"In Light Of Tradition"... The Society Of St. Pius X And Vatican II

For those vaguely familiar with traditional Catholic circles, two recent articles by Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, curial prefect for the Clergy and for the Ecclesia Dei Commission, might not seem meaningful.

Admittedly, even within circles of those who keep tabs on Church issues, this story has not received much press. Many recognize a cordial dialogue took place between the Society of St. Pius X superior general, Bishop Bernard Fellay, on August 29 with the Holy Father. In November, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos appeared on Italian television, and in an interview, made the following statement:

“We are not facing a heresy. One cannot say in correct, exact, precise terms that there is a schism [here]. There is a schismatic attitude in the consecration of bishops without a pontifical mandate. They are inside the Church; there is only lacking a full, a more perfect -- as was said in the meeting with Msgr. Fellay --a fuller communion, because there is communion” (http://qien.free.fr/20051113_hoyos.htm).

Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos declared that both the bishops and the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are within the body of the Church, even if not in full communion. An analogy would be that they may reside within the body of the Church, but not necessarily within its heart.

Of course, this particular situation would need to be applied individually to each and every Catholic, bishop, and priest within the Society of St. Pius X. This distinction, although perhaps somewhat technical, was expressed by St. Augustine, as well as the theology and canonical law emanating after the Second Vatican Council.

Despite the illicit consecrations by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988, and recognized as such through the declaration of Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, a document issued by, and signed by the late Pope John Paul II, the clerical traditionalist followers of Archbishop Lefebvre are not necessarily in schism, but may be in imperfect communion.

Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos made this same point in a little-known September interview in 30 Days, a well-respected Italian publication. “Unfortunately, Msgr. Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism” (http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9360).

Now, even within educated Catholic circles, the new ecclesiological outlook of the 1983 Code of Canon Law (of which I am not an expert), based upon the documents of the Second Vatican Council, makes differentiations of perfect and imperfect communion much more often than declarations of non-Catholic Christians being “outside” or “within” or “members” of the Church. Lumen Gentium, following St. Augustine, declares: “Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but in body, not in heart” (n. 14).

To avoid turning this into a theological tract, let me clarify some points that might raise some questions, both from sincere Catholics sympathetic to the traditionalist viewpoints of the Society of St. Pius X, as well as those who are vehemently opposed to them. The dialogue toward regularization, begun anew August 29, reveals that the Society of St. Pius X bishops and priests recognize Pope Benedict XVI as the Sovereign Pontiff. Whether or not certain Society of St. Pius X priests or lay adherents all recognize the Sovereign Pontiff and obey him would be the topic of another article.

As we are painfully aware, there are several dioceses in the U.S. where juridical, theological, and moral dissent against the established teachings of the Church reign. This is present in priests, laymen, and unfortunately, even in some bishops. They too, despite what some might claim (their dissent is tolerated), may be in less full communion de facto, than even laity who regularly attend Society of St. Pius X chapels. The Society of St. Pius X is not a case of heresy, according to Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos.

That being said, this does not necessarily mean that laymen should regularly attend Society of St. Pius X chapels. This does not mean that certain priests, laymen, or even bishops of the Society of St. Pius X do not harbor schismatic attitudes. Some may.

In fact, to recognize the Holy Father as St. Peter’s Successor requires all Catholics to obey him, not only in matters of faith and morals, but in matters of governance. A Catholic cannot judge the individual dispositions of the priests and/or bishops of the SSPX who offer Catholics refuge by providing sacraments, moral teaching, and authentic Catholic doctrine in certain dioceses where the bishop has not provided “wide and generous” access to the Traditional Latin Mass, as requested in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, by Pope John Paul II.

Catholics must not only recognize the authority of the Pope and the bishops of the Church vested with authority by Jesus Christ; they must obey them as well. Vatican I makes this very clear regarding the Pope’s right to govern.

But recent statements by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, as well as an interview with Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez shortly after the Fellay/Benedict XVI meeting, show a serious effort on the part of the Vatican to reconcile with the 500 priests and four auxiliary bishops (meaning they claim no specific canonical jurisdiction). Of course, the then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in an audience with the bishops of Chile in 1988, called for a renewed effort to understand the Second Vatican Council’s teachings “in light of Tradition.” The serious theology done by some Society of St. Pius X priests could assist in this important endeavor (http://www.unavoce.org/cardinal_ratzinger_chile.htm).

A canonically approved Society of St. Pius X, working with the traditional priests of Campos, Brazil, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, could bring much theological clarity in order to harmonize some of the misinterpretations of the council’s teachings, as well as its “less than clear points,” as Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos admitted, in the light of Tradition. This is how all councils must be interpreted.

Fr. Jay Scott Newman, JCL, pastor of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville, S.C., asked the following question in this “Lecture Addressed to the Theological Students Association of The Catholic University of America,” in Washington, D.C., in 2001. While it is clear that Fr. Newman did not have in mind the Society of St. Pius X situation when he authored this lecture, I believe its contents are instructive.

