The Pope, the Mass and the Society of St. Pius X

Una Voce ^

[narses]

The Pope, the Mass and the Society of St. Pius X

Father Pierre Blet, SJ, Professor of Church History at the Gregorian University, celebrated for his defence of Pope Pius XII against the charge of anti-semitism, has given an interview in which he made some interesting comments apropos relations between Rome and the Society of Saint Pius X and the attitude of Rome to the Traditional Mass. This interview was published in the July-August 2002 issue of the journal of Una Voce France. Father Blet considers that there are at present indications that an entente may be reached. Father Blet noted that members of the Society had been very warmly received during the Holy Year, but that things have slowed down a little since then due principally to the question of accepting Vatican II. He added that "this was not an impediment given that the Council had not promulgated any binding dogmatic definition. Everyone therefore has the right to examine what he feels able to accept..."

Where the problem of the Mass is concerned, certain cardinals of the Curia, and not the least among them, would be willing to accept the Mass of St. Pius V. Some of them have celebrated it publicly. Father Blet then made public some information that has remain confidential until now: "The Pope himself celebrated this Mass during his recent vacation." He also reported the suggestion of a cardinal who remarked that in a town in the Middle-East where he had been a missionary the Mass is celebrated in a dozen different rites. "Under these circumstances, he asked, why could there not be two rites in the West?" Father Blet added: "The Curia is ready to make concessions in this matter."

[patent]

Those married in non-Catholic ceremonies need be remarried in the Church, yes?

Did someone contend that the priests weren’t valid priests, the Masses weren’t valid Masses, the marriages weren’t valid marriages, etc.? No, these things were valid, but illicit. Once they get recognition from Rome, it isn’t any longer an issue.

Those ordained in non-Catholic Rites seeking to be Catholic need to ordained again, that isn't happening in Campos either.

Again, no one contends that the ordinations (for the SSPX and Campos) are invalid either, they are (were in Campos’s case) illicit, and the priests are/were forbidden to act as priests. They disobey this, of course, in the SSPX.

If the SSJV and the SSPX were non-Catholic then Cardinal Kasper's office would be in charge, it isn't. This is an issue within the Church and is therefore handled within Her structure.

LOL, you base your claims to be non-schismatic on which bureaucracy is in charge?

The Pope formed a body to deal with just this issue, why on earth would he then turn them over to Kasper? I suspect he hoped to heal the schism, something he may doubt Kasper would have any luck at.

To claim that the priests of the SSPX are NOT Catholic is to promulgate a falsehood.

They are schismatic. The Pope called it a schism, and I will long trust him before you.

They are validly ordained priests

No one contends otherwise.

of the Roman Catholic Church.

No, of the SSPX.

patent  +AMDG

[sitetest]

Dear narses,

Though there orders and sacraments are valid, the SSPX are not Catholic. Neither were the SSJV. They were more akin to the Orthodox, who also have valid orders and sacraments, but who are not Catholic.

If an Orthodox priest or bishop were to come home to Rome, he would not be re-ordained or re-consecrated. Nonetheless, prior to his coming to Rome, he would not be Catholic.


sitetest

[Land of the Irish]

You cannot say the same thing for the SSPX, following as it does excommunicated Bishops.

Bishop de Castro Mayer was supposedly "excommunicated" at the same time as the SSPX bishops. What's your point?

[patent]

You cannot say the same thing for the SSPX, following as it does excommunicated Bishops.

Bishop de Castro Mayer was supposedly "excommunicated" at the same time as the SSPX bishops. What's your point?

Exactly. Just as with the SSPX, those who followed him, an excommunicated bishop, were likewise schismatic.

He is dead now, so he isn’t terribly relevant to the current events. However, were he still alive, and had he returned to the fold with the Campos group, the excommunication would have been lifted, and he would once again be Catholic.

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

If an Orthodox priest or bishop were to come home to Rome, he would not be re-ordained or re-consecrated. Nonetheless, prior to his coming to Rome, he would not be Catholic.

Similarly, those whose marriages he witnessed while he was Orthodox would not now need to be remarried, etc.

patent  +AMDG

[Askel5]

"The truth is that this particular council DEFINED NO DOGMA AT ALL, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely PASTORAL COUNCIL;"

IF THEN THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA AND CARDINAL RATZINGER ARE CORRECT, the great majority of the subject matter in the documents of the Council comes under the heading of authorised teaching of the Church which is not protected by the note of infallibility.

Have you ever seen this:

---

Vatican II no less authoritative than Nicaea or Trent.

