SSPX(not a banned topic--charity in discourse)

[Vitae]

Mind you, this is not a banned topic, and we should all remember to treat each other charitably, but also remember that truth is important too, so a balanced blend should be ideal, perhaps.

With the recent meeting between the Pope and Bishop Fellay of the SSPX(cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=39281), I thought it appropriate to open up a discussion of the much maligned and ridiculed SSPX. In the spirit of charity, I think we owe it to ourselves to dive into this topic a bit so that we may better understand our brothers and sisters who attend SSPX chapels.

Let me open the discussion by posing the question: Is the S.S.P.X. schismatic in the same sense as the Eastern Orthodox? I would answer in the neagative on account of the fact that I see nothing heterodox in their holding to Catholic Tradition. They simply refuse to follow the “new way” of things, which I think is very wise these days. Let us note carefully the distinction between schism and excommunication when contemplating this topic. Arcbishop Lefebvre’s supposed disobedience possibly earned him excommunication but never schism for he never departed in his personal belief from any tenet of the Catholic Faith. What do you all think?

Let us try to stay on one topic at a time with this please. Thanks and take care.

 

[SummaTheo]

Most (not sure of the percentage) believe that Novus Ordo in invalid which is heresy.

 

[jasonb82abn]

Jmj

Vitae, I’m curious… at the time I am writing this, you have 3 posts (total.) Yet your posts seem to have the “tone” of a veteran. I (personally) am pretty new to CA forums – or forums in general! And I think my posts reflect that. I guess what I’m getting at is… did you have a former name that you’re trying to distance yourself from?

Sorry for straying from your topic! But in light of what you’re opening up for discussion, knowing a little more about your background might be helpful – do you know what I’m saying? Feel free to disregard (or better still… correct me) if my thoughts are completely erroneous! Thank you for your time and attention.

May the Lord be with you!

Jason

 

[jimmy]

SummaTheo:

Most (not sure of the percentage) believe that Novus Ordo in invalid which is heresy.

That is not heresy. Heresy would be to change a doctrine. They have change no doctrines.

 

[Austin_CCD]

May I ask what point you are trying to make by differentiating between SPXX and the Eastern Orthodox?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Vitae:

Is the S.S.P.X. schismatic in the same sense as the Eastern Orthodox?

I’d say no, because they claim to submit to the Roman Pontiff as their Supreme pastor, whereas the Eastern Orthdoox do not.

This is an important distinction, it seems, from a canon law perspective. Eastern Orthodox are not bound by ecclesiastical law of the Catholic Church, whereas the SSPX are.

 

[Lorarose]

They can claim all they want that they submit to the pope, but in reality - they do not.

A good read on the topic…

More Catholic Than the Pope by Patrick Madrid.

This book goes into a detailed step by step chronological account of what happened.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

jimmy:

That is not heresy. Heresy would be to change a doctrine. They have change no doctrines.

Strictly speaking, heresy is “the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.” While I believe SSPX reject certain teachings of the Church, I don’t know that they officially deny Catholic dogmas, properly so-called.

They do however assert error contrary to Catholic doctrine, such as contrary to the condemnation of Pius IV, and as such have “changed doctrine” in that sense. See here:

How are the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in error?
itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2005/10/how-are-society-of-st-pius-x-sspx-in.html

 

[bear06]

Let me open the discussion by posing the question: Is the S.S.P.X. schismatic in the same sense as the Eastern Orthodox? I would answer in the neagative on account of the fact that I see nothing heterodox in their holding to Catholic Tradition. They simply refuse to follow the “new way” of things, which I think is very wise these days. Let us note carefully the distinction between schism and excommunication when contemplating this topic. Arcbishop Lefebvre’s supposed disobedience possibly earned him excommunication but never schism for he never departed in his personal belief from any tenet of the Catholic Faith. What do you all think?

I think that to say that they simply refuse to follow the “new way” of doing things is a little too, well, simplistic He was allowed to do it “the old way” but he refused to sign the accord. That said, I think you could say that Lefebvre and the E.O. performed different schismatic acts but it all comes down to the same thing - refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff.

As far as Lefebvre not earning schism…Ecclesia Dei, written by the Pope who is the convening judge in these matters, says otherwise. Schism isn’t about departing “in his personal belief from any tenent of the Catholic Faith”. It’s about refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

1. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)

1. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, “comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.(5)

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

So, in light of Ecclesia Dei and the proper definition of schism, why would you still say that Lefebvre wasn’t in schism and excommunicated?

