Criticizing Pope John Paul II

"Additionally, if this canon deserves as strict adherence as you claim, then it was subsequently contradicted by the Council of Florence where the un-reconciled Eastern Orthodox in schism with Rome were invited to participate fully -- something Pope Eugene IV refers to in the opening sessions as a blessing from the Holy Ghost."

Huh? Pope Eugene IV also declared, ex cathedra, this:

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

...which is in complete conformance with this:

"If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended." --III Council of Constantinople

...which leads me to ask how you might reconcile this statement with the current pontiff His Holiness Pope John Paul II's non-dogmatic references to "mysterious relationships" whereby those outside the true faith, even those who persecute it, according to him, can be saved. Do you have any thoughts on that matter?

It seems there would be more to these matters than meets the postconciliarist's eyes... and heart.

"So what? If the Holy Father didn't agree with it, he didn't have to declare it. (Since latae sententiae penalties must be declared by the competent authority before they can be acted upon.) The point is, the Holy Father declared it."

If the Pope had wanted the so-called excommunication to be free from doubt, he might have called a tribunal to judge the Archbishop--which had always been the usual procedure for judging the controversial actions of high churchmen. He didn't do this. What's more, he didn't dare do this because his own motives were clearly political. Such a court of peers might have allowed Archbishop Lefebvre the right to defend himself--which this pontiff could little afford to let happen since he was in opposition to Tradition itself. Why do you suppose he didn't want traditional bishops consecrated? There is no doubt it was because he wanted to destroy the Econe, the last remaining traditional seminary in the world. Look at the record. Has he ever, before or since, gone after any other seminary? Has he ever opposed even the most apostate and corrupt of them? (And remember, only a few years earlier, his own delegate had officially reported the Econe was morally and doctrinally above reproach!) No, he knew the Archbishop was old and was ailing. Without him around to ordain seminarians to the traditional priesthood, the traditional movement in the Church would have died, leaving a clear field to the modernists. Do you think the Pope didn't know this--or the French ecclesiastics behind this ploy to destroy the Econe?

Clearly the Pontiff acted improperly, transcending his own authority by prohibiting something necessary to the Church and its transmission of the true faith. The canon concerning prohibiting the consecration of bishops without a papal mandate--intended by Pius XII to punish the Chinese Patriotic Association, the very association now ironically given a pass by the present Pope, even as he postures against the SSPX--IN NO WAY CANCELS the exceptions provided for by his own Canon Law. Canon Law specifically excludes from punishment any individual who posits an act of disobedience without culpability or malice. No pope on earth can gainsay this--because it is a divine moral law--to do what is good and avoid evil, no matter what individual in high office might command otherwise. The state of necessity argument--which you belittle--is not a traditional argument per se, it is the argument posed by Canon Law. No penalty incurs if it is evoked in good conscience. It was so evoked, because the Church in 1988 and the Church right now, was in obvious crisis. Your problem, and the problem of many other contemporary Catholics, is that there is too little respect for the traditional Catholic faith and too much respect for a mistake-prone humanist Pontiff in love with novelties.
So you continue to make excuses for the inexcusable.

"This excusing or diminishing cause does not apply where the action involved is the consecration of bishops without papal mandate. In fact, it was Pope Pius XII who clarified this canonically. I would have assumed that as a so-called traditionalist you would have been familiar with him. Guess not."

If anyone needs to become familiar with Canon Law as it is written--not as it has been deliberately misused for political ends--it is yourself. Canon Law makes no distinction between disobeying for one reason or another. In fact, it states categorically that none of its precepts incurs any penalty whatsoever if an otherwise excommunicatable offense were executed without culpability or malice. Disobeying a pontiff is not, moreover, inherently evil, so any proper Church law would have to recognize circumstances. Both Aquinas and Bellarmine have argued in the past that Pontiffs who give commands which would be harmful to the Church, ought not to be obeyed. You ascribe too much absolutism to papal authority which has limits. Papal limits, as the good Archbishop was well aware, are circumscribed by the faith itself.

Like it or not, they are excommunicated Catholics. This means they might be Catholic owing to baptism, but the children of those who follow them will not be.

According to Peter Vere ...

As both a Catholic Traditionalist and a student presently pursuing a licentiate of canon law at a pontifical institution, I am often approached by fellow Traditionalists. Very frequently, I am asked to defend the Faith against partisans of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) who claim to be Catholic, but refuse to submit themselves to Pope John Paul II. Having examined their literature, the SSPX obviously seek to attack the sacred unity of the Church; and in my experience, more often than not, the substance of these attacks against the unity of the Church is canonical.

