An Open Letter to the Church Renouncing My Service on I.C.E.L.

Communicantes (Newsletter of the Society of St. Pius X in Canada) ^ | October 2002 | Rev. Fr. Stephen Somerville

[patent]

As I said in my earlier reply to BlackElk, the point was whether you could deal with Fr. Somerville's criticisms without resorting to attacks upon him for so-called "heresy" and "schism." So far I see lots of personal assaults, but I don't see any reasoned defense of the Novus Ordo Mass against his testimony regarding the perfidy of the ICEL.

Most of us around here are rather critical of ICEL, so I don’t expect you will see much disagreement with his criticisms of the translations. They aren’t very good. That is far different from the attempt you so often seem to make, in trying to pretend some of those on the traditionalist right aren’t schismatic.

I look on the term "neo-Catholic" in the same light. It describes a certain position, one which was being criticized by Fr. Somerville, but which others (like Stephen Hand) might be perfectly happy to identify themselves with.

Well, only in the same sense that anti-choice describes a certain position, aka the pro-life position.

They are juridical terms with very specific, and very perjorative, connotations. They are used merely as accusations hurled at someone in order to delegitimize the person's arguments.

Well, the theological position of a heretic is nearly automatically delegitimized isn’t it? Do you take theology lessons from heretics? I think the label is useful for just that purpose. If a man is a schismatic, that should be considered when considering his theological arguments. IMHO, it is foolish to try to consider theology or philosophy in a vacuum. Knowing who the author is, his agenda, who his target audience is, etc., goes a long way to understanding his argument. Knowing a man is a schismatic or a heretic does likewise.

For example, you’ll note a nice poster on this thread, drstevej, has made a couple comments (since I mentioned him I bumped him). Were you to peruse his theology, you would no doubt note that he is not Catholic. Do you not think it useful to know he is a heretic in evaluating his comments? I do, it doesn’t mean his comments aren’t worthwhile or accurate, but it does flesh them out. So does calling ultima a heretic, at times, aid others in understanding him.

patent  +AMDG

[Catholicguy]

<>agreed<>

[RichardMoore]

My question to this subject is; at what time did the Church cease to be The Church? If a priest can say mass and not actually believe in the Real Presence and that mass is valid, according to the Catecism, then even these flawed liturgies are valid. Reform the liturgy if you like because there is need of reform, but it is our hearts that need reforming. There IS a crisis of faith in the Church in America but it is nothing compared to the crisis that will come if we ignore the Truth of the Real Presence in every mass. It appears that you are going against the Pope in this and that is not Catholic in the least.

[ultima ratio]

Society of Saint Pius X

{date}
Bishop Williamsons Letter April 1999

We are happy to publish here Bishop Williamson's letter to friends and benefactors of the Society's Seminary in Winona USA. Bishop Williamson deals here in a profound and clear manner with some objections against the 1988 episcopal consecrations by Archbishop Lefebvre, and especially with the question of Jurisdiction.



Dear Friends and Benefactors,

To this day there must be many good Catholic souls longing to follow Archbishop Lefebvre or his Society of St. Pius X, but who hesitate to do so because they feel he went against Catholic principles, especially when he made four bishops in Econe, Switzerland, on June 30, 1988. Let such souls read a theological study of the consecrations that appeared three months ago in the Italian biweekly, "Si Si No No", and many may hesitate no longer. The article's first part proves that those episcopal consecrations were even a duty for the Archbishop, the second part proves that the Pope's explicit prohibition made no difference to that duty!

Not that the Archbishop himself did not know what he was doing. He explained himself clearly and often. Nor that Catholic souls following him then and since have not known what they were doing, because all along they have recognized the true Catholic bishop. "I am the good shepherd", says Our Lord, "and I know mine and mine know me" an X, 14).

The problem is rather that since in the circumstances of the 1970's and 1980's the Archbishop had to break a number of the Church's normal rules in order to maintain the Society of St. Pius X and in particular to consecrate four bishops, then it always looks as though he had the Catholic rule-book against him. And this is what made - and makes - so many Catholics hesitate. At last, the article of "Hirpinus" in "Si Si No No" has gone deep into those rule-books and shown, in a way I think nobody has shown before, that the Archbishop's action was fully in conformity with the truest principles of Catholic theology and Canon Law.

It stands to reason. After all, how could the Archbishop's work have borne so much good fruit if it was out of line with Catholic principles? That makes no sense. Yet to this day enemies of his Society, even conservatives whose survival is one of his fruits, cast in the Society's teeth the Catholic rule-book: "Where the Pope is, there the Church is", "Catholics must obey the Pope", "Obedience is a virtue", etc., etc. . . Let us with Hirpinus take a good look at the Catholic rules, however briefly.