 

[jimmy]

itsjustdave1988:

Strictly speaking, heresy is “the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.” While I believe SSPX reject certain teachings of the Church, I don’t know that they officially deny Catholic dogmas, properly so-called.

They do however assert error contrary to Catholic doctrine, such as contrary to the condemnation of Pius IV, and as such have “changed doctrine” in that sense. See here:

How are the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in error?
itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2005/10/how-are-society-of-st-pius-x-sspx-in.html

I would agree that they are in error, but to say they are heretics would be false. They have not denied any dogmas of the Church. Paul VI and his successors did not define any new doctrines or dogmas and did not change any doctrines or dogmas. They did change the mass, which the SSPX claims to be invalid atleast the current English translation. They are in error here because to claim that the Liturgy of the Church is invalid is the same as to claim that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church. They are in serious error here because if the gates of hell have prevailed then the Church was not the Church and they are consequently heretics. Either they have simply made an error that could lead to heresy like the SSPV or they are definately heretics.

 

[Vitae]

Ok, great to see some people engage this topic and charitably. Kudos!

Lat me make a point by point response(I have to split this up into two posts). Firstly, to jason who said:

jasonb82abn:

Jmj

Vitae, I’m curious… at the time I am writing this, you have 3 posts (total.) Yet your posts seem to have the “tone” of a veteran. I (personally) am pretty new to CA forums – or forums in general! And I think my posts reflect that. I guess what I’m getting at is… did you have a former name that you’re trying to distance yourself from?

Sorry for straying from your topic! But in light of what you’re opening up for discussion, knowing a little more about your background might be helpful – do you know what I’m saying? Feel free to disregard (or better still… correct me) if my thoughts are completely erroneous! Thank you for your time and attention.

May the Lord be with you!

Jason

I answer: Bascially, I am a Protestant convert to the Church, and I attend only the Traditional Roman Mass. Indeed, as some may suspect, I am in the SSPX. I think the topic is very relevant, and I’m glad that we can approach it in a spirit of charity and with the ultimate end of obtaining truth.

1. To SummaTheo who said:

Most (not sure of the percentage) believe that Novus Ordo in invalid which is heresy.

To be fair to the official position of the SSPX on the matter, let me quote from one SSPX article on the matter entitled Why Should Catholics Have Nothing to do with The Novus Ordo Missae?(sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novusordo.htm ):
"D. THIS BEING SO, CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE IS INVALID?

This does not necessarily follow from the above defects, as serious as they might be, for only three things are required for validity (presupposing a validly ordained priest), proper: matter, form, and intention. However, the celebrant must intend to do what the Church does. The Novus Ordo Missae will no longer in and of itself guarantee that the celebrant has this intention. That will depend on his personal faith (generally unknown to those assisting, but more and more doubtful as the crisis in the Church is prolonged).Therefore, these Masses can be of doubtful validity, and more so with time.The words of consecration, especially of the wine, have been tampered with. Has the “substance of the sacrament” (cf., Pope Pius XII quoted in PRINCIPLE 5) been respected? This is even more of a problem in Masses in the vernacular, where pro multis (for many) has been deliberately mistranslated as “for all”. While we should assume that despite this change the consecration is still valid, nevertheless this does add to the doubt."

Let me also refer everyone to the infamour letter from two Cardinals(Ottaviani and Bacci) sent to Paul VI regarding the Novus Ordo; it is commonly called The Ottaviani Intervention and can be found by Clicking Here

1. To AustinCCD who wrote:

May I ask what point you are trying to make by differentiating between SPXX and the Eastern Orthodox?

I answer: Because it seems that the Eastern Orthodox(known schismatics) get much more kinder treatment than do the SSPX(arguable as to being in schism) by Rome, et al. This is truly sad as the SSPX is within Holy Mother Church.

Don’t take it from me, though, let us see what Cardinal Edward Cassidy, President of the Pontififcal Council for Christian Unity said on May 3, 1994 to an inquiry about the SSPX:

“Dear Mr. X…Regarding you inquiry(March 25, 1994), I would point out at once that the Directory of Ecumenism is not concerned with the Society of Saint Pius X. The situation of the memebers of this Society 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 administrered by the priests of the Society are valid. The Bishops are validly, but not lawfully, consecrated…I hope this answers your letter satisfactorily. Yours sincerely in the Lord, Edward Cardinal Cassidy–President”(emphasis added).

