My Journey out of the Lefebvre Schism

Envoy Magazine ^ | Pete Vere, JCL/M (Canon Law)

[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.

[NYer]

The first argument I ever encountered by an SSPX apologist, in fact the very argument that led me into their schism, was a citation of Pope St. Pius V’s sixteenth-century papal bull Quo Primum Tempore. In a nutshell, the SSPX proponent claimed that St. Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Mass in perpetuity, meaning for all time. The SSPX claimed — and I found the claim convincing at the time — that every priest has the right to use the Roman Missal codified by St. Pius V in Quo Primum Tempore, and that this right cannot be taken away from him.

[Support Free Republic]

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Thanks Registered

[NYer]

The Substance of Catholic Tradition
In my journey back to the Church, through the grace of God I’ve been led from the mere “accidents” of Catholic Tradition to the substance of Catholic Tradition. Although I enjoy the reformed liturgy of Pope Paul VI, which I now recognize as the normative liturgy of the Latin Church, I’m as firmly committed to preservation of the 1962 liturgical missal today as I was during my time in the Lefebvre movement. However, I realize that our liturgical tradition as Catholics cannot be preserved apart from John Paul II and all the other legitimate successors of St. Peter. For his voice is the voice of Catholic Tradition in the Church today — a Tradition that has been passed down to him by Christ and the Apostles.

 

[american colleen]

I realize that our liturgical tradition as Catholics cannot be preserved apart from John Paul II and all the other legitimate successors of St. Peter. For his voice is the voice of Catholic Tradition in the Church today — a Tradition that has been passed down to him by Christ and the Apostles.

Else He lied, right?

[sitetest]

Dear NYer,

Very nice post, but don't be surprised if we see ad hominem attacks on Mr. Vere.

sitetest

[ultima ratio]

What does this prove?

[NYer]

Else He lied, right?

Yes ... Interesting that the author took up the study of Canon Law in searching for truth. Note also the following.

* * * * * Traditional Rome vs. Modernist Rome
The question of Rome eventually weighed in on my conscience, as it should for anyone who leaves the Church. Given what Catholic Tradition consistently teaches concerning faithfulness to Rome, how could I justify my separation from the Roman Pontiff? In fact, even five years after reconciling myself to Rome, the question of communion with Rome and the local Bishop remains the catalyst for much of my theological and canonical exploration.

While I was with the SSPX, however, I accepted their solution to this problem. The SSPX claimed that the questionable behavior of the post-Vatican II popes had divided the faithful into two camps. One camp, the institutional Church, was faithful to contemporary Rome, which the SSPX claims has been infiltrated by modernists and liberals. In the other camp rests the SSPX, who naturally are faithful to Traditional Rome.

Nevertheless, I was unable to deceive my conscience. So I kept wondering whether Catholic Tradition actually sustained the argument that a Catholic could be faithful to Traditional Rome, without remaining faithful to temporal Rome.

“Our hearts are restless, O Lord, until they rest in You,” remarks St. Augustine at the opening of his Confessions. My heart was spiritually restless because it didn’t rest in full communion with Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church. Yet Christ also promises us in the Gospels that if we seek the truth, we will find it (see Matt. 7:7).

In my case, the truth lay in the back room of my parents’ basement. There I found an abandoned box full of old papal encyclicals left over from my father’s college days. At the bottom of this box was Pope Pius XII’s masterful papal encyclical Mystici Corporis.

Curious as to the content, I immediately opened this work to the following passage: “We think, how grievously they err who arbitrarily claim that the Church is something hidden and invisible, as they also do who look upon her as a mere human institution possessing a certain disciplinary code and external ritual, but lacking power to communicate supernatural life” (par. 64). This theological discovery from Catholic Tradition as expressed by the pre-Vatican II popes astounded me even more than my previous St. Anastasius discovery in Denzinger.

Here, from the Church’s Tradition, was the teaching that we cannot separate the Church into a mere spiritual communion as opposed to a mere human institution. In short, the Rome of Tradition and the Rome of Today were the same Rome. Everything suddenly made sense to me about Catholic ecclesiology. Just as at the Incarnation Christ was fully human and fully divine, without sacrificing either nature, so too must the Church, as Christ’s Mystical Body, be a perfect union of the visible and the invisible.

[Desdemona]

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.

Bump.

[ultima ratio]

Popes may break with tradition as well as anybody else. When this happens, they must be resisted. The New Mass is Protestant. There is no getting around it. It supports the Protestant perspective on the Lord's Supper and opposes Trent. This is not Traditional, whether or not Envoy Magazine argues to the contrary.

[St.Chuck]

bump for later

[ultima ratio]

Why should we argue ad hominem? Mr. Vere's opinion is not worth much. What is worth more than all the Veres and all the popes and all the bishops in the world--is the Faith. The Faith is what must be preserved in the face of the systematic modernist onslaught against traditional Catholic beliefs.

SSPX preserves the Catholic faith as it was believed and practiced before the Council and before the New Mass came into vogue, both of which gave modernism the illegitimate means whereby to wreck the Faith. SSPX is the Faith, no more and no less. It is the Faith that had been practiced for 2000 years. Why should the opinion of this individual matter against the enormousness of this reality?

