Too many Sympathetic for SSPX

[curlycool89]

However, he was not deaf. He could hear the drums in the distance. The world was going to change and his brothers would have to change with it or die out. He had to come up with a way to allow them room to change and at the same time, keep them faithful to the original vision that the Lord had given him. That’s when he writes his Testament, a few months before he dies.

I think this may be the most telling part. St. Francis knew that things would change in the future, so he covered what he could, and gave them a general direction for everything else.

If we were to write a Rule today, it would be an all-encompassing monstrosity: 12,000 pages, a million paragraphs, and what to do in any conceivable situation including zombie apocalypses, green lizards from space invading, what to do if invited onto the Oprah show, what your responsibilities are if you are suddenly time travelled back to the 8th century, and of course a strong exhortation that none of this can ever be changed or adapted ever.

We don’t like to leave things open ended these days because we can’t control open-endedness. We almost forget sometimes to leave room for God to work, and I’m sure He’s got some cool things planned for us this side of the Second Coming. We shouldn’t be so afraid of the future. So the question is: why are we?

The SSPX can do the same. It can preserve its charism and adapt to challenges at the same time, because Christ is always present in the Church and grace never stops flowing. There are times when it feels like a drip instead of a flow, but it’s grace nonetheless. This does not mean that it will be a walk through the park. It simply means that you will make it.

And let us never forget that.

Let us never forget that the War is already won, that Christ has already won. All that’s left are the little the skirmishes; they must be fought, but nothing will be so great as that which is already won.

 

[JReducation]

JReducation;9294353:

Thanks a lot for the time and response but as usual my understanding is as cloudy as when we began.

My misunderstanding must be more fundamental and having to do with what natural and divine law is. Now I always thought that it was a fundamental part of the natural law that a person had to always obtain consent from the people who execute your will, for one should treat humans humanly in so much as they are human and yet since humans are rational it follows that one should treat people rationally. And to treat people rationally is to meet their minds in a rational way -by using information to gain their consent.

Also, I thought that the natural law entailed that a person listen to as much evidence as he practically could before acting, for otherwise he would be foolhardy. And yet, how does the pope ignore information w/o foolhardiness?

I see more clearly what you’re asking.

The answer is not so simple to understand . . . just simple to state.

The pope executes the law using the same way of thinking as God uses. The law says, “you shall not ordain bishops without the permission of the pope. If you do, you will cut yourself off from the Church (excommunication).” There is nothing more that God or the pope need to say here. If you ordain without permission, the consequences are excommunication.

The pope does not look at any evidence other than one, “Where is your permission to ordain bishops?” If you can’t present that evidence, then you suffer the consequences of the law.

The good bishop presents another law. “There is a state of emergency and even if it only exists my imagination, as long as I honestly believe that there is a state of emergency, I cannot be punished for this.”

The pope comes back again trying to look at the law through God’s eyes. Here is what he sees.

We have discussed this.
You have been given options
We made an agreement.
You made some promises.
You violated that agreement and broke those promises
God gives us law to protect the innocent
You were warned.
You broke the law.
You’re not innocent

Therefore, the law cannot be applied to you.

It’s a very effective system of law, which has actually been the model for many countries and it is the oldest legal system in existence. It works and survives, because it’s so concrete and there is no room for appeal beyond the pope. The pope’s decisions can only be appealed if he agrees to hear the appeal. He does not have to do so, just as God does not have to hear our appeals. At some point, even God says, “The conversation is over.”

We can disagree with the law. We can disagree with how the pope is applying it. But we can do nothing about it. He has absolute and total freedom to bind and unbind.

It’s genius.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

I think, for those who disagree with the Archbishop, this is a very charitable position to take.

Thanks again, Brother JR, that despite your disagreement with the Archbishop and the position of the society, you are charitable in your response.

• PAX

You call it charitable, I call Holy Poverty. You can’t be poor if you go around judging other people’s consciences. Only gods can do that. I’ve never seen a poor god, not even in Greek mythology.

I always tell my brothers, “The truly poor man is never the judge, but very often he’s the accused. Read your Gospels. If we are to be as poor as Francis said we should be, we must be willing to surrender the bench.”

I think this may be the most telling part. St. Francis knew that things would change in the future, so he covered what he could, and gave them a general direction for everything else.

It’s called confidence. “I have done my part.” He shows confidence in himself.

“you must do yours.” He shows confidence in his sons.

“you must obey the Church and my successors”. He shows confidence in grace.

If we were to write a Rule today, it would be an all-encompassing monstrosity: 12,000 pages, a million paragraphs, and what to do in any conceivable situation including zombie apocalypses, green lizards from space invading, what to do if invited onto the Oprah show, what your responsibilities are if you are suddenly time travelled back to the 8th century, and of course a strong exhortation that none of this can ever be changed or adapted ever.