Seems to me to end the debate as to whether the SSPX is schismatic.

 

[Vitae]

Continuing on…(and I’ll have to have one more part after this)

1. To bear06 who said:

So, in light of Ecclesia Dei and the proper definition of schism, why would you still say that Lefebvre wasn’t in schism and excommunicated?

I answer: The Pope failed to mention and prove how they incurred schism. I need to go on when one answer to this question can be found by Clicking Here

1. To jimmy who said:

Paul VI and his successors did not define any new doctrines or dogmas and did not change any doctrines or dogmas. They did change the mass, which the SSPX claims to be invalid atleast the current English translation. They are in error here because to claim that the Liturgy of the Church is invalid is the same as to claim that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church.

I answer: In addition to Paul VI and his successors not putting forth any new infallible dogma, I would also remind people that neither did Vatican II. In fact, Vatican II wasn’t infallible at all, or an exercise of the Church’s Extraordinary Teaching Magisterium and so we can critique it in the light of Tradition.

Also, I have pointed out above that the SSPX does not hold that the English version of the Novus Ordo is invalid, but rather of doubtful validity. Even if they did claim the English was invalid, this would not mean that the gates of hell prevailed, but rather that there was a sever mistranslation in the infallibly guarded Canon of the Mass. Even if the Latin translation of the Novus Orod were invalid, again, this would not mean hell had triumphed, because the Traditional Roman Mass is still in force(never abrogated) and thus the Mass of the ages would still be with Holy Mother Church. The SSPX would point out the many striking departures of the Novus Orod, per se, from Catholic Tradition, and it isn’t only the SSPX pointing these things out(cf. The Ottaviani Intervention mentioned above).

In conclusion:

I think the answer to this first question of: “Is the S.S.P.X. schismatic in the same sense as the Eastern Orthodox?” has been shown to be NO, not only from us here, but from Church officials themesleves. Yes, Pope John Paul II was wrong in his encyclical claiming a “…schismatic act…” Some final quotes from Church officials regarding the SSPX are:

Count Neri Caponi, C.Cn.L., LL.D(retired Professor of Canon Law at the University of Florence, well-known in the Vatican legal circles and accredited to argue cases before Rome’s highest juridical body, the Apostolic Signatura) says that the act of consecrating a bishop without Papal permission ins’t a schismatic act: “He must do something more. For instance, had he set up a hierarchy of his own, then it would have been a schismatic act. The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre simply said: ‘I am creating bishops in order that my priestly order can continue. They do not take the place of other bishops. I am not creating a parallel church.’ Therefore this act was not, per se, schismatic…”(Latin Mass Magazine, May-June 1993).

Professor Geringer(Canon Lawyer at the University of Munich): “With the episcopal consecrations, Arcbishop Lefebvre was by no means creating a schism.”

Fr. Gerald Murray(of the Archdiocese of New York, for his Canon Law doctorate, received license in Canon Law at Rome’s famous Gregorian University) said in his thesis: "They’re not excommunicated as schismatics, as far as I can see, because the Vatican has never said they are…I come to the conclusion that canonically speaking, he’s not guilty of a schismatic act punishable by canon law(Latin Mass Magaizine, August 1995).

Need I continue?

 

[Vitae]

Last part…

New question: Does one(clergy or layman) need permision from a Bishop to say/attend(respectively) the Traditional Roman Mass?

I answer: Nope.

Firstly, let us remember what Carindal Alfons Stickler(former Prefect of the Vatican Archives and Library) said: “Pope John Paul II, in 1986, asked a commission of nine cardinals two questions. Firstly, did Pope Paul VI, or any other competent authority, legally forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine[Latin] Mas in the present day? ** The answer given by eight of the cardinals in '86 was that, no, the Mass of Saint Pius V has never been suppressed. I can say this, I was one of the cardinals.** There as another question, very interesting. ‘Can any bishop forbid any priest in good standing from celebrating a Tridentine Mass again?’ The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. We have no official prohibition and I think that the Pope would never establish an offiifical prohibition…because of the words of Pius V, who said this was a Mass forever”(Latin Mass Magazine, May 5, 1995).