Archbishop Lefebvre and Canons 1323:4° and 1324 §1:5° A Canonical Study

Ecclesia Dei did not declare a schism as you say. It was a nice try, but here’s the actual wording from the document:

”Hence such disobedience--which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy--constitutes a schismatic act.”

Pontiffs throughout history, if you take the time to actually read their acts, don’t mince words. The general tone of popes throughtout the ages might have appeared something similar to this, if you will allow me the liberty of rewriting the statement it to rid the statement of ambiguity:

”Hence, this act of disobedience – which is in fact the rejection of the Roman primacy – constitutes a schism.

They had plenty of time to think this over, and plenty of time to make sure that this most grave of statements was clear, final, precise and (for lack of a better word) damning. With the ambiguity present in the actual wording of the text, one is left plenty of wiggle room, no? If I can write it clearly such as to present it as being unambiguous, I would assume with the grace of office, that they could do better.

They chose not to.

And a "nice try" it was, make no mistake. Trying to do what? The document then launches into a long diatribe about Vatican II, citing it as being the underpinning behind this whole action taken. That’s where it becomes clearer what kind of thing you really have going on here. Make no mistake, the intent behind the action of Ecclesia Dei was clearly to suppress the Tridentine Rite of the Mass, and to discourage the Faithful from that direction... or should I say, from holding that particular line in a particular battle between the forces of Heaven and Hell. Bummer, because that Mass expresses the essence of our salvation.

But this could never have been done directly, but only by inference. Notice, never in clear words can it be pulled off, and never in terms of binding statements and definitions, but only in pastoral as opposed to non-dogmatic councils and such. There is a fundamental cohesion of strategy at work here which seeks to undermine the Faith.

They will never be able to place these departures in the context of binding statements and decrees because they cannot be formulated in such ways, because that is what is under the passive proctection promised by the Holy Ghost. On Pentecost Sunday it might be appropriate to look not at what we surmise the Holy Ghost might be doing, but at what He is preventing.

"In the end, it is no surprise that schismatic trads latch on to the 'state-of-necessity' argument to defend their unCatholic dissobedience to legitimate ecclesiastical authority like ultra-charismatics latch on to 'the Holy Spirit told me' to justify theirs..."

We latch on to a canon in Canon Law which provides for exceptions--which you, and the Pontiff, have refused to acknowledge--though it is Canon Law itself which states that such a state of necessity need only be believed to exist for no penalty to have been incurred. You--and JPII--want to judge the conscience of the Archbishop, which is beyond the reach of any mortal--even a pope. If the Archbishop believed himself to be without malice--and he certainly did, since he wrote of his fears about the Church in crisis for decades--then he was surely the best one to know his own motive for disobedience. If the Pope wanted more than this--he should have called on a public tribunal. As I have said, he dared not do this. He wanted his cake and he wanted to eat it. He wanted the Archbishop punished and declared schismatic--without proving his case. And he wanted to ignore Canon Law--as you and others routinely do. But he can't--because it is officially his own and it reflects divine law which does not reprove the innocent for disobeying improper commands. If it states exceptions--then they are clearly exceptions. And if no penalty is incurred without an act of malice or at least genuine culpability--then no penalty is incurred.

Canon lawyers know this. Many of the most renouned side with SSPX--a few publicly, at risk of censure by the Vatican. This is why Ecclesia Dei has been backing off calling the faithful like myself "schismatic" because we choose to attend devout SSPX Masses. Only the ill-willed still hurl the charge. It is especially popular among sycophants of modernist bishops who sprinkle diocesan newspapers with slanders against us.

"If the Pope had wanted the so-called excommunication to be free from doubt, he might have called a tribunal to judge the Archbishop--which had always been the usual procedure for judging the controversial actions of high churchmen.

Why? We're not modernists here, there's no strict separation of powers at the highest level. The Roman Pontiff is the highest Judicial, Executive and Legislative authority in the Church. How he chooses to proceed with the excommunication is his decision. Additionally, your ignorance with canonical tradition is astounding for one claiming to be a traditionalist who is trying to argue canon law. How did Pope St. Pius X excommunicate Arnold Mathew when the later illicitly consecrated two priests in England? By Judicial process or by declaration?

What's more, he didn't dare do this because his own motives were clearly political.

And you can read to Holy Father's mind? Um...hum...

Why do you suppose he didn't want traditional bishops consecrated?

I suppose I could offer my own speculation based upon Bishop Williamson's newsletters, however, the point is you are incorrect, as proven by the fact Rome agreed to consecrate one bishop in the context of the protocol agreement signed in 1988.

There is no doubt it was because he wanted to destroy the Econe,

No doubt? Source please.

Has he ever, before or since, gone after any other seminary?

Off the top of my head, St. Paul University seminary in Canada was shut down for a year by the CDF if I recall correctly.

