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
So, you're not a Canon Lawyer but you can read? That's your expertise? Good. Just wanted to know.
And I'll get around to Augustine when I have time. I'm not addicted to this and I do have a life.
In the meantime,you can fill the time by answering me specifically about your vast level of knowledge concerning Fr. Martin's views as I asked you to.
And you can respond to the Chesterton quote that I posted regarding his analysis of St. Thomas as compared to the other schools of thought in his day. You know, the ones that strikingly resemble the JPII gobbledygook we've gotten to know and love.
You do realize that Fiore exactly agrees with what I quoted? Martin was dispensed from his vows, excepting chastity, and the obligations and privileges of the Catholic priesthood. That is called "laicization".
Martin's status was, I think, unclear. But Fr. Fiore's statements based upon his confidence in the representations of his friend can hardly constitute a proof sufficient to make it unreasonable to believe the Vatican and Jesuit statements on the subject.
On "Almighty God", "great thumb", etc. Here is the prayer:
Almighty God, the Great Thumb we cannot evade to tie any knot, the Roaring Thunder that splits mighty trees, the all-seeing Lord on high who sees even the foot prints of an antelope on a rock mass here on Earth, you are the one who does not hesitate to respond to our call. You are the cornerstone of peace.
Is it really your contention that "the Great Thumb we cannot evade to tie any knot" should not be understood metaphorically? Is there any other rational explanation? How could God be literaly both a "great thumb" and a "roaring thunder"? Again, why is the "great thumb" part, which doesn't even begin the prayer, referred to but not the "Almighty God", etc.? I am perfectly right in stating that this conveys a mistaken impression, which was certainly mine upon first seeing the stuff about praying to the "Great Thumb", that is, that the "great thumb" was to be understood of a literal thumb that was being worshiped. Now, I am not a big fan of the whole Assisi thing, but criticism has to be on-target to be effective.
As for the stuff about intellectually inferior, I have never stated such a thing, so where you get it from is beyond me. I would appreciate a reply, since you were the one who initiated that discussion anyway.
I looked back through your posts and I don't see anything about general information about Martin's views. I have read Vatican, Final Conclave, and Decline and Fall, of his works, and don't care to read any more. If you are referring to your post about Martin and Congar, I already answered that even though it had nothing to do with the post you were replying to.
Not hardly.
Malachi Martin never left the Catholic priesthood, but was personally dispensed from his vows of poverty and obedience by Paul VI on leaving the Jesuits in 1964. I have seen and authenticated his dispensation papers. He did not seek release from his vow of chastity. When he came to New York, Cardinal Cooke gave him priestly faculties, and advised him to find lodging with a family rather than live alone as he initially did.
If Cardinal Cooke gave him priestly faculties, he was a priest in good standing, no?
But Fr. Fiore's statements based upon his confidence in the representations of his friend can hardly constitute a proof sufficient to make it unreasonable to believe the Vatican and Jesuit statements on the subject.
It proved what it needed to in order to refute what Black Elk was saying about Fr. Martin, but you are walking into the middle of a conversation, once again.
You cannot see any reason why the "Vatican" and Jesuit statements may be, ahem, intentionally misleading, no reason why they would want to discredit Fr. Martin? You believe who you want to believe.
On "Almighty God", "great thumb", etc. Here is the prayer:
Yeah, name one saint who would have done the same thing. I'm not alone in this, Fr. Echert from the EWTN expert forum shares my opinion. Oh by the way, you might know this, if JPII is canonized, will he be the first saint in history to have ever kissed the Koran? I'm not talking about any saints who were converts from Islam prior to becoming Catholic either.
As for the stuff about intellectually inferior, I have never stated such a thing
Sure you did, and you asked me to drop out of the discussion because of it, I'm obliging.
You seem to enjoy quizzing people on how much they know of someone's works, whether it be LaGrange or Congar.
This was in response to someone posting a quote from Fr. Martin on Congar.
You dismissed the quote and asked the person if all they know of Congar is from traditionalist and Fr. Martin's books.
So, naturally I assumed that you have a full knowledge of Fr. Martin on Congar and disagree with him. So, I wanted to know precisely what you disagreed with regaring Fr. Martin's position in regards to Congar.
