SSPX - Fr. Violette's Letter to the Faithful

SSPX ^ | December 2003 | Fr. Violette

[ultima ratio]

The SSPX has not separated itself from the Magisterium because the SSPX simply affirms the doctrines of the Catholic Church as these have always been understood for two thousand years. There is not a single doctrine you can point to which indicates any conflict at all between SSPX and the perennial teachings of the Church's Magisterium. SSPX does oppose certain novelties pushed by the Vatican. But this is certainly legitimate.

[Unam Sanctam]

One may behave in unorthodox ways, however, and convey by such indirection false doctrines--as this pontiff frequently does.

This is pure character assassination. The Pope has never once "conveyed by indirection false doctrines" except in certain fevered uncharitable little minds. Even if he has done some indiscreet acts that some may wrongfully interpret in a way that might promote unorthodox concepts, that does not in any way in any way mean that this Pope is unorthodox or is a "danger to the faith". And as for the Popes ecumenical activities, they must all be interpreted in light of the whole of the Pope's teachings on the centrality of Christ and the condemnation of religious syncretism, as for instance in the CDF document "Dominus Iesus". Traditionalists willfully and in bad faith in my opinion distort every ecumenical act by falsely charging the Pope with affirming error in other religions. Correctly understood, the Popes ecumenical acts simply affirm the truth (i.e., Catholic and Christian) truths that are found in other faiths, and express charity to other human beings. They do not and are not intended to promote error.

As for the issue of Archbishop Lefebvre's disobedience, it is not I who absolve him, but papal Canon Law which provides exceptions in emergency situations. To believe there was not a state of necessity in the Church is certainly to ignore the evidence. There was such a state--and it still exists.

The fact that you say that disobedience is still necessary even after "Ecclesia Dei" and the avaiability of indult masses in every diocese demonstrates how your broad subjective definition of "necessity" would render the whole notion of obedience meaningless. You might as well just call yourself Protestant since you seem to believe in personal judgment.

There were forces back then, as there are now, which were determined to extinguish traditional Catholicism, particularly as it was perennially expressed in the traditional Mass. These forces had--and apparently still have--the full approval of this Pontiff, for whatever misguided reasons. At the very time the Pope moved against the ancient Mass, clown Masses and gay Masses and Easter Bunny Masses were even then multiplying exponentially in his Church with no opposition whatever from Rome. Only the traditional Mass was deemed illicit. So the Archbishop was right to refuse the Pope's unreasonable command not to consecrate traditional bishops who would have the power to ordain traditional seminarians, thus preserving the traditional Mass. By so doing he acted to defend the faith from those bent on destroying it.

I am one who awaits reform of the reform and would wish for more reverence and beauty and use of traditional liturgical forms and art. However, to say that the abuses of the immediate Post-Vatican II era continue unabated without any recognition of the slow and steady amelioration that has occurred in recent years is simply to deny reality. Slow but steady progress has been made. ICEL has been brought under control and there is a new more sensible regime on translation in place. I would hope for more, but simply deny that any change for the better has occurred or can occur seems to me to be just wilful and hurtful attempts to bring down the Church rather than to build her up.

Disobedience remember is never an intrinsic evil. Just as one may not lawfully break and enter a private home, but may do so if the home is on fire and one wishes to save some children trapped inside, so the Archbishop broke the law for a higher good. In such an instance there is no culpability. Motive is everything. One must act in conformity to one's conscience. In the case of the good Archbishop, he put his faith before his pope. Rightfully so. And Canon Law itself gave him the means to do so.

If the Archbishop's conscience tells him to leave the visible Body of Christ on earth over a disciplinary matter, then he should do so, just as Luther and Calvin did. However, it would be a sign that his conscience was not sufficiently informed by Catholic truth, just as Luther's, Calvin's and Dollinger's were.

Finally, it is false to believe this Pope is a friend of tradition. A good deal of what he does is untraditional and problematic. He is not even a very good judge of religious character, having placed an inordinate number of bad prelates in positions of great power. And he has kept in place these same bishops even after they have created unprecedented scandals due to their own weaknesses and collusion with evil. Not a single head has rolled as a consequence of ineptitude or malfeasance or outright corruption. Instead the same old boy networks continue to operate with business-as-usual impunity and keep extending their influence throughout the Church with no fear of papal interference.

You appear to wilfully all the many things that the Pope has done to uphold orthodoxy within the Church. Yes, he has allowed weeds to coexist with the good grain, but he has encouraged the good grain. In addition, he may not always be a friend of "tradition" with a small "t", although I think in many ways he is that. And certainly we must certainly try to find a way to take up Pope John XXIII's authentic message, that we need to find new ways to convey the unchanging truths of the faith to the modern world. I believe that the Pope has tried to do that, although maybe not always with success or prudence. However, the Pope is 100% behing Sacred Tradition with a capital "T", which of course he has to, since Scripture and Tradition form the deposit of faith which the Pope is duty-bound to uphold. And indeed he has done so.

[Maximilian]

But the Assissi events could not possibly be interpreted as affirming religious syncretism, since the Vatican has condemned such and the United Religions Initiative in no uncertain terms, not least in the statement of the CDF "Dominus Iesus".

"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eye?" The Vatican may have condemned syncretism in 1 document, but they turn around and support syncretism in other documents and in well-publicized events such as Assissi. And if the Vatican is opposed to the United Religions Initiative, then why has the pope been meeting with Gorbachev as he continues to go around organizing his "initiative"?

[NYer]

God bless the Pope!