You had me laughing so hard that I awoke the brother in the next room.

We don’t like to leave things open ended these days because we can’t control open-endedness. We almost forget sometimes to leave room for God to work, and I’m sure He’s got some cool things planned for us this side of the Second Coming. We shouldn’t be so afraid of the future. So the question is: why are we?

Ahhh yes, that ever popular word: control. God forbid that we not be in control.

Isn’t that the Original Sin?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

I had seen this before and had never understood how the fallout happened. According to this document the SSPX was given some privileges that no other community has, not even Opus Dei or the Jesuits, which are an exception to almost every rule in the book. I don’t mean that as a complaint. I love them both. I was educated by Opus Dei and worked the the SJ.

The SSPX

1. 
   *]Was elevated to a society of apostolic life, which gave them autonomy from the local bishops except in matters of faculties. Societies of apostolic life govern themselves.
   
   *]With one stroke of the pen, the pope gave them pontifical right, which takes decades to get. This right protects them for bishops, laity and civil governments. They answer to the pope.
   
   *]They were given permission to have cooperator brothers, which is only common to congregations.
   
   *]They were granted permission to continue with the congregation of sisters and the sisters were elevated to an institute of consecrated life of Pontifical Right, which took Mother Teresa 20 years to get. She had many more sisters.
   
   *]All of their houses were grandfathered in. The only had to negotiate new houses with the diocesan bishops. Every religious community, congregation and secular order has to do that.
   
   *]They had permission to train their own priests and authorize their ordination through dimissorial letters. Normally, only religious superiors have that kind of power. The superior general of the SSPX was not a religious.
   
   *]The could accept oblates. That’s usually reserved only for Benedictines.
   
   *]They could have a third order. That’s only allowed to religious communities.
   
   *]They were given permission to consecrate one bishop.
   
   *]Rome was going to heal all of the marriages that the SSPX had witnessed.
   
   What soured the milk?
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br.JR, FFV

1. 
   Bump.

 

[fakename]

fakename;9295273:

I see more clearly what you’re asking.

The answer is not so simple to understand . . . just simple to state.

The pope executes the law using the same way of thinking as God uses. The law says, “you shall not ordain bishops without the permission of the pope. If you do, you will cut yourself off from the Church (excommunication).” There is nothing more that God or the pope need to say here. If you ordain without permission, the consequences are excommunication.

The pope does not look at any evidence other than one, “Where is your permission to ordain bishops?” If you can’t present that evidence, then you suffer the consequences of the law.

The good bishop presents another law. “There is a state of emergency and even if it only exists my imagination, as long as I honestly believe that there is a state of emergency, I cannot be punished for this.”

The pope comes back again trying to look at the law through God’s eyes. Here is what he sees.

We have discussed this.
You have been given options
We made an agreement.
You made some promises.
You violated that agreement and broke those promises
God gives us law to protect the innocent
You were warned.
You broke the law.
You’re not innocent

Therefore, the law cannot be applied to you.

It’s a very effective system of law, which has actually been the model for many countries and it is the oldest legal system in existence. It works and survives, because it’s so concrete and there is no room for appeal beyond the pope. The pope’s decisions can only be appealed if he agrees to hear the appeal. He does not have to do so, just as God does not have to hear our appeals. At some point, even God says, “The conversation is over.”

We can disagree with the law. We can disagree with how the pope is applying it. But we can do nothing about it. He has absolute and total freedom to bind and unbind.

It’s genius.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Then I’ll just have to study more canon law stuff. Clearly my theory of what is necessary evidence and such is too broad.

But how can people be allowed to disagree with the law if the law was essentially good and pope’s laws are all essentially good?

And canon law is not all infallible if you meant to imply that. For instance, our own apologetics team said it wasn’t. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=253404

 

[numealinesimpet]

Bro JR, I think I accept all you say in the last posting. The point, however, is that if the pope makes a ruling that is against Divine Law, that ruling is invalid, null and void. This was, in my understanding, the position taken by the SSPX regarding certain procedures taken with regard to the pre-Vatican II practices, and the SSPX in particular. The Church has, I think, definitely moved beyond this point now, insofar as Pope Benedict has affirmed that the 1962 Missal (the ‘Tridentine’ Missal in the 1962 revision) had never been abrogated; and that the decree of excommunication of the SSPX bishops has been lifted.