Secondly, please read Michael Davies’ The Legal Status of the Tridentine Mass for further proof.

It seems clear to me, what do you all think?

Take care.

 

[JOHNYJ]

They never demonstrate the courage of their so called convictions. Until recently we had an SSPX chapel in my state. They always claimed to be Catholic ( which they are not ) they never admitted they were not in Communion with the Pope.They sure never told people that attended their chapel that they were under sentence of Excommunication !
I have seen SSPX supporters say Jesus is not present in the New Mass, that is heresy!
Also some of them are starting to deny the legitimacy of every Pope since Pius XII. That is heresy !

 

[bear06]

Oh boy, I can see this will take much time. I’ll see if I can get Mr. O over here to answer because most of the responses are on the tip of his keyboard where I will have to look.

Let me also refer everyone to the infamour letter from two Cardinals(Ottaviani and Bacci) sent to Paul VI regarding the Novus Ordo; it is commonly called The Ottaviani Intervention and can be found by Clicking Here

You may or may not have heard that the Ottaviani intervention was written before the promulgation of the Pauline Mass. Besides this, you may or may not know that Cardkinal Ottaviani also sent a follow up letter where he stated:

"I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)

I answer: Because it seems that the Eastern Orthodox(known schismatics) get much more kinder treatment than do the SSPX(arguable as to being in schism) by Rome, et al. This is truly sad as the SSPX is within Holy Mother Church.

The Chuch has continually met with the SSPX as well as the EO in attempts to reunify both parties.

Don’t take it from me

Don’t take what from you? Sorry, I’m a little unclear as to what you are speaking of here. Thanks.

Seems to me to end the debate as to whether the SSPX is schismatic.

How so? Are you forgetting Ecclesia Dei and the many letters from different Congregations and Ecclesia Dei who say they are in schism? Besides that, it is a well known fact that people have tried to track down a copy of this letter and have been unable to do so. It’s a very similar situation to the infamous letter sent to Msgr. Perl regarding the SSPX and whether or not their masses fulfill Sunday obligation.

 

[bear06]

1. To bear06 who said:

I answer: The Pope failed to mention and prove how they incurred schism. I need to go on when one answer to this question can be found by

My friend, you might want to re-read Ecclesia Dei:

1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the **unlawful episcopal ordination ** conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.(1)

3**. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff ** in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. **Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(**3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)

Once again, schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff. The Pope told Lefebvre not to do it, and he did. Are you saying that he is submitting in this area? Just because some say they submit to the Roman Pontiff doesn’t mean they do. Lefebvre obviously never studied the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus. ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6

In fact, Vatican II wasn’t infallible at all,

So the Church never addressed any issues of Faith and Morals?

(cf. The Ottaviani Intervention mentioned above).

Once again, I refer you to the follow up statements of Cardinal Ottaviani.

Yes, Pope John Paul II was wrong in his encyclical claiming a “…schismatic act…” Some final quotes from Church officials regarding the SSPX are:

I suggest you read this: sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id8.html

Count Neri Caponi, C.Cn.L., LL.D(retired Professor of Canon Law at the University of Florence, well-known in the Vatican legal circles and accredited to argue cases before Rome’s highest juridical body, the Apostolic Signatura) says that the act of consecrating a bishop without Papal permission ins’t a schismatic act:"

Professor Geringer(Canon Lawyer at the University of Munich): “With the episcopal consecrations, Arcbishop Lefebvre was by no means creating a schism.”

Fr. Gerald Murray(of the Archdiocese of New York, for his Canon Law doctorate, received license in Canon Law at Rome’s famous Gregorian University) said in his thesis:

The piece you got these quotes from is very deceptive. It is full of half-truth or things quite taken out of context. To read about these quotes of Caponi, Geringer, Murray go here:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise8.html

Need I continue?

Fr. Murray is quite ticked at the misquoting of his comments!

If you do continue, which I’d welcome, I’d ask that you cite your sources and try and find pieces where the quotes are in context. I’m not blaming you for these deceptive articles but I would caution you not to get all of your information from the SSPX, Traditio, etc.

 

[bear06]

It seems clear to me, what do you all think?

Take care.