Utterly false. The following is from Christopher Ferrara (of ACLA fame):

A Conciliar Disclaimer
"By Providence the Council had expressly disclaimed the note of infallibility. In an utterly unprecedented nota praevis (preliminary note), the conciliar Theological Commission described the Council as "pastoral", and assured the Council Fathers that they were not defining doctrine unless they openly professed to be doing so:

"In view of the conciliar practice and pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Synod defines matters of faith and morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so." - ( Addenda to Lumen Gentium, Explanatory Note of the Theological Commission, Documents of Vatican II, Abbot translation (America Press:1966), p. 97-98)

"Never in the history of the Catholic Church had a Council taken pains to declare that it was not teaching infallibly. In fact, nowhere in any of its documents did the Council "openly declare" that the faithful were bound to adhere to any of its ambiguous and confusing formulations, especially those relating to "ecumenism", "collegiality" and "dialogue"--- novel terms which elude any precise definition. Nor could the assent of faith, or even an assent of prudence, be demanded for the manifestly dubious sociological and geopolitical assertions of Gaudium et spes, which claims that mankind is experiencing "an advance toward maturity" and that there is a duty to establish a "universal public authority" with "effective power to safeguard, on the behalf of all, security, regard for justice and respect for rights." ( Gaudium et Spes, nn 77 and 82)

"No one in possession of his senses believes that mankind had advanced in maturity during the past century [the very notion of a maturing human race implicitly contradicts the doctrine of Original Sin and explicitly contradicts Sacred Scripture]. Nor is the Magisterium competent to prescribe world government as the solution to our temporal problems.

"The nota praevia undoubtedly relieved the anxiety of many Council Fathers about what exactly they were propounding in some of the Council's verbose and ambiguous documents. This is borne out by the testimony of Bishop Thomas Morris, which at his request was not unsealed until after his death:

"I was relieved when we were told that this Council was not aiming at defining or giving final statements on doctrine because a statement of doctrine has to be very carefully formulated and I would have regarded the Council documents as tentative and liable to be reformed." ( Catholic World News, January 22, 1997).
End of excerpt from Christopher Ferrara

---

[St.Chuck]

Similarly, those whose marriages he witnessed while he was Orthodox would not now need to be remarried, etc.

What if someone married by an SSPX priest left the SSPX and became Roman Catholic; would they have to be remarried?

[patent]

The following is from Christopher Ferrara (of ACLA fame):

Also of Remant fame, one of the primary defenders of that “we resist you to the face” screed sent to JPII. Perhaps a good lawyer, but highly polemic in the Ann Coulter style, and hardly a great trustworthy source.

By the way, did you come out of the storms alright? I take it your computer didn’t get water logged.

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

My impression is that they may be blessed by the Church, but not remarried.

[Askel5]

Thanks for the insight.

New Orleans did pretty well ... I-10 and the usual neighborhoods underwater for a while but some of the surrouding parishes got hit pretty hard ... areas in St. Tammany flooding with very little warning this morning well after the really rotten weather was passed.

[ultima ratio]

You've nailed it.

[patent]

>>>New Orleans did pretty well ...

Good to hear. Thanks,

patent

[Tantumergo]

"Those limits, however, are defined and explained by the Church, not by schismatics."

I agree with you totally - they have indeed already been so defined in Pastor Aeternus, which teaching was repeated in Lumen Gentium.

Why I think JP II's statement in Ordinatio sacerdotalis is so important, is that rather than stamping his foot and saying "You shall believe this because I'm the Pope and I say so!", he has the genuine humility to profess that even the supreme jurisdiction inherent in the Papacy does not extend to the point where it can change the substance of the sacraments or divine revelation.

When looked at in this context, it should do something to allay the fears of many traditionalists about how far things can go.

I would add that in all that I have said in this post and those previously on infallibility, I am open to correction by the competent authorities if I have misrepresented the true teaching of the Church in any way.

[Catholicguy]

Traditionalists want to be able to trust the Pope. But we know that such trust can only be reposed not in his person, but in his office, and only so far as he exercises his Divinely-constituted office to protect and promote the deposit of faith.

<> And the traditioanlists want to have the authority to judge the Pope - well, actually four Pope's, since Pius -as being against what you traditionalists decide is tradition. No matter how you try and word this, it reduces to the same essence. Private judgement protestantism.

You folks will decide what is and isn't tradition. You folks will decide what is and isn't necessary for you to accept. Disagree with an Encyclical? No problem; just cite "tradition" and you have the Liberty you need to refuse to submit and obey

Don't like the Documents of an Ecumenical Council? Cite tradition and refuse to submit and obey. And why stop there? You folks have the real authority and truth. Publish articles, publicly agitate against Divinely-Constituted authority. Form your own priestly societies, ordain your own Bishopsan dpublish your own periodicals opposing the Pope. That is tradition. It is all necessary. If it weren't for you brilliant and holy and perspicacious folks, Hell indeed would have prevailed.