 

[numealinesimpet]

It has been noted on this thread that some ‘trads’ get hot under the collar when their position is challenged. Well, that is certainly not a phenomenon restricted to the Trads. There have been those who get hot under the collar when the Trads raise the topic of S. Athanasius. I maintain that they raise it because it raises certain issues that are very much relevant to the present case. pnewton, you did not get hot under the collar in the last posting on this topic, but you suggested that the Trads beg the question by assuming that the case of Athanasius has some bearing on the SSPX case, which you do not accept. Now ‘begging the question’ means ‘assuming what you are supposed to prove’. For my part, I do not start with the assumption that the Athanasius case supports the SSPX situation. I look at the historical record and affirm that there are certain very general principles which, once established, do have a bearing on the case. I do not think, for example, that it is seriously disputed that Pope Liberius did endorse an excommunication of Athanasius; and that Athanasius ignored it and continued with his work. The basic principle and precedent thereby established is that it can be theoretically possible for a situation to arise in which it is lawful to ignore a decree of excommunication. The applicability to the SSPX situation is not that this automatically applies to the SSPX, but that the pros and cons of the SSPX case must be conducted on the understanding that one cannot argue from the premis that* ignoring a decree of excommunication is always, automatically, unjustifiable.* This clears the ground for debate; it does not close it in either direction. This, to my understanting, is the position of the SSPX prior to their arguing for their position.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

The applicability to the SSPX situation is not that this automatically applies to the SSPX, but that the pros and cons of the SSPX case must be conducted on the understanding that one cannot argue from the premis that* ignoring a decree of excommunication is always, automatically, unjustifiable.* This clears the ground for debate; it does not close it in either direction. This, to my understanting, is the position of the SSPX prior to their arguing for their position.

This is how I view the applicability of St. Athanasius to the SSPX position as well. It opens the ground for debating the details rather than just dismissing them automatically.

• PAX

 

[Iotaunum]

I’m confused. Help me out here. I don’t see anyone here hoping that the SSPX fails. I see people saying that they’re not surprised about the internal conflicts. This should come as no surprise, because no matter the conclusion of the talks, there was going to be a very unhappy group, because people had expectations when these talks started. Not everyone’s expectations are going to be met.

As to faulting, I think everyone agrees that there is enough fault on both sides to wrap around the globe twice, as I say.

As to the Archbishop’s excommunication, the debate is purely academic, because it’s a done deal. One can debate it with a view to the future, but the past is over and done with.

I hope you see why I’m confused.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Perhaps I was preaching to the choir in some ways. I know the majority of people want a good result for the entire Church, and I was not replying to or accusing anyone in particular on this forum. I have been following the talks by speaking to people first hand and by reading various blogs and news sites on the internet. My comments were based on the views I have heard expressed everywhere, articles, blogs and comments etc, not just on this particular forum. In fact, I admit that I did not even read all of the posts on this thread before I posted my own views.

With regards to any discussion of the excommunication, I agree that it is rather futile to debate it here. What I was really taking an objection to was the attempts of some people (again not anyone on this forum) to judge the motives of Archbishop Lefebvre in an attempt to demonize his reasons for doing what he did. I think that even a cursory examination of his writings and of those who knew him is sufficient to dispel any ideas that he tried to set himself above the Pope or wanted to glorify himself by enlarging his society etc. I think this is a great injustice. Now one is free to disagree on whether or not he was right to do what he did, but I think it is overstepping it to make this kind of accusation.

I also agree that not everyone will be happy with the outcome of the talks. I don’t think it is reasonable however to ask the SSPX to cry mea culpa over its history and the actions of Abp. Lefebvre. I think the majority would do the same thing over again, otherwise they would join the Fraternity of St Peter or some other group. Yet, this is expected and demanded by a significant number of people, and yet I have not heard of this demand from the Pope nor the roman commission. I think the Pope is well aware of this and has experience dealing with this for so many years that he will focus on what can be agreed rather than expect something which will go nowhere. I think this reconciliation is one of his goals for his pontificate that he would like to achieve before he dies. I know he deeply regretted that an agreement could not have been reached at the time.

 

[johndoe100]

Here is a quote from the (Sermon of Ordinations, June 29, 1976) that Father Emily handed to me about a month ago. *This is one of the reasons why I said earlier that we should simply be friends. Nothing has changed!