The first major principle that comes into play is that while ordinary cases are dealt with by ordinary laws, cases out of the ordinary, or emergency cases, need to be dealt with by principles behind and above the ordinary laws. That is common sense. For instance, in front of the hospital there is normally no parking, but if I am rushing my wife to the emergency room, then I can park wherever there is a space.

Now if, as the Vatican claims, there is no emergency in the Catholic Church today, then of course there can be no appeal to higher principles. However, as Hirpinus points out, Popes Paul VI and John Paul II have themselves by moments admitted that there is a very serious problem in the post-Vatican II Church. Paul VI's references to the Church's "self-destruction" (Dec. 7, '68) and to the "smoke of Satan in the temple of God" (John 30, '72) are famous. Similarly in a speech quoted in the "Osservatore Romano" of Feb. 7, '81, John Paul II referred to the "upset, confusion, perplexity, even delusion" of a "great part" of Christians. So Hirpinus' article is not for those who deny there is a post-conciliar emergency, rather it is for those who recognize the emergency, but fail to see how the episcopal consecrations were justified by that emergency.

The whole first part of the article examines, then, what are the duties and powers of a bishop in an emergency. Grave spiritual need is that of any soul whose Catholic faith or morals are threatened. Extreme spiritual need is that of any soul virtually unable to save itself, without help. Grave general or public spiritual need is where many souls are being threatened in their faith or morals, for instance where heresy is being spread in public. Today numberless Catholics are being threatened in their faith and morals by the public spread of neo-modernism, which is the reinvigorated "synthesis of all heresies." So today the Catholic Church is filled with grave, general or public spiritual need.

Now wherever there is grave public spiritual need, the Catholic theologians teach that the situation is equivalent to that of extreme individual spiritual need, because for instance in a grave general need, many individuals will be in extreme need. So what a bishop or priest may or must do in an individual's extreme need, he may or must do in grave general need, like today's.

Now all legitimate pastors are bound in JUSTICE to help souls in a state of need, but if these pastors fail for whatever reason, then in CHARITY anyone else is bound to help who can, notably other bishops or priests. These latter will have no normal Church jurisdiction over souls coming under other pastors, but, by their ordination as bishops or priests, charity includes for them a duty of state to help as they can.

Now as the duty of charity binds under pain of mortal sin to help an individual neighbour in extreme need (especially spiritual), so it binds gravely to help a people in grave need (see above), even requiring if need be the sacrifice of life, reputation or property (Archbishop Lefebvre certainly sacrificed his reputation!).

If then today's neo-modernist errors and heresies are being put forward, or silently approved, or at least left unopposed, by the legitimate pastors themselves, Pope and bishops and priests, it follows that today's state of general need is without hope of relief from the legitimate pastors, in which case any other pastors are, by their ordination which empowers them to give spiritual relief, gravely bound in charity to help such needy souls as best they can (Just as, if a husband refuses to look after his family, the wife under him must supply as best she can, so if a Pope refuses to look after the Church, a bishop under him must supply as best he can).

And what gives such emergency pastors the right (or jurisdiction) to supply for the legitimate pastors? The grave need of many Catholics. The Church teaches that according as needy souls resort to emergency pastors, so these pastors receive from the Church emergency, or "supplied", jurisdiction. For as in a (genuine!) physical emergency all property belongs to all men, so in a spiritual emergency all episcopal and priestly powers are at the disposal of all souls. Divine and natural law then override normal Church law restricting jurisdiction, otherwise too many souls would be eternally lost. Jurisdiction is for souls, not souls for jurisdiction.

Now this principle of emergency rights, or "supplied jurisdiction", applies also to the case of a bishop consecrating bishops without the Pope's approval, because of grave public need. Certainly Christ instituted Peter as head of His Church, with the fullest possession of Church power to govern souls, towards eternal life. But that power, while wielded by Peter, is owned by Christ. It is to benefit souls, not its possessor. It is to save souls, not damn them. As for the machinery of Peter's control of the consecration of bishops, Christ left it flexible, so that Peter could, down the ages, tighten or loosen that machinery according as different historical circumstances would require for the good of the Church. Medieval popes tightened it, as did Pius XII because of a problem in China, but the Church has approved of Eusebius of Samosate consecrating bishops without the Pope's permission in the 4th century. Therefore if a Pope by his fallibility were to tighten that control to the grave harm of souls, the Church would supply jurisdiction for a bishop to take that consecration into his own hands, as did Archbishop Lefebvre. For the manner of episcopal consecrations is a matter not of divine law, but of human Church law, allowing for the exceptions possible in all human Church law.

