Posted on 01/20/2003 6:03:26 AM PST by NYer
The article is far too long to post. Click here: Who Was Archbishop Lefebvre?
If you’re a Catholic who’s faithful to the Church’s teaching Magisterium, you’ve probably met up with followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s 1988 schism, known as the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). They’re filled with devotion to the Blessed Mother, extremely conservative with regard to most moral issues afflicting the Western world today, and quite reverent before the Blessed Sacrament during their old Latin liturgies. In short, on the surface, adherents to Archbishop Lefebvre’s schism appear to be devout Catholics
It’s easy to sympathize with these folks since most of them have joined the SSPX after being scandalized by contemporary abuses in doctrine and liturgy in some of our Catholic churches in North America. In fact, it was precisely because of such sympathies, as well as the beauty of the Tridentine Mass, that I found myself frequenting SSPX chapels about eight years ago. Like most SSPX adherents, at the time I thought that my separation from Rome was merely temporary.
I failed to realize, however, that at the root of every schism, as the present Code of Canon Law explains, “is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (Can. 751). Such ruptures from communion with the Church, the Catechism of the Catholic Church points out, “wound the unity of Christ’s Body” (CCC 817). For that reason, at the heart of my journey back to full communion with Rome lay many questions about the unity of the Church as an institution founded by Christ.
The Novus Ordo Missae: Intrinsically Evil?
A common argument now put forward by the SSPX is that the revised liturgy of Pope Paul VI is intrinsically evil, or at the least poses a proximate danger to the Catholic faith. This would mean that the post-Vatican II liturgy is in and of itself contrary to the law of God. How individual Lefebvrites approach this issue will often vary, but they typically insist that the new Mass contains heresy, blasphemy or ambiguity. In resolving this question, I came to the personal conclusion that Christ has a sense of humor, since the same text from Catholic Tradition the SSPX quotes in defense of this claim is the very text that refutes it.
A preliminary observation is in order. The Mass has not changed since Christ instituted this sacrament on the night before His crucifixion. In essence, there is neither an “old” Mass nor a “new” Mass, but only the Mass. In fact what changed after the Second Vatican Council was not the Mass, but the liturgy.
This means that while the “accidents” (to use a classical theological term) differ somewhat between the pre-Vatican II liturgy and the reformed liturgy of Pope Paul VI, their essence remains the same: the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ transubstantiated into the Eucharist. This central mystery of the Mass takes place regardless of whether the priest celebrates according to the liturgical books in use before the Second Vatican Council or according to the liturgical books revised by Pope Paul VI. In fact, both sets of liturgical books are usages of the same Roman liturgical rite.
When I was associated with the SSPX, to defend the claim that the reformed liturgy is intrinsically evil I used to quote the seventh canon on the Sacrifice of the Mass from the Council of Trent. This canon states: “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of Masses are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.”
Let’s look at this more closely. Since the definition of intrinsic evil is “something which in and of itself is evil,” we see from the Council of Trent that an approved liturgy of the Church cannot be such. For something that is intrinsically evil is naturally an incentive to impiety, while the Council of Trent declares dogmatically that the approved liturgical ceremonies of the Catholic Church cannot be incentives to impiety.
But wait a second: Wasn’t the revised liturgy of Pope Paul VI an approved liturgy of the Church? Of course! So according to the Tradition of the Church as dogmatically defined at the Ecumenical Council of Trent, I could only conclude that the reformed liturgy of Pope Paul VI cannot be an incentive to impiety. It necessarily follows, then, that neither could it be intrinsically evil. Thus in my defense of the schismatic position I stood refuted by the very Catholic Tradition from the Council of Trent that I was seeking to preserve through adherence to the SSPX schism.
The Salesianum curriculum consists simply of educating young men in the example of the gentleman saint, Francis de Sales. As the 100th anniversary commemorative book states, moral principles and values form the foundation on which all subjects are taught and all activities take place. I wouldn't be the person that I am today if I hadn't gone there. I was immersed in the Salesian spirituality, which can be summed up in two words: Live Jesus (which is my tag line). I am still learning about it to this day.
I finally am getting around to reading the entire Introduction to the Devout Life for myself. The Oblates website, Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, under their Spirituality Center page, has some good articles and other good resources about Salesian spirituality, including a study guide for the Introduction in pdf format. I am planning to use it when I start to read it again. You are right when you say that he was balanced and prudent. I try to follow in his example in that regard. Just as a reminder, his feast day is this Friday, January 24th. It's good to find out that we have another thing in common. :-)
'ta Hell's wrong with you? The REAL Catholics are in Unity with an excommunicated Bishop and they are in Union with Eternal Rome. ETERNAL, Capiche?