Archbishop Lefebvre said, "we do not accept this new religion! We are the religion if all time; we are the Catholic religion. *We are not of this “universal religion” as they call it today - this is not the Catholic religion anymore. *We are not of this liberal, modernist religion, which has its own worship, its own priest, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own Bible, the “ecumenical Bible”(Sermon of Ordinations, June 29, 1976)

It has been noted on this thread that some ‘trads’ get hot under the collar when their position is challenged. Well, that is certainly not a phenomenon restricted to the Trads. There have been those who get hot under the collar when the Trads raise the topic of S. Athanasius. I maintain that they raise it because it raises certain issues that are very much relevant to the present case. pnewton, you did not get hot under the collar in the last posting on this topic, but you suggested that the Trads beg the question by assuming that the case of Athanasius has some bearing on the SSPX case, which you do not accept. Now ‘begging the question’ means ‘assuming what you are supposed to prove’. For my part, I do not start with the assumption that the Athanasius case supports the SSPX situation. I look at the historical record and affirm that there are certain very general principles which, once established, do have a bearing on the case. I do not think, for example, that it is seriously disputed that Pope Liberius did endorse an excommunication of Athanasius; and that Athanasius ignored it and continued with his work. The basic principle and precedent thereby established is that it can be theoretically possible for a situation to arise in which it is lawful to ignore a decree of excommunication. The applicability to the SSPX situation is not that this automatically applies to the SSPX, but that the pros and cons of the SSPX case must be conducted on the understanding that one cannot argue from the premis that* ignoring a decree of excommunication is always, automatically, unjustifiable.* This clears the ground for debate; it does not close it in either direction. This, to my understanting, is the position of the SSPX prior to their arguing for their position.

 

[Iotaunum]

No it’s not, because that’s all he’s suppose to do. As Br. JR has said, if you want to be a society then you’re removing yourself from the diocesan structure, and that means you’re removing yourself from the laity. The bishop is responsible for the laity, and you are then only responsible for your own men. If the laity come, you refer them to their ordinary because they’re not your responsibility.

I have explained how he felt he was acting for the good of his society and the seminarians under his care. I can’t make you agree with me, but if my attempt to explain was insufficient I would recommend that you read Archbishop Lefebvre’s writings and the correspondence between him and the Vatican on this issue.

Could you imagine if a bunch of people from your diocese went up to some Franciscans and asked them to intervene in something? The Franciscans would send them off to their bishop because it’s not their responsibility.

This does not parallel the situation at all. Archbishop Lefebvre initially sent the seminarians off to various diocese and bishops and they came back. He was due a well earned retirement after serving in Africa and as head of the Holy Ghost fathers. When he was at deaths door he made a decision he felt that he had to make to ensure these seminarians under his care were provided for. He could have said: “let me retire in peace I am old” but he decided to work for this until his death. You are free to judge his actions, but I am merely showing you what archbishop Lefebvre saw.

Because there’s nothing worse then having to accept the OF Mass.
And naturally, ordination is a right now, right? Ordinations for everyone!

I honestly do not know how to respond to this. I just hope you can in the future understand the position of so-called “traditionalists” even if their views are abhorrent to you. I can certainly understand the liberals, while also strongly disagreeing with them. Obviously the SSPX have issues with the NO Mass otherwise there would be no disagreement. As to ordinations, I clearly did not say nor imply that it was everyone’s right to be ordained, but seminarians felt they were being persecuted for holding traditional teachings and practices which is why they feared if they did not comply they would be refused ordination, so they left and sought out Abp. Lefebvre.

AL was being arrogant and prideful. He felt he had created something and didn’t want to loose his baby.

There is no call for this judgement of the Archbishops “sins”. I disagreed with Pope John Paul II getting blessings from pagans and his other actions, but I would never dare to condemn him as arrogant nor prideful. God will judge – we can only judge actions not a person’s intentions. Besides, I think your comment shows that you know very little about the person of Archbishop Lefebvre.

 

[curlycool89]

This does not parallel the situation at all. Archbishop Lefebvre initially sent the seminarians off to various diocese and bishops and they came back. He was due a well earned retirement after serving in Africa and as head of the Holy Ghost fathers. When he was at deaths door he made a decision he felt that he had to make to ensure these seminarians under his care were provided for. He could have said: “let me retire in peace I am old” but he decided to work for this until his death. You are free to judge his actions, but I am merely showing you what archbishop Lefebvre saw.

You’re looking at one of my earlier conclusions. If you look at the later posts in the discussion (about a page ago), I noted that AL largely seemed to have lost hope in the Church and seemed to have been plagued by doubt. It explains why he acted so rashly.

I don’t know why he didn’t have hope for the future and couldn’t trust in the Church. The letter ProVobis pulled out makes it clear that the Holy See was about ready to give AL everything and more for the SSPX (even more then what we’ve thought they’ll likely get today in our discussions), and still that didn’t give him comfort. I don’t understand it.

Obviously the SSPX have issues with the NO Mass otherwise there would be no disagreement.

Well, that is problematic because it is the Ordinary Form (OF, not NO) of the Latin Rite Mass. That’s something that they’re just going to have to accept. I’m not saying they should be all forced to celebrate it, but they can’t reject it outright.