[Campion]

"Piu che un" which appears as "plus que une" in the official French means literally "more than a" but it is used to mean "rather than a," just as it could be in English. So when the pope said that hell is a state of existence "piu che un" an actual place, it clearly means "rather than" in the context.

Why does it "clearly" mean that? The obvious translation of "plus que une" is "more than a". How anyone gets from that to "hell is not a place, just a state of mind" is breathtakingly non-obvious to me.

[Unam Sanctam]

Meeting with someone does NOT mean that one endorses all that they support or stand for. Even Jesus met with publicans and sinners.

[ultima ratio]

Dominus Jesu was not a condemnation of syncretism. It was an effort to correct belatedly a situation largely of JPII's own making. This is why the document provoked such shock and outrage--it ran counter to the syncretism the Pope himself had previously intimated.

This is not unusual with this Pope, to say one thing and do another. His recent encyclical on the need to crack down on liturgical abuses is a case in point. His own public papal Masses have been the scenes of the worst abuses with consecrated hosts being trampled in the mud or being washed down with beer. On ane occasion Aztec dances had been incorporated in the sacred ritual. On another a bare-breasted woman read from Sacred Scripture.

You say I engage in character assassination. But the fact is you are engaging in the typical excuse-making of those who would defend the indefensible. You await a reform that will never come. There has already been a reform of the reform. What you are waiting for is a reform of the reform of the reform of the reform. But in fact, nothing changes. The modernists remain in power and they are still protected by this Pope. They continue to dismantle the traditional Church. Neither they nor the pontiff seem interested in previous popes and councils except to publicly apologize for preconciliar offenses. With them all began with Vatican II--which they absurdly call a Second Pentecost. They almost never refer to pre-conciliar teachings or documents. For them these belong to another world, to virtually another Church.

As for your reference to the Indult--it was a sop designed to split the SSPX. It was never intended that it should succeed. In fact, the record shows that its success brought the opposite of papal approval. This is why SSPX resists such a route. It is designed to atrophy Catholic tradition by delimiting its influence and growth.

John Paul II has been pope for twenty-five years. During this time the crisis in the Catholic Church has deepened. He has had plenty of time to implement a plan of action to dissipate the darkness and to place devout and orthodox men in key positions to reform the Church. In fact, he does the opposite.

[sydney smith]

Ultima, whenever you come around Slinky slinks away. You should come around more often. You're like Clint Eastwood.

[sydney smith]

You're a riot!

[sinkspur]

Ultima, whenever you come around Slinky slinks away. You should come around more often. You're like Clint Eastwood.

I'm here. I've debated UR for two years. Nothing new is ever said by either of us.

I notice you're not around here much, at all. You love poor old LOI out to post his Seattle Catholic stuff all by himself. You don't even bump his threads; as a result, they die at four posts.

[Maximilian]

How anyone gets from that to "hell is not a place, just a state of mind" is breathtakingly non-obvious to me.

You've deliberately changed the words. That was never the translation. Here is the actual translation: "Rather than a place, hell is a state of existence." The first 3 words are an accurate translation of the phrase "piu che un." To have an ultra literal translation, you could say, "More than a place, hell is a state of existence," but even in English the meaning is the same, while the first version which uses the word "rather" is more idiomatic.

[Maximilian]

Even Jesus met with publicans and sinners.

But did He correct them, or did He praise their wonderful efforts on behalf of world peace?

[Land of the Irish]

Even Jesus met with publicans and sinners.

Of course He did; who wasn't a sinner, except for his Blessed Mother? However, He met with them to preach that there was only One, True Religion and He was crucified by those who rejected Him, the Son of God.

One the other hand, the Assisi fiascos invited false religions to practice their false religions, in a Catholic church, in the presence of the Holy Eucharist, to pray to their false gods for world peace.

No wonder that church suffered major damage from a subsequent earthquake.

Act of God?

P.S. If the Pope wants world peace, all he has to do is consecrate, Russia, specifically, in union with all his bishops to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. It's that simple.

[Land of the Irish]

Please do not show that indecent photograph.

If pictures of papal Masses offend you, take it up with His Holiness. I have no say in his Masses.

[Unam Sanctam]

I think to lump the Pope in with the liberal dissenters who are eating away at the Church from within shows a basic inability to distinguish good from bad and basically good guys from basically bad guys that many "traditionalists" seem to share. It is painting with too broad a brush. The Pope has done many things to shore up orthodox doctrine, not least of which is publishing a catechism that makes not one concession to modernity on any teachings of the deposit of faith. He may also have done some questionable things in terms of tactics and strategy in his allowing the weeds to grow up with the good grain (a strategy counseled by Christ Himself, by the way), but he is only human after all. You give him absolutely no credit for the good he has done, and call him unorthodox, which I believe to be simply wrong and a scandalous slander of a basically decent man.

[Land of the Irish]

"By their fruits, you shall know them".

[Unam Sanctam]

Sometimes you make me laugh in spite of myself. Your pictures are just so over-the-top!

[ultima ratio]

You say, "The Pope has done many things to shore up orthodox doctrine." This is not true. For instance, he has not shored up the dogma of the Real Presence, but has caved to every liturgical innovation that has served to diminish belief--and he has done so despite polls that have shown conclusively that Catholics no longer believe in this central Catholic dogma. And his appointments to high office of unworthy men have been nothing short of scandalous.

It may well be John Paul II is a good and holy man as you say. He is certainly a towering personality who has had an historical impact. But as a pope he has not done the one thing absolutely necessary--preserve intact what has been handed down to him. For this he must be held accountable.