Posted on 02/04/2005 10:15:40 PM PST by narses
A schismatic ultra-conservative Catholic group, whose leader was excommunicated in 1988, has sent a letter to Australia's 1400 Catholic priests trying to recruit them.
The Society of Pius X, followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, rejects the 1960s Vatican II council that liberalised much Catholic practice and teaches that only the Latin (Tridentine) Mass is valid.
The eight-page letter, from Father Francois Laisney of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour in Hampton, invites priests to return to "the Traditional Mass, the Mass of all times, the Mass of the Saints", and offers a free kit to enable them to say the Latin Mass.
Kate Mannix, editor of the independent Catholic internet magazine OnlineCatholics, said yesterday it was significant that no Australian bishop had objected to the letter and the society was being quietly rehabilitated by forces opposed to Vatican II.
Swiss Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre formed the Society of Pius X to reject the "novelties" of Vatican II, which the recruiting letter identifies as collegiality (as opposed to hierarchical authority), ecumenism and religious liberty. He was excommunicated in 1988 for consecrating his own bishops.
Advertisement AdvertisementMs Mannix said most Australian bishops did not support the Latin Mass but did not want a row with Cardinal George Pell, who favoured conservative groups.
"There's been enormous concern about liturgical abuses (by liberal priests) in recent years, yet every time this organisation conducts a Mass it perpetuates liturgical abuse," she said.
Former priest and Catholic author Paul Collins said the concern about the society was its links with neo-fascist groups in Europe and South America.
"For example, they act as de facto chaplains for the Le Pen movement in France," Mr Collins said.
Now officials in Rome understood their fascist connections less and had more sympathy for their conservative view on liturgy. "The Vatican have been falling over themselves to get these people back into communion with Rome," he said.
In Australia the society remained small, with only a few thousand adherents and one church in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Perth.
Brian Lucas, secretary of the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference, said he was aware the society had sent the letter.
"The position of this small group is well known, and we look forward to the day when through dialogue and understanding there can be a reconciliation," he said.
Father Laisney, who is overseas, could not be contacted.
But is absence of a pope only judged by a certain time frame? Can it not also be judged by a pope's unwillingness to use his authority to protect the traditional faith--since this is what makes the papal office so essential in the first place? No one would argue that the primary duty of any pope is to preserve the faith. If he fails in this by personal negligence or by personal incapacity, is not the See already vacant in some sense?
Amen.
"Why should you think the traditionalists on this site are imbalanced?"
Since I named no one, those who take offense must be those with whom the "shoe fits."
All I know is the SSPX priests, for the most part, are much sounder than many of the laity. If it doesn't apply to you, then don't worry about what I said.
This has been debated over and over and over again. At least you are now admitting that legally they are canonically irregular. As for your comparison to Roe vs. Wade, well, the moral equivalency just isn't there.
But I'm not going to debate that. As long as you agree that canonically, they are irregular, which it appears even Fellay now acknowledges, then we are on common ground. I am not going to go over ad nauseum the justice of it.
I think they're extremely confused.
It boils down to this. Your arguments are incoherent. Blanket statement. GB's are.
You give your opinions (which are incoherent and illogical and unintelligible). GB gives what the Church teaches and refutes your (and others) arguments and exaggerations with traditional Catholic teaching.
That's about it. "Let them with eyes to see, and ears to hear, see and hear."
Oops! Is that "out of context?"
It boils down to this. Your arguments are incoherent. Blanket statement. GB's are.
You give your opinions (which are incoherent and illogical and unintelligible). GB gives what the Church teaches and refutes your (and others) arguments and exaggerations with traditional Catholic teaching.
That's about it. "Let them with eyes to see, and ears to hear, see and hear."
Oops! Is that "out of context?"
Please don't ascribe to me positions I have never taken. If you had been paying attention the past year or so, you would realize I frequently used the word "irregular" to describe the SSPX's position and have made the distinction frequently between what is moral and what is legal only. I don't fault you for not knowing what I've posted--only for presuming I believed something I did not.