Objection: but Eusebius of Samosate consecrated bishops without, but not against the Pope's express will. How could Archbishop Lefebvre go against the known and expressed "No" of the Pope? This question takes up the second part of Hirpinus' article. The answer flows from the principles laid out in the first part: however much the Pope said "No", he could not exonerate the Archbishop from his higher duty in charity to help souls in grave and general need.

Firstly, as to the subject, charity looks to the need, not to the cause of the need. When a road accident happens, helping the injured comes first, questions come later. Charity binds whoever can succour souls in grave need to do so, even if, especially if, legitimate Superiors are causing that need.

Secondly, as to the Superior, if he refuses to help souls in grave need, he has no power to bind others from doing so, any more than a husband refusing to provide for his children has power to bind his wife from doing so. The Pope is no exception to this rule, because while his authority is unlimited from below, it is limited from above by divine law, natural and positive, which binds gravely in charity whoever can to succour souls in need. Archbishop Lefebvre was uniquely able, by being a bishop refusing neo-modernism, to succour souls wishing to remain Catholic.

Thirdly, as to the situation, it is natural to necessity to know no law, or, to place the subject in the impossibility of obeying the lower law, because the subject could only do so by disobeying a higher law.

The Pope as Superior is no exception because even he comes under divine law. And if it is he who creates the necessity, as does John Paul II by favouring neo-modernism, then it is the Superior himself who is making it impossible for his subject to obey him!

Notice however that whosoever disobeys in an emergency is disputing neither the authority nor its lawful exercise, but merely its unlawful exercise. He is not judging the lower law to be bad but merely inapplicable in the given emergency. Thus Archbishop Lefebvre contested the Pope's right to control episcopal consecrations not in general, but only in the particular emergency of the grave need of souls for the Society of St. Pius X to survive his own imminent death. The Church's supreme law is the salvation of souls, to which the law of papal primacy must, if necessary, give way. The Catholic's supreme virtue is charity, not obedience.

Therefore as soon as the Archbishop had prudently established that divine law was entering into play, he was not only entitled but even bound to disregard the Pope's express prohibition. For when divine law came into play, the Archbishop had to consider not the Superior's will which may be what it may be, but his power, which is fixed by Catholic theology and law. These say that once the emergency is reasonably proved, the subject may and must act on his own authority without recourse to the Superior, because the emergency need firstly to obey God makes that recourse irrelevant, because even if the Superior wanted to bind his subject against God, he could have no power to do so.

In conclusion, Archbishop Lefebvre was bound in charity to help souls, once they were in grave need with no hope of relief from their lawful superiors. He was bound by his episcopal powers to consecrate bishops to ensure for many needy souls the doctrine and sacraments owed to souls by the Church for their salvation. He was absolutely bound not to heed the Pope's "No", because by so doing he would have sinned gravely against the higher duty of charity. By consecrating bishops despite that "No", he neither denied the Pope's primacy nor in any real sense disobeyed the Pope's authority which cannot oppose divine law.

That is only the skeleton of Hirpinus' article. Its muscle consists in a mass of quotations from the most respected Catholic theologins, saints and lawyers. Of course! Catholic principles are in line with common sense, and Archbishop Lefebvre acted in line with both. Praise be to God! Make sure to read the complete article when it appears in English in the Angelus. Truth is mighty, and will prevail. Blessed are souls who never took scandal from the Archbishop! As for world events, our sins have deserved much tribulation. Pray mainly that souls be saved.

Most sincerely yours in Christ,

+Richard Williamson

Home | Contents

[Zviadist]

Popes take solemn oaths to protect Tradition and not to alter it.

Exactly. Let's review the Papal coronation oath:

Papal Coronation Oath, to be taken by all Roman pontiffs, showing that no Roman pontiff has the authority to contradict the Deposit of Faith, or to change or innovate upon what has been handed by to him by Sacred Tradition and his predecessors:

"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;

"To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;

"To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear;

"To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;

"I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.

"I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.

"If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

"Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it ourselves or be it another -- who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture." (Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, Patrologia Latina 1005, S. 54)

[Desdemona]

This oath is called a "coronation" oath? Oh, my.

Okay, keep in mind that when the last two popes were installed, I was a kid and I don't think we even watched it on TV.