And as far as answering goes. I've already answered you regarding the modern definition of "partial communion" vs. Augustine's exposition on Ex Opero..in which he uses a formulation that has nothing to do with the post Vatican II kiss up to non-Catholics. Reposting it will just lead to the same round robin. And Vatican II quotes are useless as well considering they use the same bastardized language that allows flexible interpretations.
Fr. Martin has and interesting Chapter in one of his books about the use of Language in Vatican II. It's originally described in Jesus Now when referring to anti-Catholic but is crystalized in The Jesuits. It probably influenced Avery Dulles' turnaround in his language from 1979 to 2002 regarding Partial communion.
But I'll get to that later on the other thread....
That's why I said it was unclear. Of course, Fr. Fiore would have received that information from Martin himself, and Fiore didn't say he had seen those papers.
Yeah, name one saint who would have done the same thing.
You just totally missed the point. And, I think the saints would agree that misrepresentation is not a good thing - being an animist is bad enough (And he who disbelieves...), there is no reason for spreading confusion about the prayer they prayed at Assisi.
you asked me to drop out of the discussion because of it
Never stated such.
Yes, I find it illuminating to see how some are willing to assail certain persons as modernist heretics based on nothing more than traditionalist pamphlets, while having no real knowledge of their thought, life, etc. We see this with Congar, St. Escriva, and many others. Can you imagine St. Athanasius admitting that he attacked Arius without reading the Thalia or his other works? Of course not.
So, naturally I assumed that you have a full knowledge of Fr. Martin on Congar and disagree with him.
That is certainly confused logic. I was referring to the quote made from Martin claiming (without substantiation) that Congar was unorthodox. That was hardly proof and that was my point.
Only if you don't understand the terminology in question: in which case, perhaps you'd be better off retiring from the discussion and submitting to the Church
Quite arrogantly.
You just totally missed the point.
Seems to happen quite often when I read your posts. I'm either a moron, or you're not making much of a point. Why don't we just agree that I'm a moron, and can't keep up with your intellect and call it a night.
"In 1965, Mr. Martin received a dispensation from all privileges and obligations deriving from his vows as a Jesuit and from priestly ordination."
Fr. Martin was dispensed from priveleges and obligations: as a Jesuit-- (poverty, obedience, papal obedience as a Jesuit, and privileges being salary, shelter, health insurance.
And from priestly ordination: (he was not incardinated in a diocese under a bishop, he was not a member of Opus Dei at his request)
According to his testimony from a 1997 radio interview.
He quoted Paul VI as saying, "Alright, I'll grant you dispensation, do you want me to assign you to a bishop? We've got many who would be glad to have you." He said, "no Holy Father, there is a storm coming over the Church, You yourself have said this. I want to be active in communications and I don't want to be under a bishop that will silence me." Paul VI said, "well, they won't like that. But we'll working something out for you."
He was given by Paul VI a superior in Rome to report to, separate from the Congregational secretaries. He was to give an accounting of his money and this superior was to check on his doctrinal accuracy. He was forbidden to publicly back any political candidate and he was forbidden to personally enter politics.
As to the mixup on the two Lefebvres, I recall promptly conceding when corrected. That is more than your excommunicated Lefebvre or his followers do when they are corrected by actual papal authority (JP II) in Ecclesia Dei.
Show me where I EVER said that Malachi Martin was not a priest in good standing.
The Angelus Press is an organ of SSPX and therefore the statements as to schismatic publisher and authors and eitors ARE correct. You can deny papal authority exercised in Ecclesia Dei until the cows come home and, having eaten, provide you with new schismatic fantasies in solid form but a schism is a schism is a schism and an excommunication is an excommunicvation is an excommunication.
The excommunications and the declaration of schism are JP II's words in Ecclesia Dei and not mine. I just repeat the point for you and yours whenever you are lying about the status of SSPX and its leaders and its adherents. It is my personal hope that SSPX and its sycophants stay outside the Church. The Roman Catholic Church has far more important things to worry about than noticing SSPX and its stiff-necked ecclesiastically criminal leadership. With very public humiliation, renunciation, repentance and penance, perhaps the schismatics may persuade the relevant authorities to forgive. The bar should be set extremely high to match the ids in question.