As for "canonical"--that is another matter since this would imply the excommunications were based on canon law. They were not. They were based on the Pope's wrongful assumption about SSPX motives--and it was this false assumption, and not canon law, which made the excommunications legal. In fact the Supreme Legislator unwisely ignored his own canons when he made his judgment.
The consequences of this are self-evident even on this site with ordinary Catholics convinced the SSPX is schismatic merely because the Pope said so--which is tantamount to saying that papal whim and not objective facts can be the grounds for excommunication. This is false, according to divine law itself. Yet the Pontiff offered no proof to justify his penalties except supposed acts of disobedience which in themselves were not evidence of any schism.
And once again, ad nauseum, the Pope is the final arbiter and interpreter of canon law. Ecclesia Dei Adflicta stands. Canon law does not exist so it can be construed and interpreted by every single Catholic and priest and bishop and archbishop, without reference to the mind of the Church.
Again, the Pope is the final arbiter as to the proper interpretation of canon law. Your interpretation, per Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, is faulty, or incomplete, or wrong.
I will not respond nor post again on this subject as you just continue to talk past this fact and say the same things over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Here, let me try it. The Pope is the final arbiter and interpreter of canon law. That is canonical. Therefore, Ecclesia Dei Adflicta is valid and binding.
If disobedient acts were intrinsically schismatic, how many non-schismatic bishops do you think would be left?
Your first statement is correct, no one but the pope can overturn his decision, but your next statement is not a necessary conclusion UNLESS, you claim that all of the pope's prudential judgments are protected by the charism of infallibility. Do you claim that? Do you claim that the pope cannot ere in a legal judgment?
To ordain bishops against the express will of the Sovereign Pontiff was an excommunicatable offense in both the 1917 code of canon law and the 1983 code of canon law.
No bishop or archbishop, based upon his personal subjective understanding of "state of emergency" can ordain bishops whenever or wherever he wants to, especially AGAINST THE EXPRESS (and EXPLICIT command NOT TO!) will of the Holy Father.
Remember, you guys want to interpret canon law based upon your own understanding of it. Ecclesia Dei is clear. The Pope owes no explanation other than what is in the document, which followed illicit ordinations AGAINST HIS EXPRESS WILL.
"Your interpretation, per Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, is faulty, or incomplete, or wrong."
Your first statement is correct, no one but the pope can overturn his decision,
YES.
but your next statement is not a necessary conclusion UNLESS, you claim that all of the pope's prudential judgments are protected by the charism of infallibility. Do you claim that?
NO. But we owe a religious assent of mind and will to those matters which are binding on Catholics, even when disciplinary or non-dogmatic.
Do you claim that the pope cannot ere (sic) in a legal judgment?
NO. But it does not follow that he "erred" in this matter. You can claim it all you want, but we shouldn't confuse people in a public forum as to what constitutes Church teaching vs. our private opinions.
The archbishop, whom I hope is one day canonized, ordained bishops against the express will of the Holy Father. The Holy Father noted his self-excommunication. He did not excommunicate him. Lefebvre did it to himself.
If Fellay and company would just take an AA or personal prelature, then it would all be a moot point and the excommunication would be null and void.
That's the whole point. The motive for disobedience would have had to have been a deliberate intention to reject papal legitimacy. But the SSPX had made it very clear its sole motivation was the desire to protect the ancient Mass for the salvation of souls. This was always more than just a misunderstanding. It was a deliberate distortion of what the SSPX was all about in order to destroy the movement back to tradition. And the smears out of Rome continue to this day for the same reason.