After all, you folks are the ones with the true authority and you were Divinely-Constituted to protect and defend the Faith. It is from you self described traditionalists that we are preserved from the devious lies and malign machinations of such things as post-1958 Papal Encyclicals, Reforms of the Liturgy, Ecumenical Councils and Universal Catechisms and Codes of Canon law. Who the hell did the Popes after Pius think they were messing around in the areas of traditon? That, as we alll know, is the bailiwick of the traditionalist layman, priest or seminarian.

What is a MERE PASTORAL Council against such as yourselves? So what if an Ecumenical Council is Infallible? What does that mean when compared to tradition as defined by you folks?

So what if Jesus sent the Holy Spirit upon the Catholic Church to Teach it all truth? That means little when compared to the self described traditionalists whose impeccability and infallibility is assumed with each of their prideful pronouncements. After all, traditionalists have read some Encyclicals,they own a Denziger, and they have read Michael Davie's trilogy. Where would the Catholic Church be without the teachings of the English school teacher, the lay Pope? Davies locuta est, causa finita est and woe betide that Pope who thinks he has expertise, knowledge, competence, jurisdiction and authority superior to this former English school teacher.

And if Davies doesn't do it for you, cite Fr. Gruener, a suspended priest, as an authority to oppose the Pope. If Gruener doesn't do it for you, cite Catholic Apologetic International "apologist" Sungenis. You say he cribs from Hitlerian pamphlets to spread his venomnous antisemitism? So what, he is a traditionalist.

If Sungenis doesn't do it, appeal to The Remnant. Get it, REMNANT. They are the real authority; well, them and Catholic Family News. Yes sir, get your opinions and beliefs from them. So what if they signed a public declaration refusing to obey the Pope? You traditionalists might as well sign it also. The only thing preventing you from putting your name on the "Resist you to your face" dotted line is cojones. <> And after all, isn't this just what Jesus intended? A bunch of self-annointed traditionalists running around attacking Popes and Ecumenical Councils as though they were the real authorities. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be funny.

To think that self-described traditonalist actually believe this is Tradition is a wonder.

[Catholicguy]

<> Fine. Oppose whatever the hell you desire to oppose. You, after all, are above an Ecuemnical Council.<>

[Catholicguy]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing CG. You do have a little. Add in a dash of love and charity, mix in a broad application of humility and you'll be fun to be around again.

<> Precisely, narses. You hit the nail on the head. The difference is I recognise my limitations which is why I submit to the Divinely-Constituted authorities and I do not oppose Popes and Infallible Ecumenical Councils.

Your cautionary posts would have made sense had you directed it towards those who do oppose Popes, Ecumenical Councils,Normative Masses, Catechisms and Codes of Canon Law but I understand why it wasn't. They are assumed to have a superabundance of knowledge, wisdom, humor, humilty and charity because they describe themselves as traditonalists <>

[Catholicguy]

It is the Bride of Christ that is being opposed and accused of whoring around with some modernistic cads.

It is a good thing you traditionalists are virginal and infallible theologians and inpeccable in how it is you define traditiuon or else you might be called to account someday for slinging mud at the wedding gown of the Bridegroom's Bride.

Nah, traditionalists don't need to worry. Popes do...and Ecumenical Councils...and Catechisms..and Codes of Canon Law...and Post Pope Pius Liturgies...and Papal Encyclicals....

http://www.geocities.com/romcath1/Brideconquest.html

[Catholicguy]

http://www.geocities.com/romcath1/Brideconquest.html

[Domestic Church]

"IT IS THE SENSE OF THE UNCHANGING CHURCH THAT IS INFALLIBLE, NOT THE SENSE OF INDIVIDUAL CHURCHMEN OF ANY AGE OR EXCELLENCE, AND THAT SENSE FINDS EXPRESSION ONLY IN THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE COUNCIL APPROVED BY THE POPE. "

Amen. Thanks for posting this. I do think the Pope is a very good one but this is the "bottom line" and it isn't understood by many.

[Catholicguy]

[A]ll those teachings - on faith and morals - presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error.

A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore "tuto doceri non potest". (Cardinal Rzatzinger Commentary of Professio Fidei)

<> So, I guess we can oppose Cardinal Ratzinger to himself and then we can indeed assert that an Ecumenical Council approved Documents that opposed Tradition.

And those who say one cannot oppose an Ecumenical Council are, I guess, Lobotomised Conciliar Fundamentalists and self-described traditionalists are the real faithful Catholics and they have the Liberty, and duty, to assert counter-propositions to the Documents of an Ecumenical Council so our Faith will be preserved. <>