As I read this, the one who seriously seemed to violate it, at least in the last 50 or so years, was John XXIII. PAul VI didn't have the cajones one way or the other. People walked all over him. But, as for JPII, leaving liturgy out of the argument, yes, there have been changes. Obviously. Did he explain himself re Evangelization to the Jews, purpose of war and the death penalty? I'm still not going to criticize him over it, but it is puzzling.

As far as liturgy is concerned, JPII was the one who reinstituted the indult. It's not as wide-spread as it should be, IMO, but it's there. The descent into abuse has been worse, but so has the lying and half-truths regarding liturgy because nobody planning "liturgies" bothers to actually read the documents. Or they take what they want to hear and forget the rest. But, we all do that.

[Zviadist]

As far as liturgy is concerned, JPII was the one who reinstituted the indult.

But don't you get it? No one -- no pope -- had the authority to suspend the Latin Mass. Even the new Mass promulgated in 1970 or whatever expressly did not supplant the Traditional Mass. So it was an empty gesture. There is no need for a special "indult" (permission) to do something that you have been guaranteed to do for all eternity. To be grateful for something that is already yours is bizarre.

I'm still not going to criticize him over it, but it is puzzling.

What about kissing the Koran? What about praying Jewish prayers calling for a different messiah? What about saying Mass in the company of half-naked women? What about the travesty of Assisi? Pagan priests and pervert bishops who are not disciplined, much less not excommunicated? Does the pope ever in your mind deserve criticism? Or do you look around at the state of the Church and say to yourself "gosh, that pope is doing a great job"?

[Zviadist]

This oath is called a "coronation" oath? Oh, my.

The Roman Catholic Church is a monarchy. You know, Christ the King and all that...

[ultima ratio]

If "Catholics follow Trent and Vatican II" as you suggest, why does Rome fight Trent tooth and nail? Why does it use trickery to disguise the Protestant bias of the Novus Ordo? Why does it deliberately obscure allusions to the Real Presence or to the Sacrificial nature of the Mass while doing all it can to play up the Memorial Meal aspect in direct violation of Trent?

"It is only by grasping that it [de facto invalidation] results from the practical disqualifications of Trent, that one can understand the exasperation that accompanies the fight against the possibility of still celebrating the Mass according to the 1962 Missal." --Cardinal Ratzinger at the Fontgombault Conference

[Desdemona]

But don't you get it? No one -- no pope -- had the authority to suspend the Latin Mass. Even the new Mass promulgated in 1970 or whatever expressly did not supplant the Traditional Mass.

Point taken and didn't I say that?

Does the pope ever in your mind deserve criticism? Or do you look around at the state of the Church and say to yourself "gosh, that pope is doing a great job"?

I'm not going to publically criticize the pope. Period. There are some decisions he's made which looked a lot like caving in. I think this pope has played to his own strengths. What I really think is that the major damage was done before he took office and that the whole thing was closer to falling apart than anyone knew and that this pope has had to do a lot of rebuilding behind the scenes. I think he's wise enough to know that when it comes to the church, a slow rebuilding is going to yield better and more productive fruit than a wrenching change.

[ultima ratio]

Reread the oath. The pope is not only obliged not to attack Tradition, but he must also take up the cause against those who do. This Pope has not done this. Can any sane person doubt that Catholic Tradition is being attacked with impunity when all the Church's traditional sacramental rites and its traditional liturgies and its traditional devotions and its traditional theology and definitions as well as its traditional expression in architecture and music have been radically changed or sacked?

[ninenot]

Most of us around here are rather critical of ICEL, so I don’t expect you will see much disagreement with his criticisms of the translations. They aren’t very good.

OK, I will go the whole nine yards. Not only are ICEL's works "[not] very good," they are ABOMINABLE TRAVESTIES of translation, VOIDING the meaning of various passages, and loaded with theologoumenon (such as the blatant change from 'I believe' to 'We believe' in the Credo.

ICEL is run by, if not composed of, subversives and not by coincidence there are a lot of homosexuals in that bunch.

Having said that,

The fact that the Church marches on despite ICEL is a direct proof that UltR and Zvi are WRONG--the gates of Hell will NOT prevail.

[Zviadist]

direct proof that UltR and Zvi are WRONG--the gates of Hell will NOT prevail.

Uh...when did I say they would? Are you so desperate to attack that you falsely attribute words to others? Is that the way you argue a point?

Do you think the Church has never been in crisis before? Ever heard of the Arian heresy?