We must remember, that when Edward Cardinal Cassidy, the former prefect for Ecumenism, was questioned as to why theological dialogue did not take place regularly with the Society of St. Pius X if they were indeed in schism, Cardinal Cassidy replied that the situation was an “internal matter” of the Catholic Church. Fr. Newman opined:

“Expanding on the precept of St. Augustine that unless he persevere in charity, a Catholic can remain bound to the Church in body but not in heart, I wonder if it is not now possible to describe circumstances in which some non-Catholic Christians have a greater degree of fullness of communion with the one Church of Christ than do some Catholic Christians because of their stubborn refusal to believe doctrines of the faith which must be definitively held.

“I suspect that such a prospect is a logical consequence of the substantial newness of ecclesiology in Vatican II, namely, that one is not either in or out of the Church, but rather that all the baptized are joined in real communion with the Church by some degree of fullness. In other words, it is now clear that the road of communion with the Catholic Church by degrees of fullness is a two-way street.”

In other words, the modernists who clearly reject doctrines of the faith, even if not excommunicated, are not in perfect nor “full communion” with the Church. And a bishop, priest, or layman who identifies himself with the Society of St. Pius X could be in more or less communion with the Church, when compared to many of the bishops, priests, or laymen who pride themselves in being within (de jure, but not de facto) the Church.

Speaking to the bishops of Chile in 1988, shortly after the illicit consecrations of Archbishop Lefebvre, our current Pope gave all Catholics sufficient words of reflection to ponder:

“We must reflect on this fact: that a large number of Catholics, far beyond the narrow circle of the Fraternity of Lefebvre, see this man as a guide, in some sense, or at least as a useful ally. It will not do to attribute everything to political motives, to nostalgia, or to cultural factors of minor importance.

“These causes are not capable of explaining the attraction which is felt even by the young, and especially by the young, who come from many quite different nations, and who are surrounded by completely distinct political and cultural realities.

“Indeed they show what is from any point of view a restricted and one-sided outlook; but there is no doubt whatever that a phenomenon of this sort would be inconceivable unless there were good elements at work here, which in general do not find sufficient opportunity to live within the Church of today.

“For all these reasons, we ought to see this matter primarily as the occasion for an examination of conscience. We should allow ourselves to ask fundamental questions, about the defects in the pastoral life of the Church, which are exposed by these events.”

“We are not facing a heresy. One cannot say in correct, exact, precise terms that there is a schism [here]. There is a schismatic attitude in the consecration of bishops without a pontifical mandate. They are inside the Church; there is only lacking a full, a more perfect -- as was said in the meeting with Msgr. Fellay --a fuller communion, because there is communion” (http://qien.free.fr/20051113_hoyos.htm).

...

“Unfortunately, Msgr. Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism” (http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9360).

bttt

Speaking to the bishops of Chile in 1988, shortly after the illicit consecrations of Archbishop Lefebvre, our current Pope gave all Catholics sufficient words of reflection to ponder:

“We must reflect on this fact: that a large number of Catholics, far beyond the narrow circle of the Fraternity of Lefebvre, see this man as a guide, in some sense, or at least as a useful ally. It will not do to attribute everything to political motives, to nostalgia, or to cultural factors of minor importance.

“These causes are not capable of explaining the attraction which is felt even by the young, and especially by the young, who come from many quite different nations, and who are surrounded by completely distinct political and cultural realities.

“Indeed they show what is from any point of view a restricted and one-sided outlook; but there is no doubt whatever that a phenomenon of this sort would be inconceivable unless there were good elements at work here, which in general do not find sufficient opportunity to live within the Church of today.

“For all these reasons, we ought to see this matter primarily as the occasion for an examination of conscience. We should allow ourselves to ask fundamental questions, about the defects in the pastoral life of the Church, which are exposed by these events.”

To be honest, I don't know what this means. It seems to me that the SSPX is in schism as long as it insists on remaining outside the regular lines of authority of the Catholic Church after having consecrated bishops against the Pope's explicit command not to do so.

I agree that many of those who attend services at SSPX churches do so in good faith, and I would like to see the Society come back into full communion with the Church.

It seems to me that the major issue is whether the Church is willing to regularize these bishops and priests, and whether it is willing to permit them to continue saying the Old Order Latin Mass. I think it was a huge mistake to abandon the Latin Mass and to allow liturgists to play arbitrary games with it, abandoning thousands of years of tradition.

Some of the regular bishops appear to me to be heretics, but they are not in schism. The whole business is regretable. I know that Pope Benedict has indicated he would love to go back to the old rite, and to the old orientation of the priest ad orientem instead of ad populem. But the question is, how to accomplish this without causing further schisms and breakaways. It's a mess. But it would be a good start if the SSPX can agree to come back into full communion with the Church.

It means, imho, we are moving towards a solution. The SSJV in Campos shows how easily the parts reintegrate once the leaders agree. Card. Hoyos is rumored to be told to take this task up full time. Until now this has been an almost 'letterhead' commission, now HH appears to want action and resolution.

Deo Gratias!

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.