Now, unlesss you wanna Ecclesiastical drive-by ranting from the Schismatic Orcs, I suggest you go down to the local abandoned Hangar, school cloak room, hotel room, cemetery Chapel, or wherever and have Quo Primum tatooed on your ass immediately...
The SOLE path to Salvation is assured once one is roped-into the COW (Church Of Winona)Posse<>
Talk about Pharisaical...The Devil (Diabolos) divides and the soi disant traditionalists try and tell all and sundry that DIVISION PRESERVES TRADITION.
Pure evil masquerading as Truth. The Devil is indeed in the details, and in division. He is the author of schism and the Prideful and the Willfull and the Arrogant are his slaves.
They no so MUCH more than everyone else who is deceived, lied to, dull, stupid, uninformed, tricked...
The new ssspx schism is the old protestantism recapitualated in our time even as the schism of the Old Catholics following Vatican One was the protestantism of its time.
There is, literally, NOTHING to be gained pointing out the truth to gainsaying slaves of Satan.
ONLY the Holy Spirit can defeat such malign Pride<>
I support the Indult,it should be offered by all bishops,and bishops who do not permit it are doing a great diservice to God,the Church,the Pope and all the laity.
I also support an Administrative Apostolate for the Latin Rite Catholics and believe that it would resolve many deep seated anxieties and concerns among the faithful.
That said,I have come to admit that the vitriol with which so many attack the Pope is causing me to question the motives, faith,charity and/or humility of some of the participants.
We really need to work together to clean out and protect the Church that Christ established on earth to carry His message and bring man back to the Father Who waits for His creatures.God Bless.
Nevertheless, the question arises whether canons 1323:4° and 1324 §1:5° excuse Lefebvre because he acted out of grave fear in what he perceived to be a state of necessity? No, these canons do not excuse Lefebvre from the penalties of excommunication because when faced with the conflict of law, Lefebvre had recourse to both the legislator and to parallel places. The first example of how Lefebvre had recourse to the mind of legislator regarding this issue is demonstrated by the fact he signed a protocol with Cardinal Ratzinger on May 5, 1988, less than two months before proceeding with his schismatic consecration of bishops. Secondly, the mind of the legislator, Pope John Paul II, was made abundantly clear to Lefebvre before his illicit episcopal consecrations in a personal letter written to Lefebvre from the Vatican June 9, 1988, in which the Holy Father gently warns:
Dans la lettre que vous m'avez adressée, vous semblez rejeter tout l'acquis des précédents colloques, puisque vous y manifestez clairement votre intention de "vous donner vous-même les moyens de poursuivre votre Oeuvre," notamment en procédant sous peu et sans mandat apostolique à une ou plusieurs ordinations épiscopales, ceci en contradiction flagrante non seulement avec les prescriptions du droit canonique, mais aussi avec le protocole signé le 5 mai et les indications relatives à ce problème contenues dans la lettre que le cardinal Ratzinger vous a écrite à ma demande le 30 mai.
D'un coeur paternel, mais avec toute la gravité que requièrent les circonstances présentes, je vous exhorte, vénérable frère, à renoncer à votre projet qui, s'il est réalisé, ne pourra apparaître que comme un acte schismatique dont les conséquences théologiques et canoniques inévitables vous sont connues. Je vous invite ardemment au retour, dans l'humilité, à la pleine obéissance au vicaire du Christ.
Non seulement je vous invite à cela, mais je vous le demande, par les plaies du Christ notre rédempteur, au nom du Christ qui, la veille de sa passion, a prié pour ses disciples, "afin que tous soient un." (Jn 17, 21)
[As quoted from "Enchiridion Vaticanum -- Documenti Ufficiali Della Santa Sede, vol. 11, 1988-1989. An unofficial English translation is as follows:]
In the letter that you sent me, you seem to reject all acquisition of previous discussions, since you clearly manifest your intention of "giving yourself the means of pursuing your Work," notably in proceeding under little and without apostolic mandate to one or many episcopal ordinations, this in flagrant contradiction not only of the prescriptions of canon law, but also with the protocol signed May 5th and the instructions relative to this problem contained in the letter that Cardinal Ratzinger sent you at my request May 30th.
With a paternal heart, but with all the gravity the present circumstances require, I exhort you, venerable brother, to renounce your project which, if it is realized, could not but appear as a schismatic act of which the inevitable theological and canonical consequences are known to you. I ardently invite you to return, in humility, to full obedience towards the Vicar of Christ.
Not only do I invite you to this, but I ask it of you by the wounds of Christ our Redeemer, in the name of Christ who, on the eve of His passion, prayed for his disciples, "that they may be one" (John 17:21).