[ultima ratio]

I might use the same term about you: you are a heretic insofar as you buy into the modernist heresy which seeks to Protestantize Catholicism. As for your calling me a heretic, the charge is another slander and nothing else. What Catholic doctrine have I ever rejected? Name one. I do not even reject Vatican II, though I have called it unwise and believe it has given the enemies of the faith the excuse they needed to attack the Church from within. Nor have I rejected the Pope, though I have been critical of his policies. So explain how I am a heretic.

[Desdemona]

I'm defintely not going to argue the architecture and music and you know that. I've been complaining about that forever. Believe me, my complaints fall on deaf ears, too. I honesly believe it has a lot to do with indoctrination of warm fuzzies not actually by the church, but the larger culture. There's a good deal of ignorance involved. And a bit of the "if you say black, I'm going to say white" mentality in arguing.

But, not having been around before the changes, I have no way of knowing. There are a lot of us in that position. But, I also reognize that wholesale change in the other direction, right now, is going to alienate a lot of people, some of whom are the main financial supporters in some places. There's too much to consider to just blanketly make reversions without convincing the people that it's necessary.

[ultima ratio]

Two points. First, why should the larger culture matter? Do you think the Church didn't have its hands full during the Roman Empire? Do you think the Church had it easy during and after the French Revolution? The Church has always had to buck the larger culture. But it has always stuck to its principles and beliefs, even through persecution. It never joined forces with the larger culture.

Second, if Catholics like being Protestants, then let them become Protestants and leave. Catholicism is a faith. It adheres to certain doctrinal truths. Traditionalists ask only that these be given their due in Catholic theological, cultural and liturgical life. If nominal Catholics can't accept this, then let them go elsewhere--which is what the modernists more or less told traditionalists to do in 1970. It was then that millions upon millions walked away--though nobody in liberal Rome seemed to give a damn.

[ninenot]

the death penalty?

The short explanation: JPII established a 'preferential option' for life-in-prison rather than State-sponsored killing, especially for those countries (read: most of the West) which can afford such imprisonment.

He did NOT change the Church's position which is, briefly, that the State has the right to execute felons (given the usual fair trial, nature of the crime, etc.)

[Catholicguy]

St. Catherine of Siena wrote to Barnabas, Viscount Lord of Milan: "He is insane who rises or acts contrary to this Vicar who holds the keys of the blood of Christ crucified. Even if he was a demon incarnate, I should not raise my head against him, but always grovel and ask for the blood out of mercy. And don’t pay attention to what the demon proposes to you and you propose under the color of virtue, that is to say to want to do justice against evil pastors regarding their fault. Don’t trust the demon: don’t try to do justice about what does not concern you. God wants neither you nor anyone else to set themselves up as a righter of the wrongs of His ministers. He reserves judgment to Himself, and He reserves it to His Vicar; and if the Vicar does not do justice, we should wait for the punishment and correction on the part of the sovereign judge, God Eternal." (Letters, Vol. I. Letter No. 28; Vatican's Cardinal Hoyos' Ecclesia dei Commision response to SSPX Bishop Fellay. )."

<> St Catherine forshadowed an accurate diagnosis of Msgr. Lefebvre; and, by the way, you and your ilk<>

[Desdemona]

First, why should the larger culture matter? ...it has always stuck to its principles and beliefs, even through persecution. It never joined forces with the larger culture.

The larger culture matters because people are human. It's going to invade whether you like it or not. I don't know that the church itself has joined forces with the larger culture. If it has, there would be no Holy Days. I think the larger culture has impacted people's practicing of their faith and not in a good way.

if Catholics like being Protestants, then let them become Protestants and leave.

Oddly enough, the people I know who are closer to Protestants in thought and practice and taste are daily Mass goers and Rosary sayers. How's that for irony. Seriously though, just try to suggest that they go protestant. Just try.

[Catholicguy]

Various motives have been brought forward in justification of Schism:

(1) Some have claimed the introduction into the Church of abuses, dogmatic and liturgical novelties, superstitions, with which they are permitted, even bound, not to ally themselves. Without entering into the foundation for these charges it should be noted that the authors cited above do not mention or admit a single exception. If we accept their statements separation from the Church is necessarily an evil, an injurious and blameworthy act, and abandoning of the true way of salvation, and this independent of all contingent circumstances. Moreover the doctrines of the Fathers exclude a priori any such attempt at justification; to use their words, it is forbidden for individuals or particular or national Churches to constitute themselves judges of the universal Church; the mere fact of having it against one carries its own condemnation.

<> That is from the Old Catholic Encyclopedia. There is nothing new in you schismatics trying to justify the indefensible.<>