Posted on 05/13/2005 1:15:36 PM PDT by NYer
KANSAS CITY, Mo. - For all its disagreements with the Roman Catholic Church - and the list is long - the Society of St. Pius X has always maintained its loyalty to the papacy.
Now, with the election of Pope Benedict XVI, the ultra-traditionalist priestly society - considered a breakaway group by the Vatican - sees "a gleam of hope" that the changes wrought by the Second Vatican Council will be undone.
One Catholic scholar doubts that will happen, though - especially given that the last time the society dealt with then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he was trying to persuade its founder to accept those changes.
"To try to reconcile the traditionalists with the church would be an implicit rejection of Vatican II, and that's not going to happen," said William Dinges, associate professor of theology and religious studies at the Catholic University of America.
The Society of St. Pius X, founded in Switzerland in 1969 and first recognized by the Vatican in 1970, maintains its American headquarters in Kansas City. The movement, named for the pope who wrote against modernism in a 1907 encyclical, claims between 1 million and 2 million lay adherents worldwide, 20,000 to 30,000 in the United States.
The society's Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, welcomed Ratzinger's election in a statement issued April 19 from the society's international headquarters in Menzingen, Switzerland.
The statement, which appears on the society's American and international Web sites, said Fellay "sees there a gleam of hope that we may find a way out of the profound crisis which is shaking the Catholic Church, of which some aspects have been spoken of by the former Head for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."
A subsequent statement reiterates the order's loyalty to Benedict.
A lay secretary in Kansas City, who asked that his name not be used because of the society's rules, said the society would have no comment beyond anything published on the society's Web sites and in its newsletters.
"He knows who we are, and we know who he is," the secretary said of Benedict.
The Society of St. Pius X's profession of loyalty to the pope sets it apart from most other traditionalist movements, who either consider the position vacant or have elected "popes" of their own.
A former society seminarian, David Allan Bawden, has claimed to be "Pope Michael I" since 1990 and maintains his "Vatican in Exile" in Delia, Kan., about 90 minutes west of Kansas City.
Still, even a cursory review of the Society of Saint Pius X's positions shows how deep the divide runs between it and the post-Vatican II church.
The order's late founder, French-born Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, publicly rejected the church's new Mass, which replaced the 16th-century Tridentine Mass in 1971.
The new Mass may be celebrated in any language, while the Tridentine rite is celebrated only in Latin.
There are other differences: In the Tridentine Mass, the priest faces the altar - away from worshippers - and communion is given only in the mouth, never in the hand. There are no lay readers or communion servers.
The Society of St. Pius also opposes the Vatican's efforts to reach out to Orthodox and Protestant Christians and other religions. One statement on its Web site defends the Inquisition, while another expresses support for capital punishment.
The Vatican banned the Tridentine rite from 1971 to 1984, although Lefebre's followers and other traditionalist groups continued to use it. In 1984, Pope John Paul II said the Tridentine rite could be used in special circumstances.
The Society of St. Pius X dismissed the Vatican's move as a ploy to undermine traditionalists. Still, more than three dozen of the society's priests and seminarians did leave in 1988 to reconcile with the Vatican and form the Fraternity of St. Peter, which emphasizes the Tridentine Mass.
Lefebvre was suspended by Pope Paul VI in 1976, along with his newly ordained priests, and excommunicated in 1988 after consecrating four bishops - also excommunicated, along with a Catholic bishop who supported Lefebvre - against Pope John Paul II's orders.
Several months earlier, the archbishop and Ratzinger signed a protocol that made reconciliation with the Vatican seem imminent, but Lefebvre rejected the accord over a clause that gave Vatican representatives the majority on a commission to settle differences in interpretation of Vatican II documents.
He and his followers' excommunication is considered the church's first major schism since the "Old Catholics" broke from the Vatican after its proclamation of the doctrine of papal infallibility in 1870. The society denies a schism exists, however, saying Lefebvre's disobedience was necessary to deal with a crisis in the church and did not constitute an outright rejection of the pope's authority.
The Society of St. Pius X also contends that as a cardinal, Benedict agreed in principle in 1988 that the order had the right to ordain priests and bishops for service to the larger church.
However, in a 1986 letter, Ratzinger insisted that Lefebvre accept the reforms of Vatican II, "the texts of which are magisterial and enjoy the highest doctrinal authority."
And there, Dinges said, lies the stumbling block for traditionalists.
"The society is intransigent on the liturgy issue and the (Vatican) council issue," he said. "Those are two - in my mind - insurmountable issues to any long-term reconciliation."
ON THE NET
U.S. site: http://www.sspx.org
International site: http://www.fsspx.org
Society's international news site: http://www.dici.org
Keep in mind, Cekada, the author of the article, is the "priest" who recently wrote a letter, to the editor of The Remnant, defending and justifying the murder of Terri Schindler.