As to ordinations, I clearly did not say nor imply that it was everyone’s right to be ordained, but seminarians felt they were being persecuted for holding traditional teachings and practices which is why they feared if they did not comply they would be refused ordination, so they left and sought out Abp. Lefebvre.

And yet it’s still not a right. If they felt they were not being treated fairly, there are proper channels to go through to get things cleared up.

There is no call for this judgement of the Archbishops “sins”. I disagreed with Pope John Paul II getting blessings from pagans and his other actions, but I would never dare to condemn him as arrogant nor prideful. God will judge – we can only judge actions not a person’s intentions. Besides, I think your comment shows that you know very little about the person of Archbishop Lefebvre.

As I said, that was an earlier conclusion that not even I thought made total sense. If you keep reading the thread, you’ll see that my conclusion changed to doubt (despair) because it’s the only thing that makes sense for acting so rashly.

 

[JReducation]

JReducation;9295473:

Then I’ll just have to study more canon law stuff. Clearly my theory of what is necessary evidence and such is too broad.

You may have to narrow it a little to make it fit Canon Law.

But how can people be allowed to disagree with the law if the law was essentially good and pope’s laws are all essentially good?

Unless you’re a Franciscan, disagreement is not a sin. However, you still have to comply, even if you disagree. The only excuse for not complying is that the law commands you to violate the commandments or that the person doing the commanding is asking for something that he has to right to expect.

And canon law is not all infallible if you meant to imply that. For instance, our own apologetics team said it wasn’t. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=253404

Canon Law is not infallible. Canon Law relies on the infallibility of dogma. For example, there is a law that says that if you lay a hand on the pope, you’re automatically excommunicated. The law is not infallible, because it’s not teaching anything. However, the law exists because there is a dogma that says that Peter is the Vicar of Christ.

Bro JR, I think I accept all you say in the last posting. The point, however, is that if the pope makes a ruling that is against Divine Law, that ruling is invalid, null and void.

Yes. Popes are bound by divine law found in natural law or in revelation. They are not bound by previous popes, councils, traditions, customs, etc.

This was, in my understanding, the position taken by the SSPX regarding certain procedures taken with regard to the pre-Vatican II practices, and the SSPX in particular. The Church has, I think, definitely moved beyond this point now, insofar as Pope Benedict has affirmed that the 1962 Missal (the ‘Tridentine’ Missal in the 1962 revision) had never been abrogated; and that the decree of excommunication of the SSPX bishops has been lifted.

The legal point here is that even if the Tridentine mass had been abrogated, there was no violation of divine law. The Tridentine form was decreed by Pope Pius V for a segment of the Catholic population. Divine law applies to everyone.

We cannot say that because there was a misconception about John XXIII’s missal of 1962 that the pope violated divine law. First, we don’t know if there was a misconception on his part. Second, the Trident form is not dogma. It’s a discipline that applies to a segment of the Church. Disciplines are created by man and can be changed by man.

People are taking the words of St. Pius V as if he were stating a dogma when he said that this was the form of the mass in perpetuity. In this particular situation, since he’s not speaking about dogma, “in perpetuity” can be interpreted as a way to emphasize the seriousness of the decree, rather than saying that he was trying to bind his successors.

St. Pius knew that he had no authority to bind his successors. He knew that he could not declare dogma for a portion of the Latin Church, not even the entire Latin Church. He knew that there were pockets of the Latin Church that never used the Roman Missal and authorized them to continue with their missal.

A dogma is always a universal truth. The Immaculate Conception is the same in the Latin Church as it is in the Greek Catholic Church and the Chaldean Catholic Chruch and all 22 Catholic Churches, whereas the form of the mass is not the same in all 22 Churches. It’s not even the same in the entire Latin Church.

Given these facts, the pope did not issue an unjust law, because it was not contrary to divine law or contrary to dogma.

One thing that I find very frightening is the sudden belief by both extremes that the pope can be subject to the law. That has never been done before. I always remember the case of St. Celestine. When he decided that he really didn’t want to be a pope or a priest. He wanted to go back to being a monk. Everyone cried that there was no such provision in the law. Pope Celestine decided to change the law to allow a pope to abdicate. Then he abdicated. The curia was so angry that they imprisoned him, but they could not force him to sit on the Chair of Peter, because he had the right to create a law that served his needs. The same applies in this case. The pope has the right to ignore a law that does not serve his needs or his wishes.

It’s frightening to think that people want to submit the pope to law. Some Catholics even want him to submit to civil law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[numealinesimpet]

One thing that I find very frightening is the sudden belief by both extremes that the pope can be subject to the law. That has never been done before.