Without him around to ordain seminarians to the traditional priesthood, the traditional movement in the Church would have died, leaving a clear field to the modernists.

Surely, you can think of a better argument than that! Common! We read, in the last pages of the Archbishop's book, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, where he writes most clearly: "It has also been said that after me, my work will disappear because there will be no bishop to replace me. I am certain of the contrary; I have no worries on that account. I may die tomorrow, the Good Lord answers all problems. Enough bishops will be found in the world to ordain our seminarians: this I know. Even if at the moment He is keeping quiet, one or another of these bishops will receive from the Holy Ghost the courage to arise in his turn. If my work is of God, He will guard it and use it for the good of the Church. Our Lord has promised us, the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her." Either the Archbishop was wrong in writing those lines so filled with faith and hope, or else, just a couple of years later, on June 30, 1988, he made a grave mistake.

The state of necessity argument--which you belittle--is not a traditional argument per se, it is the argument posed by Canon Law.

Let's cut to the chase and see if you know of what you speak. Provide an official canonical definition, not merely your private opinion or the disputed opinion of some canonist, of the term "state-of-necessity."

"The Roman Pontiff is the highest Judicial, Executive and Legislative authority in the Church."

Yes--and his legislative authority is embodied in Canon Law--which provides for the exceptions I described. If the Pontiff wanted to exercise his authority in any other way, he might have done so. He did not.

Moreover, there is one power that transcends his stewardship--that of God Himself. No pope may command what is harmful to the Church. That offends against divine law, as both Aquinas and Bellarmine, both doctors of the Church, have taught us.

You write, "And you can read to Holy Father's mind?" because I ascribe to him political motives. I will concede this point. I don't know what his motives were, I only know his action was political and had political ramifications. I only know he never acted against any other archbishop, no matter how apostate or corrupt, or against any other seminary, no matter how crawling with dissent and corruption. He only acted against Lefebvre and the Econe. That speaks volumes--especially since the Econe had been free of scandal or heterodoxy.

Canon lawyers know this. Many of the most renouned side with SSPX--a few publicly, at risk of censure by the Vatican.

LOL! Are you sure that's incense the SSPX use at your local high Mass to get the smoke out? I've spoken at length with many canonists, and few would agree. In fact, I can name six traditionalist licensed canonists off the bat who side with the Holy See: Fr. Philip Creurer, Fr. Joseph Devereaux, Fr. William Richardson (not to be confused with my favorite movie critic, Richard Williamson), and Mr. Peter Vere -- I spoke with all four at length when they were working at the FSSP's North American HQ; additionally I spoke with Fr. Gerald Murray (who, according to a letter he wrote in Latin Mass Magazine some time ago, claims to have been selectively misquoted by the SSPX) as well as Fr. Michael Brown, an Adjutant Judicial Vicar and Indult priest for his diocese in the UK. This is merely the traditionalist canonists with whom I have spoken, would you like me to start naming NOM canonists?

Don't make me laugh. They each have sharp axes to grind--all out for SSPX. I was myself speaking about the top echelon in Rome--Men like Cardinal Castillo Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, who admitted to La Repubblica that "the act of consecrating a bishop [without a papal mandate] is not in itself a schismatic act . . . " [October 7, 1988] (Cardinal Lara later backtracked, claiming that Lefebvre was guilty of schism before the 1988 consecrations, for which claim he offered not the least bit of proof.)

But I wouldn't trust the men you have cited as far as I can spit on such an issue. Vere writes for the Wanderer--which has been waging relentless war against the traditionalists for over a year now, led first by wackos like Stephen Hand. Your asking such men these questions would be like asking a Democrat to judge an action by Bush and the Republicans. You need to read the law yourself and separate it from all the spin and malice.

"I was myself speaking about the top echelon in Rome--Men like Cardinal Castillo Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, who admitted to La Repubblica that "the act of consecrating a bishop [without a papal mandate] is not in itself a schismatic act . . . " [October 7, 1988] (Cardinal Lara later backtracked, claiming that Lefebvre was guilty of schism before the 1988 consecrations, for which claim he offered not the least bit of proof.)

How do you know Cardinal Lara later backtracked? How do you know that this wasn't his position from the beginning? (His position with which I agree with, btw.) Anyway, he counts for my side? Can you name any others? Among those with whom I have personally spoken, I can name Kershaw and Fugnini (both Rotal Advocates) as well as Msgr. Bob Sable (a rotal Judge) and Cardinal Pompedda (head of the Apostolic Signatura). This list does not include a number of top canonists working in the Curia with whom I have not spoken, but whom have published decrees and explanatory notes from their respective dicasteries saying essentially the same thing.