You are not needed in the Roman Catholic Church. You are generally not wanted in the Roman Catholic Church except insofar as someone may suffer an overdose of charitable spirit towards those who showed no respect to JP II or his authority. Go nurse your incessant whining and grievances elsewhere.
......"You seem to enjoy quizzing people on how much they know of someone's works"
Yes, I find it illuminating to see how some are willing to assail certain persons as modernist heretics based on nothing more than traditionalist pamphlets, while having no real knowledge of their thought, life, etc.
Non sequitur. Since you know virtually nothing of the traditionalist pamphlets, you don't know whether or not they accurately analyze certain persons.
For example: Do you agree or disagree with Fr. Martin's analysis of Teilhard de Chardin in the Jesuits? Is he accurately explaining Chardin's position and is his debunking a cohesive argument?
You see I find it illuminating that you are willing to assail someone's sources based on little or no knowledge of what those traditionalists "pamphlets" actually say. And I would hardly call Guimarreas' "Eli Eli Lama Sabacthani" series a "pamphlet"
We see this with Congar, St. Escriva, and many others. Can you imagine St. Athanasius admitting that he attacked Arius without reading the Thalia or his other works? Of course not.
Obviously St. Athanasius was not on FR. And I believe Bishop Williamson is probably the biggest victim of this cultural mileu that you refer to. These are discussions with people who are not bishops (or Canon Lawyers) hashing through the sea of information and disinformation in order to find their way. I'm sure there were many lay people during the Arian crisis who through the Sensus Catholicus knew that Arius or Nestorius were not feeding them the good dope. And I'm sure they did their best to express the truth in their various watering holes. FR is a watering hole. Not the Oxford debate club.
..."So, naturally I assumed that you have a full knowledge of Fr. Martin on Congar and disagree with him."
That is certainly confused logic. I was referring to the quote made from Martin claiming (without substantiation) that Congar was unorthodox. That was hardly proof and that was my point.
So, if that is confused logic, is it confused logic to assume (without substantiation) that traditionalist writings are incapable of expressing the thoughts of certain persons accurately?
It's interesting how illuminating some things are. The light sometimes reveals things unexpected.
Stop Writing under Black Elk's name! It's obvious some mentally deranged psychopath is on his computer.
I know for a fact that he's not the type of character who would say some of the utterly stupid things I've just read.
Only an insane moron would say who is not wanted in the Catholic Church.
So stop using Black Elk's good name to make him look ignorant and stupid beyond belief.
We are all hoping and praying for him to come out of his persistent vegative state and delight us with his fluid and meandering musings.
Lord, I miss his firm grasp of facts and excellent debating skills. So charitable and concise. A prince among men.
Calumny - the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty.
I will no longer respond to you for I refuse to be an accessory by provocation.
Don't worry. I don't think it's Black Elk but rather some punk teenager using his computer.
I mean. C'mon! Think about it. Would any sane person write like that?
They'd have to have smoked the Catechism to get that loopy.
The recourse that Lefebvre had was the same recourse that has always been there for clergy who have taken the vow of obedience. Unsurprisingly, the recourse was OBEDIENCE with a side order of RESPECT FOR THE POPE.
re·print
: a reproduction of printed matter: as a : a subsequent printing of a book already published that preserves the identical text of the previous printing
false·hood
1 : an untrue statement : LIE
2 : absence of truth or accuracy
3 : the practice of lying
So what if the Pope is trying to destroy the Church?
Do you help him?
Or, Do you oppose him?
Simple yes or no answer is all that's needed.
Likewise, that other must have a good name but SSPX does not except in the imagination of its perpetrators and their gulls.
Likewise "a crime or fault of which he is not guilty" is inapplicable in that each and every excommunicatus and each and every schismatic are guilty as ruled by John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei.
You have rejected the promises of Christ for a spitoon of schismatic lies from your dead, excommunicated founder to his chosen partners in ecclesiastical crime. Time flies. Remember death.
The pope was leading the Church. Your question is based upon false premises which is why you defend the schism.
Calumny - the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty.
I will no longer respond to you for I refuse to be an accessory by provocation.
gbcdoj, he's your buddy.
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.