"Let me give you a picture of Rome’s strategy. Rome is saying to us, "Listen, the Council and the New Mass are a soup. You say it is a bad soup, but it is a soup! Just say it is a soup and all will be fine." And I say, "Well, we know that it is a soup, but it is a poisonous soup, so we don’t care about the soup. What we care about is the poison. And because of the poison, we are not going to drink it. If we say soup today, tomorrow you will say, ‘Drink your soup; you agreed it was a soup. Now you have to drink it!’ And so I am not going to say it is a soup even if it is one because now it is a poison." You get the picture?
There are evil things in the Council, in the New Mass; they are really poisonous. They are taking souls away from God. It is cheating, it is hidden, it is not obvious, but it is there, and after a while you see it. It is becoming obvious. How and why is this crisis in the Church? —The answer given by Rome and those who recognize there is a crisis in the Church is to say the world is to blame." -Bishop Fellay
"And once again, ad nauseum, the Pope is the final arbiter and interpreter of canon law. Ecclesia Dei Adflicta stands."
Sure. But popes must act with justice just like other men, and do so by examining the evidence fairly, not according to private whim and prejudice. The Pontiff may not rule as a despot, without justice, in opposition to divine law itself. After all, he is just as subject to truth and justice as anyone, and while popes are clearly not limited from below, they most certainly are limited from above, and this obliges the Pope to make judgments based on the actual law he wrote, not on false premises stated in a letter which he is unable to prove.
Personally, I don't care whether or not you respond again to this. The fact remains that you are wrong. The Pope is not the final arbiter except in a legal sense; the true final arbiter is the Lord Himself--and by His standard the Pope was wrong. I say this because the evidence itself shows this. John Paul II may indeed state till the cows come home that there was no objective state of necessity--but that is not what the canon involved concerned. It concerned what the Archbishop and his followers feared subjectively at the time, not what the Pope thought about their fears after the fact. But even here, in fact, the weight of the evidence is objectively all on the side of the SSPX. No one who is honest would refute this.
"No bishop or archbishop, based upon his personal subjective understanding of "state of emergency" can ordain bishops whenever or wherever he wants to, especially AGAINST THE EXPRESS (and EXPLICIT command NOT TO!) will of the Holy Father"
Wrong. You don't know what you are talking about. Canon 1323 expressly speaks about SUBJECTIVE FEARS concerning the state of necessity. It didn't matter what the Pope thought. It was what was in the mind and heart of the Archbishop that counted. And the fact is, it was overwhelmingly clear, from the whole history of the Archbishop's defense of Catholic Tradition in a time of crisis, that he thought he must consecrate in order to save the ancient Mass. He didn't consecrate, as the Pope stated, in order to deny the papacy. What part of this don't you understand?
"Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, one who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed. It is not licit, however, to judge, punish, or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." (St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, doctor of the Church; De Romano Pontifice, 2,29)
"If [the Pope] gives an order contrary to good customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something openly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense" (Fr. Francisco Suarez).
"The fact remains that you are wrong."
According to your own personal opinion and evaluation of the situation.
Not according to the mind of the Church. Read Ecclesia Dei and Vatican I.
You want to be a soothsayer, go ahead. Luther and Calvin thought they were "ahead of their time" also.
"What part of this don't you understand?"
What part of Vatican I or Ecclesia Dei Adflicta do you not understand?
Someone can think they are subjectively right while objectively wrong.
Ecclesia Dei cleared that up for us back in 1988.
Vatican I and Ecclesia Dei Aflicta. You can argue forever (which apparently you will do) that Lefebvre thought he was acting out of a state of emergency. Hope it makes you feel justified.
Vatican I and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta and the continuous ordinary magisterial teaching of the Church which forbids ordaining bishops against the express will of the Sovereign Pontiff are my guides, as they should be most Catholics--not Pro Apologia Marcel Lefebvre. That is NOT a document of the Church that is authoritative, nor are Bishop Fellay's personal reflections on the situation.
But I am quite certain you give Fellay's personal interpretation more weight than you do the Pope's and the authentic magisterium, even when it is not speaking as the Ordinary magisterium.
And I believed you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.