In the midst of the hairsplitting on these issues, have you ever paused long enough to formulate some thoughts as to... what exactly it is that is sooo very heinous about the preservation of the Mass of Trent and preservation of traditional Catholic doctrine that warrants such severe (attempted) reprisals from post-conciliar Rome?

What is the grave sin of traditionalism that the New Springtime of the Church wishes to absolve traditionalist Catholics from? You would never be able to name it. It can't be this disobedience you speak of, as that came after the fact and not before.

What is the exact nature of the illness from which traditionalist Catholics must be rescued at such costs, at prices so inflated that they send the entire Church into an upheavel?

Because what, traditionalist are arrogant know-it-alls or what? Because we have pharisees amongst us that must be rooted out at all costs? What is so all-important that we must bring Heaven down to Earth in an unholy alliance in seeking a remedy for it?

See, that's the angle I come in from. If I were to accept all the post-conciliarist garbage, I wouldn't have a thing to show anyone for my purchase at the end of the day.

So I'm not buying it.

"This is where canonical tradition comes into play, as any good canonist would have told Lefebvre. And even if he didn't know, the Holy See certainly forewarned him. For others who are interested, the following presents a nice summary, and is a little more recent than the piece quoted by NYer..."

We could go on forever. I could counter Vere with some erudite articles by SSPX. Try this for starters:
___________________________________________________________
Is Tradition Excommunicated?

A collection of 8 independent studies explaining what "excommunication" and "schism" mean. Covers the legal status of the Latin Mass, traditional sacraments, and those who frequent them. Includes the 1988 declaration of Bishop de Castro Mayer, and a timeless letter of SAINT ATHANASIUS who found himself in a situation that looks very familiar to traditional Catholics! Indexed.

116pp, color softcover, AP Publication, STK# 1018. $9.95
___________________________________________________________

Or this:
___________________________________________________________
Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican
Rev. Fr. François Laisney

The documents and correspondence between Archbishop Lefebvre, John Paul II, and Card. Ratzinger concerning the episcopal consecrations of June 30, 1988. Includes: Protocol of Accord, Ecclesia Dei, Consecration Sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre, Declaration of Bishop de Castro Mayer, Media Reports, Canon Law, Creation of the Fraternity of Saint Peter. Explanation by Fr. Francois Laisney, SSPX.

244pp, color softcover, AP Publication, STK# 6719. $14.95
___________________________________________________________
Or this:
____________________________________________________________
Pope or Church?

Dom Paul Nau, OSB
& Canon Réné Berthold

These two essays address the degree of infallibility enjoyed by acts of the ordinary magisterium. At the time of Pius XII, when the first essay was written, the authority of the ordinary magisterium was downplayed, especially by the "new theologians"; after Vatican II, it is so exaggerated that some now claim the Pope can contradict and reverse the teaching of his predecessors. Where does the truth lie?

77pp, color softcover, AP Publication, STK# 6715. $7.95

____________________________________________________________

Or this:
____________________________________________________________
Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Volume I

Michael Davies

This book is certainly one of great historical value. Portrays the dramatic conflict relating to the grievances between Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican under Pope Paul VI. Depicts the role of one who had the foresight to recognize that he could not defend orthodoxy and at the same time accept reforms "themselves oriented towards the cult of man." Completely documented.

461pp, color softcover, AP Publication, STK# 3051. $14.95

"In the midst of the hairsplitting on these issues, have you ever paused long enough to formulate some thoughts as to... what exactly it is that is sooo very heinous about the preservation of the Mass of Trent and preservation of traditional Catholic doctrine that warrants such severe (attempted) reprisals from post-conciliar Rome?

Yawn! I suppose the reconciliation of Le Barroux Monastery and Campos, both of which I strongly supported and continue to support, could in the feverishly conspiratorial mind of Williamson and those who follow him, constitute severe reprisal from Rome. As for myself personally, I'm too busy frequenting our local indult, sending my tithes to the FSSP and the Clear Creek Benedictine Monastery, as well as sending bishops and universities copies of CIEL proceedings, to give your question much thought.

Here are a few who are publicly on board on behalf of Archbishop Lefebvre. I include Lara, who, in an unguarded moment spoke the truth, then later backtracked by claiming he had been schismatic before 1988--without giving a shred of evidence for this. What is undeniable is that the act of disobedience to the Pope was not itself, in his opinion, a schismatic act.

* Castillo Cardinal Lara, J.C.D., President of the Pontifical Commission for Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law
* Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity
* Alfons Cardinal Stickler, former Prefect of the Vatican Archives and Library
* Fr. Gerard E. Murray, J.C.D., of the United States
* Fr. Patrick Valdini, J.C.D., Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law
* Fr. Rudolf Kaschewski of Germany
* Count Neri Capponi, D.Cn.L., Ll.D, Professor of Canon Law, Rome

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.