Once again, I refer you to this which deals with all of your examples:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise8.html

 

[Vitae]

Part 1 of 2

You may or may not have heard that the Ottaviani intervention was written before the promulgation of the Pauline Mass. Besides this, you may or may not know that Cardkinal Ottaviani also sent a follow up letter where he stated:

Quote:
"I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)

I answer: (Throughout this reply I will be paraphrasing and quoting from Michael Davies’ impeccable research into this matter via his two articles: The Ottaviani Intervention and The Ottaviani Intervention: Conclusion: The CUF Connection) The New Mass was promulgated in Missale Romanum on April 3, 1969. The critique(Ottaviani Intervention) was read in June of '69 and sent in September of '69. The Mass they critiqued was indeed the standard edition of the New Mass as well as its accompanying GIRM. Some confuse the GIRM and Mass by saying that the March 26, 1970 2nd edition of the GIRM was the standard edition of the Mass and therefore The Ottaviani Intervention was not a critique of the standard New Mass. This is obviously false as the Missal and GIRM are not the same thing and thus The Ottaviani Intervention was a critique of the standard edition of the New Mass. The two Cardinals likely helped bring about the revised GIRM, however, but the Mass they critiqued continued on

As to the Cardinal’s supposed letter, it has been well-established that since he was basically blind at the time he was tricked into signing the letter. Let us dive into this:

“These allegations were based upon a letter which it was claimed that Cardinal Ottaviani had sent to a French priest, Dom Lafond, on 17 February 1970. The background to this letter is as follows. A defense of the NOM entitled Note Doctrinale sur le nouvel Ordo Missae was published as a supplement to the journal Defense du Foyer, No. Ill, of February 1970. The author, or principal author, was Dom Gerard Lafond, founder of and chaplain to a new order of chivalry named the Chevaliers de Notre Dame (Knights of Our Lady), which was still awaiting full Vatican recognition. Among the claims made in the Note Doctrinale were the following: that Cardinal Ottaviani had seen and approved the texts of the NOM (p. 36); that Cardinal Ottaviani was actually the author of certain passages and that others had been adopted at his request; that it was precisely the passages composed by Cardinal Ottaviani which had been attacked in the Critical Study; that Cardinal Ottaviani had not approved the Critical Study; and that it was probable that its contents had been withheld from him”

“If there is one lesson which history teaches us it is that truth is indeed great and has a habit of prevailing. In this instance it has prevailed through the instrumentality of Jean Madiran, the editor of Itinéraires. It is probable that only a few readers will have heard of Itinéraires or its editor, and so a little supplementary information is necessary to insure that the testimony of Jean Madiran is evaluated at its true worth. Itineraries is a French traditionalist journal which appears monthly, it can be up to 350 pages long, and costs twenty dollars an issue. It is certainly the most scholarly traditionalist journal appearing anywhere in the world; there is nothing comparable in English-speaking countries at least. Jean Madiran, like the paper he edits, is a man with no equivalent in English-speaking countries. His writing is on such a level in its theological, polemical, and literary aspects that there is no one in the English-speaking world to whom we can compare him.”

“At this time Cardinal Ottaviani was almost totally blind and had to rely on the advice of his secretary with regard to the documents he signed. Jean Madiran had no hesitation in claiming that Msgr. Agustoni had tricked the Cardinal into signing the letter and accused him of a public felony—challenging Msgr. Agustoni to contest this charge in the ecclesiastical courts if he disputed it. Msgr. Agustoni did not accept the challenge and soon afterwards relinquished his position as Cardinal Ottaviani’s secretary.”

 

[Vitae]

Part 2 of 2

Thus, to sum: 1) Cardinal Ottaviani and Bacci did critque the official New Mass; 2) It was publicly asserted that Cardinal Ottaviani had been tricked by his secretary, Msgr. Agustoni,into signing a letter that altered his(iC. Ottaviani’s) views. The Msgr. was publically challenged to prove this wrong. 3) Msgr. Agustoni did not accept the challenge and resigned as the Cardinal’s Secretary.

Folks, the truth is clear and more details can be found by reading the above two articles.

This is all I have time for now. Take care.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Vitae,

You’ve quoted from many people. I would ask that you consider whether the dissension the SSPX have with the Roman Pontiff is in accord with what Pope St. Pius X taught:

“If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the precise limits to which this duty of obedience extends… one does not seek to restrict the domain within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope.**” (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November against dissenting priests, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)