On the contrary. See below.

I always remember the case of St. Celestine. When he decided that he really didn’t want to be a pope or a priest. He wanted to go back to being a monk. Everyone cried that there was no such provision in the law. Pope Celestine decided to change the law to allow a pope to abdicate. Then he abdicated. The curia was so angry that they imprisoned him, but they could not force him to sit on the Chair of Peter, because he had the right to create a law that served his needs. The same applies in this case. The pope has the right to ignore a law that does not serve his needs or his wishes.

he decided that he really didn’t want to be a pope or a priest. He wanted to go back to being a monk.

Not to quibble, but this comment seems to be trivialising a very serious decision he judged he was compelled to make. His reasons seem to have been much weightier than a simple like or dislike … he was making a complete hash of the papacy, because he was a simple, prayerful and naive man surrounded by ruthless, ambitious climbers. He made *ad hoc *rulings that he did not even remember afterwards. Consequently, there were certain very lucrative positions in the hierarchy - ‘benefices’ - which he ended up bestowing on two or sometimes even three people. And the circumstances of his election to the papacy were instructive. The election had been stalled for 18 months because the bishops were all afraid. Most of them were under threat from whatever local strongman was controlling their diocese, to appoint ‘their man’. And it was not unknown to be stabbed to death in the middle of Mass on the orders of such men. Celestine declared that this must never happen again. In his short and chaotic reign it was nevertheless himself who instituted the College of Cardinals and the Secret Conclave. Then he resigned.

Pope Celestine decided to change the law to allow a pope to abdicate. Then he abdicated.

Your example proves the principle: ‘The pope may change Canon law, but he cannot simply ignore it arbitrarily, because this is a denial of Natural Justice.’ Pope Celestine changed the law - for which he had the authority. He did not simply ignore it.

The curia was so angry that they imprisoned him

Well, that’s one interpretation of the historical record. It was his bitter rival who locked him up after his resignation - ‘in protective custody’, I think the phrase is. It was the latter who was elected pope. It is possible that he wanted to make sure that Celestine did not decide to go back on his resignation - because Celestine had great popularity among the common people. Celestine died ‘in custody’ the following year - of natural causes, one hopes. I mention this only to provide the background to this episode.

 

[JReducation]

On the contrary. See below.Not to quibble, but this comment seems to be trivialising a very serious decision he judged he was compelled to make. His reasons seem to have been much weightier than a simple like or dislike … he was making a complete hash of the papacy, because he was a simple, prayerful and naive man surrounded by ruthless, ambitious climbers. He made *ad hoc *rulings that he did not even remember afterwards. Consequently, there were certain very lucrative positions in the hierarchy - ‘benefices’ - which he ended up bestowing on two or sometimes even three people. And the circumstances of his election to the papacy were instructive. The election had been stalled for 18 months because the bishops were all afraid. Most of them were under threat from whatever local strongman was controlling their diocese, to appoint ‘their man’. And it was not unknown to be stabbed to death in the middle of Mass on the orders of such men. Celestine declared that this must never happen again. In his short and chaotic reign it was nevertheless himself who instituted the College of Cardinals and the Secret Conclave. Then he resigned.Your example proves the principle: ‘The pope may change Canon law, but he cannot simply ignore it arbitrarily, because this is a denial of Natural Justice.’ Pope Celestine changed the law - for which he had the authority. He did not simply ignore it.

Well, that’s one interpretation of the historical record. It was his bitter rival who locked him up after his resignation - ‘in protective custody’, I think the phrase is. It was the latter who was elected pope. It is possible that he wanted to make sure that Celestine did not decide to go back on his resignation - because Celestine had great popularity among the common people. Celestine died ‘in custody’ the following year - of natural causes, one hopes. I mention this only to provide the background to this episode.

I’m not interested in the details of his papacy right now. The point I’m making is that the pope can change law. Changing law includes suspending it. What do you think happens when a religious in solemn vows is released?

I’m talking about solemn vows, not simple vows.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[numealinesimpet]

Originally Posted by** curlycool89**
AL was being arrogant and prideful. He felt he had created something and didn’t want to lose his baby.

Point of order, curlycool. I believe that these judgments are contrary to forum rules, not to mention the Divine Law.
There is no space here to give a biography of Mgr Lefebvre. Two things, however, are worth knowing. Archbp. Lefebvre had already had a highly distinguished life as Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, then the largest missionary group in the world, charged with the evangelisation of all of French-speaking Africa. Had Mgr Lefebvre retired in 1969, as he had intended, he would still have had an honoured place in the history of the Church. He was one of the senior experts given the task of producing the “Preparatory Schemas” for Vatican Council II. This task took them two years.