Does the second statement necessarily prove the first statement? Besides are you going to trust the scholarship of a priest who recently defended and justified the murder of Terri Shiavo?
The Terri Schiavo Case: A Priest Responds to a Doctor's Critique
However, his scholarship on the "visions" seems pretty solid, as he's backed up all six accounts.
There is a difference. Weakland was JPII's favored son. Acorn doesn't fall far from the tree?
All that article states is that Cekada believes it's a myth. He's actually pretty sloppy in where he places his trust.
A variance of publication dates of 4 years is nothing. He can't reliably rest on that. Printing and engraving were often fast and loose in the last century. I work for two companies over 125 years old who deal in publications. The variance is extreme. Dates were usually done in Roman numerals and on many occasions they were wrong.
By Cekada's standard he should not also beleive in the divinity of Jesus. Comparative mythologists will find numerous instances of Buddha, Moses and others who they say were borrowed from to create the Jesus "myth".
The same can be said for the Assumption of Mary. There is a greater gap of substantive evidence than 30 years between the event itself and any record of it.
Cekada's article seems to indicate to me that he is gradually losing his faith. Everything has a secular political reason behind it.
Questions:
I'm just curious, but do you run around posting anything by anyone as long as it is contrary and attempts to debunk something that the Vatican has not weighed in on? I mean, this "myth" has been around since the 1930's and there hasn't been a condemnation from the Holy See?
Also, what visions do you believe in? Do you believe in miracles such as those attributed to Padre Pio? Do you believe he restored a baby to life?
I'm with sinkspur on this one.
Deficient history in addition, GP
Weakland was moved into Milwaukee by Paul VI, not JPII.
Well, his loss of THE Faith began, officially, at his Ordination into SSPX.
"May prayer strengthen us for the spiritual battle we are told about in the Letter to the Ephesians: 'Draw strength from the Lord and from His mighty power' (Ephesians 6:10). The Book of Revelation refers to this same battle, recalling before our eyes the image of St. Michael the Archangel (Revelation 12:7). Pope Leo XIII certainly had a very vivid recollection of this scene when, at the end of the last century, he introduced a special prayer to St. Michael throughout the Church. Although this prayer is no longer recited at the end of Mass, I ask everyone not to forget it and to recite it to obtain help in the battle against forces of darkness and against the spirit of this world.” --Pope John Paul II April 24th 1994
7 And there was a great battle in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought, and his angels.
8 And they prevailed not: neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world. And he was cast unto the earth: and his angels were thrown down with him.
Do you think JPII was unaware of the "mythical" vision of Leo?
Why didn't he take the time to clarify it when he was clearly making a statement that could be confused with the world famous "myth"?
It's absurd to suggest that papal responsibilities include debunking every myth out there. JP II specifically said he was talking about the Apocalypse.
It's not absurd at all. That's the Pope's job.
You know that this "myth" is almost universally believed. It is not a traditionalist invention. It's been going for at least 7 decades according to Fr. Cekada. And Fr. Shannon Collins on EWTN just recently relayed the "myth" again as fact on his show,"Does the Church still teach that?" Also the Adoremus society believes JPII was referring to the vision of Leo.
And, I'll have to double check but I believe Fr. Gabrielle Amorth, the chief Exorcist of Rome under JPII mentioned Leo's vision in one of his books.
The question is why would the Pope not take an opportunity to quash a myth surrounding his predecessor and instead make a comment that can be seen as a validation of that myth?
Okay.
Yep. Just like I thought, Gabrielle Amorth while chief Exorcist of Rome under John Paul II writes on page 37-38 of the English edition of "An Exorcist Tells his Story" that Cardinal Nassali Rocca verified the story with Leo XIII's secretary Msgr, Rinaldo Angeli.
Fr. Amorth refers to him as a "reliable witness"
Amorth believes the "myth" fully. He documents the verification right to as close a source to Leo as you can get. Cekada doesn't even know it existed it seems.
Now, why would John Paul II allow his chief Exorcist to go around publishing, promoting and believing a "myth"?
Especially by making statements that are so ambiguous?
Interesting. Which version of the story is Amorth talking about?
The Pope's job is protecting the faith, not quashing pious stories.
You mean to say it's too much effort for the Pope to debunk a "myth" about Leo and the St. Micheal prayer in the midst of a speech about Leo XIII and the St.Michael prayer? What would it take? 15 words or less?
Then you have to go along with the Vatican II newspeak. It is not Catholic the New Ecumenism, the New Evangalization and the "Novus Ordo" novelties of a Mass.
"Leo XIII truly saw,in a vision demonic spirits who were congregating on the Eternal City."
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.