a particular direction, one absorbs a whole host of ground assumptions in perfectly good faith. This doesn’t just apply to the SSPX.

The internet is inundated with sites (almost exclusively Traditional) quoting Pope Sixtus I (2nd cent) forbidding Communion in the hand. Thank you for pointing out these authorative books and facts that prove he never said anything of the kind!

You’re welcome!:tiphat:

 

[Dee_S]

Bishop Williamson has never retracted his unacceptable position on the Holocaust and has had to remain ‘underground’ due to a gag order by Bishop Fellay, who also removed him from his episcopal duties until he did so.

In defiance of this, Bishop Williamson continued sending out his Eleison Comments in secret to those lay SSPX parishioners who receive & promote them to others, against the express wishes of the Superior General.

This letter of Sept 2011 reveals the nature of the (public) conflict which is reaching a head right at this moment.
Letter from Bishop Fellay to Bishop Williamson
23 September, 2011
Your Excellency,

I would be happy to invite you to the SSPX Superiors’ meeting to be held in Albano early in October, as the nature and composition of the meeting has been somewhat changed because of current events. I would also be happy to send you a text from Rome to which they want a reply. However, I find myself obliged to attach conditions to each of these points.

Firstly, as to the text, I ask of you an oath in writing that you will communicate to nobody either the text or its content. Too often in the past you have lacked discretion, so I am obliged to submit you to a procedure of this kind, which I am not happy to have to do.

Secondly, as to the meeting in Albano, I can only invite you to attend insofar as you stop publishing Eleison Comments. You have already been given the reason several times, as you have been given the order to stop. You considered that for the sake of the preaching and defence of the Faith you needed pay no attention, on the pretext that nobody had the right to stop a bishop from fulfilling his duty to preach and defend the Faith. But such preaching and defence of the Faith are inserted in concrete circumstances which may well call for superiors to intervene. Besides, no other bishop of the SSPX publishes a circular letter and considers himself thereby hindered from expressing himself.

Moreover the consequences of your attitude are harmful to the SSPX: you ooze distrust towards SSPX headquarters and the Superior General. You cannot help yourself communicating this feeling to those around you. No revolution could do a better job of undermining authority… and this you do in the name of a supposed possible betrayal on the part of the Superior General… That is very serious.

Especially when a certain number of indications show that your action is not confined to theory:

1 To an Argentinian priest from the Novus Ordo who asks for your advice, you recommend that he should not join the SSPX.

2 To an American layman you write that the apostasy of the mainstream Church is farther advanced than that of the SSPX. How can you write such things, false and unjust, against the Society of which you are still a member?

3 There exists in Anglo-saxon circles a network of infiltrators of the SSPX preparing a break-away. You are put forward as the head of this movement, you are the friend of its leaders and you are playing their game.

And you talk to us of being double tongued! As for the unity of the SSPX, the one most putting it in danger is yourself, your Excellency! Always in the name of defense of the Faith. In such a grave moment as the confrontation now taking place between ourselves and the Holy See, the outcome of which will be decisive for our own future and not without consequences for the entire Church, I ask you then, once more, to remain silent until further orders. If you were to refuse to heed this directive, it would mean both your not being invited to the Albano meeting and the starting of the canonical procedure leading to exclusion from the SSPX. So I await your reply.

All of this is most sad, and it has nothing to do with the confrontation just mentioned, whatever you may think. The loss of one of its bishops is one of the worst things that could happen to the SSPX. It depends entirely on you to spare it such a misfortune. Do believe, your Excellency, in my fervent prayers to the Sacred Heart of Jesus,
BpF.
. . .the warfare now is out in the open, no longer any pretence or subterfuge. .

“Bishop Fellay and his gang…good riddance to bad rubbish” says Bishop Williamson
youtube.com/watch?v=BIWQL…feature=relmfu

“Bishop Fellay is starting to weasel around” Bishop Williamson accuses Bishop Fellay of “weaselling around” on Religious Liberty
youtube.com/watch?v=ZT03T…feature=relmfu

“Get Rid of Bishop Fellay” Bishop Williamson calls for Bishop Fellay to be deposed at the General Chapter.
youtube.com/watch?v=zK7XA…feature=relmfu

BW has a certain following because of his attractive show-biz type of personality and the entertaining theatrics that accompany almost everything he says.:takeoff:

Those who remain loyal to him (mostly in secret) appear to accept his stubbornly held Holocaust denial, and justify his disobedience to His Superior Bishop Fellay, convinced that he is betraying the ‘remnant’ fighting the good fight.

A split is sure to take place at the time of the SSPX reply to Rome. IMO it will separate the wheat from the chaff.

.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

But the Rev. Brain Harrison, author of the Culture Wars piece, claims that the Archbishop was prepared to share in the official promulgation of the documents.

Exactly. Having reread Dignitatis Humanae it is clear to me that it is reconcilable with previous teaching on the subject, nonetheless one has to sit down and do the reconciling as certain things - like the fact that proponents of false religions do not have the right to promote their errors amongst Catholics - are not immediately obvious from a first reading. We are going to need authoritative clarifications of these texts, just as the Extra Ecclesia nulla salus needed clarification. One good thing the SSPX is bringing to the party is the impetus for these clarifications.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Sort of on the subject, I have just finished rereading Sacrosanctum Concilium. Any constructive threads already around on the extent to which the New Mass corresponds or does not correspond to the directives of this Council document? Someone got away with murder.