In 1969, Mgr Lefebvre saw his Religious Order, the Holy Ghost Fathers, embarking on a new course that he believed would destroy it, and therefore resigned as Superior General and moved to Rome, intending to live in quiet retirement.

It might be hard, in the 21st century, to realise just how aggressively the seminaries of the 70s were dropping Catholic teaching and adopting positions that before Vatican II had been vigorously rejected.

At the French Seminary in Rome (and at others too) the traditional routine of priestly formation was being discarded. For example: daily attendance at Mass ceased to be obligatory, the Sacrifice of the Mass became merely a ‘commemoration’ of a ‘supper’ or a ‘meal.’ Scholastic philosophy (previously held to be indispensable for Catholic theology, and mandated to be taught in all seminaries) was discarded in favor of theories of Modernism and Liberalism which previously had been roundly condemned. The teaching of Latin ceased** (which was definitely contrary to the documents of Vatican II, yet ‘the spirit of the council’ was invoked to justify it).** The truths of the Faith were being diluted if not actually denied.

Archbishop Lefebvre was approached by parents with sons in the seminary. They expressed serious dissatisfaction with the formation their sons were receiving for the holy Priesthood. They begged the Archbishop to do something for their seminarian sons. At first he declined, for many good reasons: he was retired, perhaps they exaggerated, he had no buildings, no money, no staff to take on the training of new priests, etc. etc. It was only when the seminarians themselves sought him out, first in their ones, twos, threes and then the many, that he agreed to come back out of retirement.

At first, Mgr Lefebvre offered to give the seminarians a preliminary year of Spirituality. But he immediately discovered that what they actually needed first was instruction in the basic catechism. Children grow so quickly – already the fruits of the “Changes” were there – young men wishing to be priests who had never been taught what all Catholic children had previously been taught as a matter of course. ** Let it be noted here that Vatican II never did order the dropping of the catechism, yet this was done with great show of authority.** As late as the mid 80s a bishop in an English diocese expressed surprise that the catechism was not being taught in the local Catholic schools. I was personally involved, and was among those happy to help the bishop restore order, but the diocesan bureaucracy was all against it.

The French seminarians were asking Mgr Lefebvre to help them by taking over their priestly formation and training. As the months went by the requests continued and showed no signs of ceasing. After much prayer and reflection, he finally agreed. The rest, as they say, ‘is history’. Now Mgr Lefebvre was very French - he did not mince his words. But he was the very opposite of arrogant or prideful.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I’m not interested in the details of his papacy right now. The point I’m making is that the pope can change law.

Precisely. He can change the law, but he cannot simply ignore it. That is the point we are discussing.

Changing law includes suspending it. What do you think happens when a religious in solemn vows is released?

I’m talking about solemn vows, not simple vows.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I do have three children in Religion, not all of them in communities en rapport with the SSPX. There are no bars on the doors of monasteries and convents. If a brother or sister is released, it is either in conformity with established law, or else the Law of Charity - Divine Law - is allowed to supercede the letter of the Law. This is the very opposite of an arbitrary, one-off, ignoring of the law.
Personally, I am very interested in the background to Pope S. Celstine’s history. Very significant that his papacy marked one of the most momentous points in the history of the Church - the erection of the College of Cardinals and the Secret Conclave - yet he helped the Church best by resigning. Small wonder he was canonised (which his successor was not).

 

[curlycool89]

Point of order, curlycool. I believe that these judgments are contrary to forum rules, not to mention the Divine Law.

Divine law? Praytell me which divine law you cannot criticize a man or ask of his motives? AL is not a canonized saint, and since he died in a state of excommunication it is more than likely that it will never happen (a canonized saint, I make no judgement on where he is now). Nor is anything that AL did infallible.

There is really only 2 possibilities that I have outlined and it all depends on what the perspective is.

On the one hand, if AL had hope going forward (as evidenced by the letter ProVobis pulled), then the only reason he would have gone and done something so rash as to consecrate 4 bishops without a papal mandate is if he thought he was equal to or above both the Papacy and the Law. Call it a messiah complex, which would be based on his pride saying he knew better and “how dare they tell me what to do”. It’s an explanation of his actions, but I don’t think it’s likely given his full history.

On the other hand, we have a situation where AL was plagued by doubt. Unsure of the future of the Church and suddenly being unable to trust Christ’s Church he panicked. I think this fits better, but I can’t tell you what set off the doubt, especially given again the letter that gave his society everything and more. I think your explanation does give some background that could have led to such a snap.