That the mind of the legislator of the Code of Canon Law, in this case Pope John Paul II, was known to Lefebvre prior to the consecration of bishops without papal mandate is must be kept in mind when examining the situation from a canonical perspective. For if one recalls the principle stated in canon 16 §1, "laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation." Hence, it is left to the Roman Pontiff and those designated by him, rather than Lefebvre, to interpret the canons legislated within the present Code.
Moreover, Lefebvre received a formal canonical warning from Cardinal Gantin on June 17, 1988. Thus one can only conclude that Lefebvre had recourse to the mind of the legislator, and hence his perception of a state of necessity had been removed by such recourse. For as the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts recently explains in its Protocol. Number 5233/96:
However doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio [Ecclesia Dei] and the Decree [of excommunication against Lefebvre]. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances (cf. CIC, canons 1323 and 1324) As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff., Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of "serving" the Church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity.
Therefore, one sees that a state of emergency cannot be invoked against the expressed judgment of the Holy Father, especially on such an important issue as the consecration of bishops. One also sees that the mind of the legislator does not favor the Lefebvrite argument. Furthermore, because this interpretation comes from the Pontifical Council entrusted by the Holy Father for the interpretation of canon law, it is binding in its interpretation of how canons 1323 and 1324 apply to the excommunication declared against Lefebvre.
Finally, because this interpretation was simply declaring what was already known through canonical tradition, thus ruling that the Lefebvrite movement has not raised any legitimate doubt of law, the above enjoys retroactive force. Hence, in having recourse to the mind of the legislator, Pope John Paul II and those entrusted by him to interpret the Code of Canon Law, one sees that canons 1323 and 1324 cannot legitimately be invoked by Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers to avoid the automatic penalties of excommunication incurred by his act of schism in consecrating bishops against papal mandate.
17. Nevertheless, in interpreting canons 1323 and 1324 one might ask whether or not Lefebvre and his followers had recourse to parallel places from canonical tradition? In short, the answer is "yes." Had Lefebvre any legitimate doubt entering the illicit episcopal consecrations as to the applicability of canons 1323 and 1324, canon 6 A72 states that "To the extent that the canons of this [1983] Code reproduce the former law, they are to be assessed in the light also of canonical tradition." Under Pope Pius XII, the Canonical Tradition was clearly stated that the pressure of grave fear did not excuse bishops who illicitly consecrated or illicitly received consecration from the latae sententiae penalty of excommunication. For as the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office decreed April 9, 1999, "Episcopus, cuiusvis ritus vel dignitatis, aliquem, neque ab Apostolica Sede nominatum neque ab Eadem expresse confirmaum, consecraus in Episcopum, et qui consecrationem recipit, etsi metu gravi coacti (c. 2229 A73:3° [CIC 1917]), incurrunt ipso facto in excommunicationem Apostolicae Sedi specialissimo modo reservatam" (AAS 43 [1951] 217-218). In short, canonical tradition dictates that grave fear does not mitigate from the penalty of excommunication when one consecrates bishops without papal mandate.
Nevertheless, Lefebvre's apologists might have argued that the decree of the Sacred Congregation has been abrogated in the recent Code of Canon Law by Canon 6 §1, nn. 3 and 4 which state: "When this Code comes into force, the following are abrogated: 3° all penal laws enacted by the Apostolic See, whether universal or particular, unless they are resumed in this Code itself; 4° any universal disciplinary laws concerning matters which are integrally reordered by this Code." For whereas the decree from the Holy Office specifically denies coercion from grave fear as a mitigating circumstance in the automatic excommunication of those who administer or receive episcopal consecration without papal mandate, canon 1382, while essentially repeating every other particular of the aforementioned decree, is silent about coercion due to grave fear. Therefore, in spite of the fact that the penalty of excommunication for the consecration of bishops without papal mandate is resumed in the present Code of Canon Law, and despite the fact the disciplinary law on this issue does not appear to have been integrally reordered, the Lefebvrite might argue that Lefebvre was justified in his non-observance of canon 1382 because "laws, even invalidating and incapacitating ones, do not oblige when there is a doubt of law" (Can. 14) and "laws which prescribe a penalty, or restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception to the law, are to be interpreted strictly" (Can. 16). However, such a doubt of law cannot be maintained because the presumption of law upholds the previous legislation, for as Canon 21 explicitly states, "in doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them."
Thus in pursuing his illicit episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre violated the very Tradition he claimed to uphold, as defined by the very last pope who's orthodoxy Lefebvre recognized. In so doing, Lefebvre not only refused submission to Pope John Paul II as expressed through the Holy Father's Monitums, but Pope Pius XII as well as expressed through his definition of canonical tradition, and thus it should also be self-evident as to how Lefebvre refused to submit to the Holy Pontiff, thus incurring schism as defined by Canon 751.
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.