Why do you suppose Rome is so frantic for a raprochement with SSPX? Do you think it is out of reasons of charity? It is for one reason and one reason only: because the Society preserves intact the existence of the Church before the very dogmas of the Church had been openly brought into question (the Real Presence, the Resurrection, the Divinity of Christ) and before Scripture itself has been openly opposed by Catholic churchmen in high office (the new perspective on the Jews).

So this guy who quit the SSPX is small beer. He is of no real importance, whatever he thinks. There are many reasons to leave SSPX, not least among them the perks one receives afterwards from people of the sort that publish Envoy. What is of importance, what is vitally important, is the Faith itself, which is what SSPX is all about.

[Maximilian]

Very nice post, but don't be surprised if we see ad hominem attacks on Mr. Vere.

Why so defensive ahead of time? Is it because you're uncomfortable with the fact that the author of this article is an ex-Satanist, whose mentor after he left the SSPX was a homosexual abuser slash liturgical deconstructor, and who now spends his time watching professional wrestling (whenever he's not busy attacking Catholic tradition)?

[ultima ratio]

"Listen to what Dom Nau says of the Ordinary Magisterium:

"The infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, whether of the Universal Church or of the See of Rome, is not that of a judgment, nor that of an act to be considered in isolation, as if it could itself provide all the light necessary for it to be clearly seen. It is that of the guarantee bestowed on a doctrine by the simultaneous or continuous convergence of a plurality of affirmations or explanations; none of which could bring positive certitude if it were taken by itself alone. (Pope or Church, p.18)

"Consequently, there are some statements in the documents of Vatican II that belong to the Ordinary Magisterium, and that are infallibly true. These are the doctrinal statements that simply repeat what the Church has everywhere and always taught. However, there are many other statements that do not do this, and that do not belong to the Ordinary Magisterium, but rather to the Authentic Magisterium, which simply means that they authentically come from the Council or Pope who has authority in the Church. Under normal circumstances they would be accepted with reverence, but never as infallible. At the present time, it is clear that many of these are radical modernist novelties, such as religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality and the adaptation of the Church to the modern world. Since they are clearly in direct contradiction to infallible statements of the Solemn and Ordinary Magisterium, these novelties can and must be refused."

Father Peter Scott, SSPX

[sitetest]

Dear NYer,

LOL. I could work for the Psychic Hotline.


sitetest

[ultima ratio]

Don't you think the fact that the author of the article is an ex-Satanist is relevant? Why is Envoy publishing such trash? Sounds like an act of desperation to me.

[tiki]

or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him”

Why does the pope desire reunion? As Catholics you are a part of the Body of Christ and your absence has left Him wounded. The Church desires all of her children to be safe at home whatever the reason they left.

[tiki]

Whether he was a satanist or not has nothing to do with the present. I think everyone has lost his way sometime or another but if he responded to the Grace of God, he became a new person. St. Augustine wasn't a very good example in his younger years and now we call him saint.

As to the present, do you have any links for this information?

[ultima ratio]

The Pope may desire reunion for the best of reasons. But the problem is Rome's modernism which departs radically from the old Faith. It is indisputable that central dogmas of Catholicism are routinely denied. This is a huge problem that only God apparently will be able to fix. Meanwhile SSPX has taken as its mission the preservation of the Faith as it had been practiced for two thousand years before the last council. It is what all Catholics once were--before the modernist heresies took hold.

[ultima ratio]

The problem is whether or not we've got a new religion in Rome. It's true Rome has the Pope. But Rome has also set about destroying or undermining its own past--apologizing for the Church's own history, openly contradicting the teachings of past popes, instituting brand new theologies, fabricating a wholly new protestantized Mass, re-defining the Sacraments, eliminating past devotions, reinterpreting Scripture to fit radically new doctrines, openly disobeying past councils.

It's hard to argue we don't have here a new religion. Yes, it's got traces of the old: the papacy is in place, the bishops control the dioceses, but the teachings are different and the rituals are brand new. Tradition has been systematically assaulted--in violation of the papal coronation oath.

[Maximilian]

As to the present, do you have any links for this information?

Here is a previous thread with links to Vere's own blog where he stated all these things in his own words:
Influential Priest-Canonist is Abuser

Post #9 has links to Vere's blog where he talks about Fr. Huel's (the priest-canonist abuser) decisive influence on his career, his interest in horror novels, drinking games and professional wrestling, and his teenage dabbling in Satanism. In post #96, "Theosis" who says he is a friend of Vere's and appears to have signed up on FR just to defend him, admits:

Actually Polycarp, HDMZ is correct in stating that Vere is an admitted former teenage satanist. This is often overlooked in his conversion story since he doesn't like to dwell on it. In fact, I was a little dissapointed that he barely gave more than a paragraph to it in his conversion story which was just published.

I can overlook the teenage Satanism, but what I find most troubling is the fact that Vere's acknowledged intellectual mentor was not only an admitted homosexual abuser, but was perhaps the foremost liturgical destructor who toured the US and Canada promoting his program of innovation under the banner of "creating a path by walking on it."

As to his current hobbies of drinking games, horror novels and professional wrestling, I find these things relevant only to the extent of questioning whether he truly has "matured" beyond his youthful indiscretions.