The point of both is that a rational, humble Churchman doesn’t suddenly go and do an act of extreme disobedience (like consecrating 4 bishops without papal mandate and thumbing his nose at Rome). His constant insistence on some imagined “emergency situation” (the Holy Father said there is no such thing, so there is no such thing) makes me lean towards the second situation, although I admit there is the possibility that he could have tried to rationalize it post-consecrations to himself using the first description (that he was out to save the Church and that he and he alone was right).

I don’t know what went though AL’s head, but those are the only 2 that make sense.

Precisely. He can change the law, but he cannot simply ignore it. That is the point we are discussing.

Ignoring the law is at it’s heart a change of the law. Legislatures do it all the time to give one-off exceptions to established laws and rules (a tax-break is one such example).

If a brother or sister is released, it is either in conformity with established law, or else the Law of Charity - Divine Law - is allowed to supercede the letter of the Law. This is the very opposite of an arbitrary, one-off, ignoring of the law.

I personally find it a little funny that you reject a valid ignoring (changing the law), but you appeal to an unwritten and arbitrary “Law of Charity” that does not have the force of law. Who interprets this “law of charity”? Actually, the way you have described it it sounds more like utilitarianism than anything else.

 

[JReducation]

Precisely. He can change the law, but he cannot simply ignore it. That is the point we are discussing. I do have three children in Religion, not all of them in communities en rapport with the SSPX. There are no bars on the doors of monasteries and convents. If a brother or sister is released, it is either in conformity with established law, or else the Law of Charity - Divine Law - is allowed to supercede the letter of the Law. This is the very opposite of an arbitrary, one-off, ignoring of the law.
Personally, I am very interested in the background to Pope S. Celstine’s history. Very significant that his papacy marked one of the most momentous points in the history of the Church - the erection of the College of Cardinals and the Secret Conclave - yet he helped the Church best by resigning. Small wonder he was canonised (which his successor was not).

I understand the historical interest in St. Celestine’s papacy, but that’s for another thread on Church history.

The reason I asked about solemn vows is because there is a difference between simple and solemn vows. Only monks, mendicants and Jesuits make solemn vows. All other religious make simple perpetual vows.

The law allows a dispensation for simple perpetual vows. There is no dispensation for solemn vows. The Holy See came up with suspension of the law.

Basically, it allows you to leave the community and re-enter the world, because the law is suspended in your case, so it cannot be applied to you.

This is what happened with the SSPX plea of “case of necessity”. Bl. John Paul suspended the law so that it could not be applied in that situation.

I apologize for using the word “ignore”, because ignore has a whole other meaning for you than it does for us. For us, it can mean to pretend that it’s not there, which is not the case in law, but it can also mean to know that it’s there, but you command that it not be used or invoked.

I don’t know about Ireland, but in the USA judges do it all day long. They tell juries to ignore testimonies all day long. It’s legal and moral, because the person giving the command has the moral authority to do so. This is the case with a pope who does not want to apply a law. He can suspend its application.

People have questioned whether it’s fair; but no one has ever questioned whether it’s legal. Everyone knows that it’s legal. The pope has the moral authority to do this, just like the judge in a civil court.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[numealinesimpet]

I understand the historical interest in St. Celestine’s papacy, but that’s for another thread on Church history.

On the contrary. With respect, the context shows that Pope Celestine did not make an arbitrary decision, which is what one unacquainted with the full facts might have inferred from your original quote.

The law allows a dispensation for simple perpetual vows. There is no dispensation for solemn vows. The Holy See came up with suspension of the law.

Basically, it allows you to leave the community and re-enter the world, because the law is suspended in your case, so it cannot be applied to you.

Yes, for the reason I have given, that the law of Charity, being part of Divine Law,can be allowed to over-rule the letter of the Law.

This is what happened with the SSPX plea of “case of necessity”. Bl. John Paul suspended the law so that it could not be applied in that situation.

I beg to differ. I haven’t seen the citation you mention, but if it is as you report, it does seem on the face of it to be an arbitrary denial of Natural Justice, given the state of the Church at the time.

People have questioned whether it’s fair; but no one has ever questioned whether it’s legal. Everyone knows that it’s legal. The pope has the moral authority to do this, just like the judge in a civil court.

I disagree. This is the fundamental difference between secular law and Canon Law sensu lato - in a Western Democracy, the letter of the Law is supreme, but in Church Law an unjust law is ipso facto invalid, null and void. The SSPX were prepared to argue their case from the very beginning. The Appeals which had been made ever since the 1970s were blocked and not allowed to be heard. Perhaps Pope Benedict realised that this approach to the situation only encouraged the supporters of the SSPX to believe that they had at least a credible case. I am sure this was one reason why he simply dropped the decree of excommunication with no strings attached, and why dialogue (not to mention attendance at SSPX Masses by senior Vatican prelates) continues.